Even Ed MCMahon isn’t immune from having his home foreclosed on.. over 1 million homes are currantly under foreclosure.
over 8.8 Million Americans now owe more than their house is worth it is expected to continue to go up to over 12 million Americans or over one in 6.25 homes..
The world is getting hit with High oil prices and bad loans are causing the world to lose interest in lending us money causing the currant credit squeeze..
In the meantime the war is continueing to go on unabated running our tab up higher and higher..
Other than allowinf some inflation I cannot see a logical way out of the currant mess. Can You?
Replies
Frenchy
Other than allowinf some inflation I cannot see a logical way out of the currant mess. Can You?
I am not addressing this to you personally but to Americans in general.
Everyone go back to work.
Don't spend more than you make. Live within your means.
Quit driving the 2 blocks to work. Really i had a nice woman (good friend) complain about the gas prices. Then her son drove his car 2 blocks to work. 30 minutes later she drove her car to the same location. Repeated at noon and night.
Stop buyin houses that are more than you can afford. Your cost of housing shouldn't be more than 27% of your income.
Have money down before you buy a house.
Don't count on rising house prices to make your loan work out. Don't think you can make a killing off owning your house for a couple of years.
As hard as it is to say some people who are over extended are going to lose their houses. If that's you frenchy then I am sorry, very sorry, because I know you have poured alot of sweat equity in your beautiful home.
There are laws of nature (if you jump off a building you will hit the ground) and financial laws. Violate them at your own risk.
We bought the cheapest fix it upper on the market (or close to the bottom) and we drove old cars and shopped second had stores so that we could pay it off in 10 years.
Rich
very well put.
I see what you are saying. The problem is the government telling you to purchase a house then raising rates on you 17 times in a row. The government created the bubble and popped it.
bc
What I am saying is that the way out of this mess is taking personal responsiblity for your financial decisions.
It has nothing to do with the government.
We need responsible lenders and borrowers.
We need to stop wasting gas.
We have to stop keeping up with the Jones.
My folks drove a Rambler station wagon and we had 7-Up in the house for when someone was sick. (Why I don't know) Cold cereal was for Sunday morning only. Big treat.
Today young couple think they need a chevy Tahoe and eat out most of their meals.
They want a starter home that is nicer (way nicer) than the home their grandparents worked their whole lives to get into.
Rich
"What I am saying is that the way out of this mess is taking personal responsiblity for your financial decisions."Yes...and sometimes the taking responsibilty means giving up the house instead of stealing from someone else to pay the note. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
That's what we're going to end up doing in a few months I'm sure. Ours has been on the market nine months with only one showing. We dropped the price to $60K less than we paid, and still no interest.
Problem is there's such an inventory the banks don't even want them in MI.
Sucks because we have pretty good credit and that will screw it up but I'm getting tired of mailing that $1,375 mortgage check every month plus utilities and lawn care. I'm losing more money by keeping it than foreclosing on it.
Best rental offer I've had is $750...blaahahahaha!!!.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
The banks in MI will ask you to stay in the house for free during the foreclosure process. They won't let you rent it out but they'll let you live there for up to and more than a year. Their thinking is that they'd rather have you cutting the grass and keeping the pipes from freezing. I know several people that are doing this right now. I'm sure there are thousands...many thousands doing this. I'll forgive you if you decide to sign it over in lieu of foreclosure. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
We haven't lived there since last December. We have our lovely home in NC now.
Sign it over to you? You can have it....
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Problem is there's such an inventory the banks don't even want them in MI
And ironically they wont lend spectulators/investors money to grab them up.
I got up to five rentals and now I cant get a free calender from a banker.
Sucks.
Now's the time for guys like you to snatch these up with some good deals but the banks won't let you.
MI is going to become a ghost state because there will be so many vacant homes..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
As I said, I spent my Friday putting out flyers. I was in Grosse Pointe and there had to be more than 10-15 houses per street either empty or for sale.
Its everywhere. We recently moved to West Bloomfield cause we got a deal on a forclosure and our neighborhood is full of for sale signs.
Sucks...
I'm not a fan of MI but I do worry about it's future. There's a lot of good people there getting screwed right now because they're stuck..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Amen...(and Amen to Rich as well)
I know people that are so overextended that if they had to take a 10% pay cut they couldn't pay their bills. I worry about how much of a bunch of whining pansies Americans have become...for many people, if the wife can't have a manicure every 2 weeks and the guy can't drive an Escalade, they think that they're roughing it.
And before someone jumps on me about the Escalade comment, the same is true of many other people in lower income brackets - they drive 4x4 4 door F150s with leather interior, etc, but aren't putting any money in their retirement accounts or emergency funds.
Scary situation if you ask me.
jamie
sub prime explained
The people you describe dragged everyone down, even those of us with good credit and jobs.
The sub-prime lending screwed everyone and we're all going to eat it.
I don't blame the people as much as I blame the banks. .
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Buyer beware.
Cant blame the government for buying a house that is beyond your means.
I know people who bought, refinanced and bought a shore house (Jersey Shore or beach to to the rest of the world) when the shore house prices were going up 20% + a year. Then they re-fi'd the shore house so they could get the boats, wave runners, etc. It was a big shell game.
Government didn't do that. People did. Banks and Mortgage companies approved the insanity and appraisers found a way to justify the appraisals.
Greed. Greed. and Greed at every level.
As someone said, everyone go to work and quit peeing away your money.
I am pissed off at steel prices. I live close to Coatesville, Bethlehem, and Allentown. 3 Cities that never fully recovered from people sending the steel industry out of the country. Now, with the price of steel, I wonder why someone doesnt turn a steel mill back on.... I did not research it but have to believe that it could be profitable.
The 'gov't' told you to buy a house?
Well, then there is your problem.
You are too good at taking directions from the gov't.
"What's an Arkansas flush?......It's a small revolver and any five cards."
they created cheap money... har har
cargin.......right on, but the choir your playing to have mostly never suffered........and were raised on easy loans and credit cards.......This is their time.......and most still think it's a cyclic condition that will remedy itself soon.........after all we are Americans and God is on our side......This morning I saw a huge moth try to fly off my porch.......it was so big and fat it only made it to the field/lawn lie in the grass and flap it's wings. It took about two minutes for a bluejay to spot it, swoop down and have it for breakfast. Amazing what the natural world can teach us if we have eyes to see.
"Amazing what the natural world can teach us if we have eyes to see."
Except in nature only the fat suffers. Here, we're all suffereing because of the fat.
.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Rich,
That's not the situation for most people!
Most foreclosures are a result of
1 Loss of job!
2 Divorce!
3 Illness!
Yes some people do over extend themselves. Ambition isn't a bad thing, it's simply bad when the circumstances don't work out.
Stop blaming those with little control over their lives for the mistakes made by bankers and brokers..
In this country our lives are far more controlled by external powers than we know about.. The loss of manufacturing jobs to foriegn countries for example has pretty well decimated the rust belt. Hard working, thrifty people cannot save enough from their paychecks to make themselves immune from the closing of a plant..
Are some mistakes made by people? Sure but you don't set record numbers of foreclosures by a few people wasting a little gas driving two blocks to work.
Edited 6/6/2008 8:35 am ET by frenchy
Most foreclosures are a result of
1 Loss of job!
2 Divorce!
3 Illness!
Perhaps that's true where you live but in Southern California many foreclosures have happened in the last few years because some people with decent credit ratings were speculating on the rising real estate market. They were using variable rate mortgages to buy homes, then trying to make the mortgage payments with rent money they got from tenants.
When they got spread too thin and the market stalled, they defaulted. Happened right next door to me. Someone else snapped up the foreclosure and resold it for $100K profit in a couple of months...to the tenants who'd been living in it for over a year. Boy, did they miss the boat.
Another common scenario has been first time home buyers (some of them immigrants) with no understanding of how variable rate mortages work. They wanted to buy a house in the same rising real estate market (remember that the RE market was strong for more than ten years and seemed to have no place to go but up).
They became ecstatic when they learned that they could afford the low initial mortgages payments, so they went for the variable rate illusion, hook, line and sinker. Their failure to keep up the mortgage came when the payments went up drastically, according to a formula which had never been explained to them.
The mortgage companies which produced these loans are mostly fly-by-night operations. They write the deals, then sell the paper to banks while everything is skating along nicely...on thin ice.
I know this from talking to a guy who sold mortages for one of those companies...as a telemarketer.
Edit: It's a combination of ignorance, greed and deceit which has brought about this mess in many parts of the country.
Edited 6/6/2008 9:17 am by Hudson Valley Carpenter
Hudson Valley Carpenter
I understand your defence mechanism. You feel that if you figure out what causes foreclosures and you avoid doing that you will be safe from the effects.
That's not true!
Things beyond your control will drive you into bankruptcy, usually!
Yes it is true that some speculators lost money buying homes. That does not mean that all foreclosures are a result of speculation! With 50% of Marriages ending in divorce and moving being a high stressor of martial relationships most foreclosures are the result of divorce and not speculation. (oh you could make a case that some divorces are the result of buying too much home or some such cause but when the income stream is cut in half and the cost of living doubles it's nearly impossible to continue to own a home you bought based on two incomes)
Add the loss of jobs or jobs paying at the previous level and we as a nation have less wealth to make payments with.
Oh the added cost of oil to the price of most things has hurt a lot and if you shave a little from your income add a little cost in the price of transportation of both you and everything you buy plus a little unexpected bad luck. even the most careful person can find themselves tapped.
Finally go into any hospital and start counting the people .
They are all paying outragous prices for medical care.. Maybe they have good insurance but an awful lot of them have poor or no insurance..
Now what?
Do not confuse ambition with greed.. A father is told by "experts" that his home is a safe investment, the people with the money to lend are eager to lend it out. They say yes and he thinks everything will continue as it is..
Jobs are lost, people get divorced, people get sick.
All of those are often beyond their control.
Frenchy,
It's you who are on the defensive. I simply made some observations about the area of the country where I live and the foreclosures to be found here.
I second all of that!!!!!!!!!
I have to agree with HVC, the reasons vary in different parts of the country. Here in Northern Va most of the foreclosures are due to homebuyers lack of understanding how an adjustable rate mortgage works. That being said I also have to blame the lenders and big developers that sold these ARMs to people with shakey credit and insufficient income to make big commissions. Sure these buyers could afford the monthly payments for the first few years, but when the rates adjusted upward they often had to pay more than their monthly take home. And it doesn't take a financial genius to realize that if someone makes $50,000.00 a year, they can't afford a $675,000.00 home with a $2,500.00 down payment.
Steve
How in the world did they even make one payment?
And another one bites the dust. Fair sized Oregon builder going under. http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_061108_business_legend_homes_bankruptcy.200ae24e.html?npc
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I used to wonder why they didnt just stop building . They couldnt.
Tim
Reread the article, they are in chapter eleven, which will give them some time to dig out, cancel unfavorable contracts etc..
Apparently the word "Hope" has a different definition to you than me. ""Company executives hope to use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to work out payment schedules with creditors and restart home building as soon as possible."" Even disregarding that I would call the situation they are in "biting the dust"
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
you must have a beeter idea about it than I do, I don't live in Oregon.
Maybe I don't understand Chap. 11 bankruptcy. My understanding is the bus. closes it doors, works with a receiver to reorganize and discharge debt load (often paying only pennies on a dollar to the creditors ) and then is allowed to reopen for business again. So in a sense yes they may not be out of business, but what about the people and companies at the bottom of that food chain?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Sorry not how it works in most cases. Ch11 allows you to continue operating, all debt until that point is part of a package, that may eventually be discharged for pennies on the dollar.
In the case that happened to me, I was given stock in the newly organised co., dissolved completely BK within 2 years
Lot of variation in Ch 11 bankrupcties.In some cases they continue opperating without losing a beat.And they don't always payout penny's on the dollar to creditors.Sometimes they are profitable, but for some reason or another a loan is called or they can't roll it over.But they can still make payments on it.So all it does is end up stretching out the loan..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Bill,
Thank you (and all the others ) who explained the chap. 11 better . I was burned twice many years ago in chapter 11's and as a result though that was simply what happened. Here is another link to the companies story .
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/121315650624890.xml&coll=7&thispage=4 I also read that they owe in excess of 16 million to each of 3 different lenders .
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I read that in the Oregonian, It also said they invested in tracks in Riverside California. That day or the next there was an article the Population of the Portland Area was going to increase by some crazy amount in a few years. The people that time it right will do very well
Just saw on AOL news where sheriff in Philadelphia refused to hold foreclosure auction this spring and after lots of politics, it was decided that homeowners and lenders will go to arbitration instead of to foreclosure--sounds like a better way. If so, maybe it'll catch on. (Maybe pigs will fly?) (I'm such an optimist!)
Edited 6/11/2008 9:09 pm ET by Danno
Creative mortgage financing. My SIL works for a bank and explained it like this:Buyer finds a house. Fast-Buck Lending Co. qualifies them for a mortgage. The monthly payment is set artificially low and doesn't even cover all the interest. Unpaid interest accumulates on the back end of the mortgage - translation, each month the buyer ends up having a bigger pay-off amount. The logic here was the house would increase in value faster than the unpaid interest would add up. After a year or so Fast-Buck Lending sells the loan at a discount, say a 6% loan goes on the market for 3%. Blind-Sided Savings and Loans picks up the mortgage which costs them 3%, but they're collecting 6% from the buyer. Fast-Buck has marketed the loan as an "investment" so Blind-Sided doesn't have to list it as a liability. Everything is just fraking peachy until the ARM adjusts upward and the homeowner can't make the payments. The buyer goes broke; foreclosure ensues; Blind-Sided gets saddled with an unpayable debt; and as for Fast-Buck...they'er laughing all the way to the bank. They made a nice piece of change early on and dumped the loan on another lending institution before it all hit the fan.Steve
And you have to be completely out of your mind to agree to something like that!
I've told this here before, but I'll tell it again.
in November 2006 I bought a 10 year old house. I could have bought it five years earlier for $150K. My wife didn't want it then.
When it hit $300K? Then she wanted it.
I still owned my other house, it was half remodeled and not ready for sale.
trying to be a tool, and kill the deal without outright telling my wife no, i decided that if they would give me the mortgage on MY terms with no exceptions? I would buy it.
Well, within 20 minutes I had a commitment letter in hand. $300K mortgage, just closing costs out of pocket, not selling my current home which still had a $70K mortgage and appraised for maybe $185K.
Then the broker ran into a snag. our allowances don't show up on our W-2's so on my tax return there is a $32K discrepency.
No matter, the broker worked it all out so it looked good and the loan closed.
So, for almost a year I had $4k a month mortgage payments, $1k a month car payments, and $1K a month daycare.
I'm in the Army and my wife is a nurse.
Any wonder why forclosures are on the rise?
It's a combination of ignorance, greed and deceit which has brought about this mess in many parts of the country.
and high interest rates
and high energy prices
and optimism
and marketing (maybe you included this in 'deceit'; but I am thinking about HGTV & DIY, etc., making it appear that anyone can make a profit at this, and if only a fool would sit on the sidelines when there's so much money floating around)
and willingness to take a risk and live with the outcome
and belief that your education/experience will allow you to avoid the problems that happen to the uneducated/inexperienced (inflated self-confidence)
and belief that when bad things happen, someone will bail you out
and a million other factors that historians will be able to point out once this problem is in our rear view mirror for a few years.
At least in Michigan, I disagree about how people got into their situations.
Yes some did get there by losing their jobs but alot of them were just plain overextended.
They heard what they wanted to hear from dirty mortgage brokers and bought into the rhetoric that their house would only go up in value all while avoiding reading the fine print.
Three years ago in Michigan you could get a HELOC for 150% of your homes value.
Its just sick what some people got themselves into, and nothing makes me madder then the government offering to bail out the stupid people. How is it even legal to help those (with gov funds) that made bad choices but ignore everyone else?
If your gonna knock down the loan amount of some (an idea kicked around) then you have to do it for all.
I'm not following you when you say either lay-off or over extending: I bought my house for the fair market price in 2001. Now it's worth about 30% less.
The monthly payment was less than 25% of my net.
Never late on a payment.
Never refinanced.
What did I do wrong?
Was I supposed to not buy a house and keep renting? (Which ironically would have been ultimately cheaper)
I think those that were loyal to their loans and did everything "proper" but got screwed anyway should be bailed out by the very banks that screwed them with sub-prime loaning..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
i couldn't agree with you any more! in a previous thread on forclosure i made statements that some interpreted as "me sounding like a victim" which is absolutely true.
if you buy a property for fair market value and because of mainipulation of the market (which many unscrupulous types made millions in) it loses value what choices are you left?
1. pay the mortgage until finally the property value goes up, eventually you will have a property (equity) worht more than you owe. figure $1500 per mo x 60 mos = $90,000 invested. after 5 years zero or little equity but good credit.
2. give the property back to the lender. that is after all the security on the loan, rent a house for five years. $750 a month rent x 60 mos = $45,000 invested. $50,000 cash in the bank and a ding on your credit. if you can get into a house at that time with owner finance or any other method you are $50,000 ahead in net worth.
what would you choose? if you are like 12.2 million other americans by the end of june you will be in negative equity for the forseeable future.
Edited 6/6/2008 9:41 pm ET by segundo
If you were thinking that the value of your house would always go up, and there would never be hiccups with the market, I think you were living in a dream world. Absolutely nothing is guaranteed, except the fact that you are going to die someday.
Everyone (not just you, I don't mean to sound like I'm callling you out or something) needs to realize that at the very least, your house can't be your only 'investment'. It is possible that it will turn out to be a great investment, but you should never rely on it. Just like with the stock market, there will be ups and downs.
jamie
i am calling you out.
look at the numbers, why should he ride it out if he is money ahead by returning the security to the people that hold the note, the people that caused it to be worth less than it is.
i realize very well that my house shouldn't be my only investment, i unlike you, also realize that an investment that is losing needs to cut.
The real point is that its supposed to be a place to live, not an investment at all. The fact that in the past it has been somewhat of a decent investment should not make you think that buying a $500,000 house is investing $500,000.
Jamie
what you say in that post 48 is true NOW!, but that was not the case untill the bottom fell out, in fact the reason the bottom fell out was that homes, and more specificaly home mortgages were treated just like an investment, they were bought and sold, cut up, bundled, and resold on wall st.
lots of big money players made real estate an investment game on wall street. too bad for you if you don't like it and don't want to play the game because if you have a mortgage you are in the game like it or not. you better learn the new rules quick or you will lose.
I did #3: bought a second house out of state. Tried to sell 1st and failed so I'll mail the keys to the bank soon..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Was this meant for me? I was referring to people that abused their equity. It certainly sounds like you didnt.
It was for you. You post seemed (to me) to imply there's only two people losing out: the over extenders and the poor credit people.
There's many others losing because of the ones above..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
There are no hard and fast rules to anything and there are exceptions. Also dont forget i'm by no means an economic analyst, this is just my take on things in general.
You didn't do anything wrong. Keep in mind your 30% loss is not realized until you sell it, so if your situation is as you described (able to make payments), then ride this out. Most likely someday it will be worth what you paid or more.
But then again, the beauty (and scary part) of our wonderful system is that it is a free market economy...maybe "fair market" in 2001 was at an exorbitant high due to the tech bubble (I see you're in NC, just guessing about the tech bubble and it's effects on your housing in the area, particularly if you're around RTP), which MAYBE means you shouldn't have bought in 2001. If that is the case, the big issue was back then, not so much now.
jamie
And it may be 50% by the time I sell it.
Every time I mail that check I'm losing money..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
MSA1
I suspect that you are angry with those who took a risk and were caught with the down turn of the economy. ..
I can sit here all smug because I bought my home 21 years ago and have a large amount of equity in it.. But My first home I bought Nothing down on the GI bill and other than closing costs I didn't have a dime invested in it. If I'd lost my job at that point I couldn't have had held on..
That's the same position a lot of young people are in.
Edited 6/7/2008 10:18 am ET by frenchy
That would br great if it were all young people but alot were people that thought they would move up more than in reality they could.
Alot of the problem also stems from people that couldnt stay out of the mall and Best Buy and decided to shift unsecured debt over to their homes (secured debt).
Come on, you heard the ads, "take money for vacation, credit card debt, a new boat". The list goes on.
If people werent trying to use their house as a bank alot of this problem wouldnt exist.
MSA1
So who's fault is that? (shifting debt to a mortage)? Don't the banks have any responsibility for advertizing that? Are you sure that the bank did due diligence before giving out those remortages?
Again does the blame reside solely with the victim or shouldn't those who benefited from all that business assume some responsibility?
Come on Frenchy, If you're dumb enough to sign a contract without reading it, I dont know what to tell you.
Okay, here's more of my (refreshing?) naivety showing through, but, what ever happened to "Savings and Loans"--like the one in "It's a Wonderful Life!" They were like co-ops, right?
Anyway, reading all these posts and the news and seeing how the banks were and are, it made me wonder why a group of decent people (that may be problem number one--finding those (I was thinking of a consortium of people like those in this forum--yay!) may be a problem--couldn't buy some of the houses and do any fixing up needed and then re-selling them. I guess the main problem is no one can afford to buy the fixed up and re-sold houses right now and I suppose it's hard to find suitable houses to do this with. I'm not talking flipping with the usual idea of buying as cheaply as possible and doing some cosmetic quick and dirty stuff to get the price up (those days are obviously over anyway), but more along the lines of pooling money to buy houses (maybe even before they go into foreclosure--so like the owner keeps making payment but to this new corporation that has taken over the motgage).
I don't know, obviously I'm not a financial guy. It just seems like there must be some way that groups, perhaps even united with churches or other charitable organizations, could help this mess. I'm not talking about bailing out greedy investors who were hoping to flip a crappy house during the feeding frenzy and got caught holding the bag, I'm talking about people who really got in over there heads.
When I saw all the destroyed housing on the Gulf Coast I thought the same way. A group of decent people could get some of the properties fairly cheaply and use economy of scale and building the way Habitat does or with lots of factory components to build back more cheaply and better than the usual.
Anyway, sorry for this rambling; back to usual programming! Put this along with my idea for automobiles that run on static electricity!
Danno,
Savings and loans were deregulated during the Reagan administration and went bust during the Bush adminsitration.. Most are limping dogs now.
In the case of Michigan there's many more homes than there are buyers because so many jobs have left the state..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
I figure they'll be back when they run out of water! My plan is to buy up all this vacant land and houses and make a killing in a hundred years or so when they all come back. They don't call me Wile E. Coyote, super genius, for nothing!
i for one have always seen your genius
And I have always admired your perception!
you two are definately a pair to draw to
lol good luck!.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
MSA1
Don't you rely on experts to explain things to you? Most people do especially on complex items..
What you don't anticipate is unexpected loss of a job or illness in the family or a divorce.. The three most common reasons people lose their homes..
As for me, I'm in a fine position I have money in the bank, no debts other than my mortage which is less than 25% of it's value and my mortage is currant.
But Start to think about how the coming problems will affect you.. Housing and home construction is virtually over untill the currant superabundance of homes is dealt with. That is going to be reflected by the rest of the economy. GM is already closing six plants and laying off those workers.. Chrysler is a limping dog, and Ford is planning on leaving the country..
Not to mention cabinet shops laying off workers and furniture companies closing down. and so on and so on ! Oh sure there may be spots here and there relatively unaffected but they will be the exception and not the rule..
This is going to hurt you!
Frenchy, I hate to disagree with you, but on the face of your argument there is a problem. If there were no new houses being built, why are there still being building permits issued?
The last I heard was that there is now life in the FLA. market, they were the first to see the slowdown.
For your info., there is always a backlog of new homes, the problem is the slow sales of these.
have you checked the online realtors listings for FLA?. I think Orland area was the worst with several others also very bad.
i was actually considering port st lucie, i found over 4902 listings for that city. you can buy a nice 3 bed home with pool for around $100,000. how much lower can they go?
Yes I have. In the best of time there are a lot of houses for sale in fla..
Yep, old people go there to die. Not a bad place to go, but that's why there's a constant turnover.
you mean its "death valley"
thats always been my favorite nickname for the old folks exclusive neighborhoods.
All
Frenchy started this thread out like Democratic Party commercial. And believe me, we are going to hear alot of it in the coming months from the cooperative (free) press.
They are going to stress how bad the economy is and how this adminstration is responsible for it's condition. They are going to hammer it home.
Obama is not going to run on his ideas or platform. Nor is he going to run against McCain. He is going to run against Bush.
The common theme in this thread is a difference in basic philosophy.
#1 is that we are all responsible for our own decisions and we have to pay the consequences.
#2 is that if something goes wrong in life then someone else is to blame. And that the victum is intitled to a bailout.
I feel sorry for people who bought houses in an upmarket and then have to pay for them in a down market. But they still entered into a contract to buy a product and they agreed to pay a certain price. If the market continued to go up then they were a genius. If not they it's time to pay the piper.
Farmers and people who play the stock and commodites markets understand this.
Frenchy keeps saying there is nothing wrong with having ambition and wanting to better yourself. I agree. But if you put your life savings into a dot com just before the bubble burst then, that's a tough one to swallow. But that's the price you pay when you try to guess the market. Sometimes you are a genius and sometimes you are a fool.
When people talk about bailing out on their morgage it makes me think of my work. If someone wanted to remodel their bathroom, then when the job was done they turned around and said, "We're sorry but Bob just lost his job and now we will not be able to pay you. I hope you can just eat this and forget it."
It's still money weather it is in a micro situation(mine) or a macro situation (big banks/government). And it hurts to lose it.
If big banks did unscurplous lending then go ahead and punish them, but don't blame them for the housing market. There were alot of small fish trying to "better themselves".
Around here the economy is pretty good. Not alot of housing starts, but there are no lack of new vechiles on the road. Big honking pickups with 4 doors and big engines and horrible MPG (pricetag of about 35k-45K). And people are buying them for the family's primary vechile. That's fine but don't complain to me about the price of gas.
Nobody in the national press gave a rip about hog farmers when the price dropped to $10 a hundred weight. There are no more independent hog farmers anymore (almost) and no stockyards to sell them in. The market has changed and people have to change with it. It hurts, but that's life.
And Frenchy, divorce is not an external force. And sometimes neither is illness (smoking, obesity to name a few). I have a son in a wheelchair from birth (weighted 1lb 10 oz. and we did everything (prenatal) right) so I have walked that road. I know all about living with illness and what it can do to your finances.
Rant over.
Rich
Good rant. We are living in what seems to me a time of socialized risk and privatized profits. The Bear Stearns "bailout" may or may not cost taxpayers money, but taxpayers would never have been entitled to any profit that company made. I understand that a collapse on the scale of Bear Stearns would have done a lot of widespread damage due to their counterparty entanglements, and maybe a bailout was the right thing to do for those reasons and larger ones, but I'm not sure we shouldn't just let the cookie crumble that way. Taxpayers every year give huge subsidies to oil companies but we turn around and pay whatever the price is regardless of how profitable they are.
Anyway, make your bed and lie in it. Unless the gov't buys you a new one....
Many years ago I read a wonderful story by (IIRC) David Smith of Smith -Hawkins Tool co. ( Might have been Hawkins though) He related his business experience when it came to dealing with lending institutions.
His first venture he did as much as possible with out borrowing money from the bank, but used them in the manner we all use banks and paid the fees, interest etc. along the way. When things got bad he then turned to them for assistance.
He relates in a very humorous manner being shown the door by the 4th. understudy of the loan official who had first given him his loan (after much groveling and begging on Smiths part) with assurances that the bank would always be there to help him. He then goes on to relate starting another business that he funded without bank assistance, and how when it became successful the banks came to him offering all sorts of money to borrow at great rates. He didn't need there money but took advantage of it anyway.
When the second business (which by now the banks were heavily invested in)also showed signs of trouble he was called into the banks office once again.
This time he is escorted into the main branch , up the elevator to the executive board room and introduced to the banks accountant, sales pros, vice president of the bank who was in charge of the loan dept. etc. All of the banks resources were at his disposal , including yet more lines of credit ,re-structuring of loans, forgiven fees, lower interest rates etc. The morals in the story were never borrow a little, always borrow enough that if something bad happens the lenders or powers that be will fail along with you because they have a big enough stake in what you are doing, and never ever borrow when you need to , only borrow when you don't need to . That way they will never put the squeeze on you. This is how I see what has happened in the housing situation. The little guy who has the need isn't a "partner", but the big financial houses are. The bail out will help them survive, the little guy sucks dry eggs.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
david
time of socialized risk and privatized profits
I think you are right.
Big guys get bailed out small fry, well we fry.
Rich
Frenchy started this thread out like Democratic Party commercial.
Frenchy's a democrat huh? Am I the only one that missed that?
BTW, nice rant
Doug
Well, I started with nothing and I still have nothing, but I owe a pile. I'm still paying it off just because it's the right thing to do. I made my decisions and mistakes.Well, actually I will own something after it's all paid off, but not a lot. My word means something, if only to me.
Rich
If it were really a free market you might have a point. However this government saved private enterprise from failure and has done so frequently in the past.
The second point is that as private individuals we have to play by the rules influanced by those same private instutions you favor so much.. Private companies can go bankrupt and walk completely away from any responsibility. Yet individuals cannot do the same anymore..
In addition the private sector does not have access to the same tax breaks or Grants that the major companies do.
By the way I do not speak for the democratic party.. That party is too diverse to ever have one point of view. Unlike republicans who require complete adhearnce to party line even when the party line is proven wrong..
You are right it is it is not a free market.First Clinton pressured the banks to accept less qualified borowers.And now the GOVERNEMENT(FHA) is lending more than 100% mortgage when costs are rolled into the mortgages..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
BillHartmann
That statrted after WW2 when less than qualified vets got zero down loans and it worked well.. What the banks did which was wrong was package those less than quailified loans as AAA rating by pressuring the rating agencies to give the high ratings at the risk of losing business if they didn't.
It wasn't the zero down loans, it was the fault of the bankers who packaged the deals.. Now we're all suffering and the government bailed out companies while leaving the rest of us to suffer.
Just like all republicans you are more worried about big business over people..
Frenchy, what about personal responsibility?
The mistake the banks made was in not screening their customers better. How the packaged the loans has nothing to do with this.
The problem is people that signed for loans without understanding their loans. Maybe their real estate lawyer they had at closing should have explained it better.
Was there people that got scammed by people with no morals, probably, does that remove the personal responsibility to understand what you sign for, I think not.
frammer52
Personal resposibility is a buzz word you republican big business excusers use for blame the individual.
Personal responsibility ends with you filling out the application honestly. If a bank takes your application and approves your loan it then becomes their responsibility to act in a manner which won't risk their depositers funds..
If they cheat when they put those loans together to resell that's their fault. If enough banks do it that our credit as a nation suffers and recieve no punishment for their misdeeds then shame on those in charge..
It's made worse by bailing out private companies at government risk. At that point it is only fair and reasonable that private individuals seek the same sort of help..
"what about personal responsibility?"Personal responsibilty would mean taking a look at the current economic conditions and then making a decision to pay or not. If not, then the ethical thing to do is to move out of the house without stripping all the wire and pipes and selling it for scrap. The terms of the note provide for the return of the property. The bank's personal responsibility is to file the paperwork, take back the house and resell it. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Blue, well said!
I think that faced with the prospect of potentially 12 million plus homes in foreclosure banks will pressure employers to pay their workers more in an attempt to inflate our way out of the problem..
This isn't the only inflation pressure we have.. oil is driving up the cost of everything, food costs are getting increased pressure due to higher grain prices plus the added cost of fertilizer and other oil intensive products.. There is the tax costs of IRAQ which we have yet to address.
Hold on to your hat It's going to be a bumpy ride!
Thank you very much sir..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
How the banks packages the loans has a lot to do with it. If they had been identified accurately as to their risk, the banks would not have been able to sell them; hence, they would have screened their applicants better, rather then themselves get stuck with the high-risk loans.Nevertheless, I agree with you that the problem is people signing for loans without understanding them or while under the influence of combined greed and adolescent-style "it can't happen to me" delusions. In many parts of the country, the average home purchase transaction does not involve lawyers.Rebeccah
Its all a matter of putting "having and getting" in the same room with "being and doing". If ya don't have the money don't get it. If you got the money to do then get it. Being stupid has never been a very good excuse. Unless you want to be a self appointed victim.... Victimhood is hard for me to understand.Edited 6/9/2008 6:03 am ET by larryscabnuts
Edited 6/9/2008 6:04 am ET by larryscabnuts
You're right we should all save up to buy a house with cash instead of mortgaging it. Until saved up, we should live with our families in a 1 bedroom apartment..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Man! I was born in a log cabin I built with my own hands.
Now that sounds like fun!.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
"You're right we should all save up to buy a house with cash instead of mortgaging it. Until saved up, we should live with our families in a 1 bedroom apartment."
That's pretty much what I did. A lot of sacrafice.
Own my house now.
Been watching this thread for a while now. Really confused by some of your ideas ( also I really do feel sympathy for anyone in your plight).
Lets change things a little. What if your family had loaned you the money for your house in Michigan, what would you do in your present situation?
bobtim
By saving to pay cash for your home you've cost yourself much added income taxes. Lost the ability to gain from inflation rather than lose to inflation and reduced your families wealth by a significant number.. `
That's only true in a quickly appreciating market. A person buying right now might only see very modest appreciation, if any, and the interest they'll be paying on the mortgage could easily outstrip any property value gains they make.
davidmeiland.
You simply need to raise your eyesight above today and right now!
There are more than twice as many people in this country as when I was born, yet we don't have 100 states, we're stuck with the same 50 That means land is twice as valuable now as it was originally. Add adjustments for inflation and the price of the land homes are built on becomes more valuable as time passes.. The house itself is what short sighted people look at.. Do the drapes match your furniture, do you like the way it's decorated? Becomes the major buying decision for most people.
Location, location, location, the old realitors axium is really paramount.. To those capable of thinking more than short term..
Right now Americans haven't had a real pay raise in over 20 years.. yet our cost of most items has risen dramatically. That is putting massive inflationary pressure on wages. Would you rather own a house today at $350,000 or wait untill post inflation when that same house sells for $1 million+ ?
Look at the price of homes pre vietnam war and look at them a decade later.. This war will cost us much more than Vietnam did and just like Vietnam we haven't paid for it and have no plans to pay for it.. Inflation is what we will use to get our debt to manageable levels..
Like I said you must raise your eyesight to look at the horizon not your feet.
Banks and private investors make money by providing mortgages and collecting interest. You decide for yourself whether or not you want to pay for that service. It is not free.
Frenchy,
A lot of good discussion in these posts and most of it isn't heated! Breaktimers are a special breed. I'd like to add a few points to the discussion. Just my 0.02$, but it seems like a couple of things have been glossed over in this discussion.
Americans have been lead to believe that a home is an investment instead of a nice place to live.
Then they were also lead to believe that their homes were special investments that would not depreciate greatly in value over time. Realtors talked about housing that way, some builders, politicians, bankers, etc. Everybody bought into that story.
That was one element that made many people feel OK about not getting large pay raises while the cost of living, education, energy and healthcare dramatically increased (none of which are actually factored into the calculations for the rate of inflation by the way).
If you look at a stock, and see how it can fluctuate in value up and down over the course of one trading session, you see quickly how the value of an investment can change. The reality is that the probable sale price of most people's homes does the exact same thing, but since we don't have handy tickers that list the change in value over the day for our homes we never see it. Also, since our homes are not very liquid assets (i.e. you can't break off a shingle and use it buy bread) it's hard to start the process that you find out what your home is actually worth. That's one of the reasons we had the Great Depression; people were way out on margin and over leveraged, and then they found out that the stocks they bet the farm on weren't worth anything.
So most people are getting stuck right now in a cruel period of price discovery, where they find out that what they thought they could sell their house for is much different from what the market says it is actually worth currently. That whole story puts big holes in the two popular beliefs behind home ownership (it's an investment and one that will always increase in value). And that really blows. Because now people don't even have the cushion that made them feel good about getting shafted since the end of stagflation. The other side of that is when the cards are so stacked against the owner, they'll just walk and leave the bank holding the mortgage. And why shouldn't they? It doesn't make sense to hold onto a mortgage that overvalues a house by any significant amount when the penalties for leavign are less than the penalties for paying.
The good news about all this is that a rapid period of price discovery, and lots of bank foreclosures, will make housing more affordable and bring about a market correction sooner. Banks are way quicker in dropping home prices to get a sale than a home owner. That's letting my brother buy a house in Northern Jersey, something he thought he'd never be able to do. Ditto for my cousin who lives in Alexandria, Virginia. And for all of the financial grousing out there, if you paid no money down for a house you actually lost very little money because you had no equity, no skin in the game.
The bad news is that the rules of the game have changed so much for the people who played since the last big housing bust in the 90's and those families are really hurting right now. I don't know what we would do if we didn't live in Pittsburgh. Cost of living and houses are cheap. We bought our current small home with an eye towards keeping it as a rental just in case it couldn't sell when we needed to move.
I don't think anyone on either side of the political spectrum has an idea that can make this end well. The market has to go through this painful adjustment and period of price discovery. Suggestions like W's freeze on foreclosures or Hillary's "time out" for rate increases will only extend the pain. I don't think McCain or Obama have anything new to add either.
In the meantime, my heart goes out to the builders who have tighten their families budgets, the people that aren't sure where their next meal is coming from or whether they'll have a home tomorrow. And I'm trying like crazy to build up a savings cushion just in case.
Best Regards,
Chris
abbysdad,
I'm sorry to disagree with you but if you look at your home as a long term investment instead of a stock market transaction prices do appreciate.. more people equal greater demand greater demand equals higher prices.. Population as I've said has more than doubled since my birth and yet we still have the same 50 states..
In addition you are paying for a home with leveraged dollars.. Your little or nothing down controls a investment many times and as inflation increases it makes paying those payments easier and easier..
Yes it is possible to buy at the wrong time and not have any appreciation for a while.. The first payments I made for my first home were around $343.00 a month. Today that same home is worth well north of a million dollars..
In addition I was able to write off the interest payments from my taxable income. Something I cannot do with any other sort of investment..
Finally it certainly is possible to invest in the wrong property. If you choose to buy in the wrong neighborhood your "return" can either be negative or extremely poor.
The old realtors adage of location, location, location is critical.. Unfortunately few people use good judgement in that area.. instead more concerned with the cosmetics or appearance rather than the location..
For the money I paid for my tiny one bedroom lakeshore home I could have bought a three bedroom split level in a nearby suburban community with a much bigger lot..
Today that same home would sell for around $300,000 and my old home is worth north of a Million + dollars..
Frenchy,
Disagreement is great! Good discussions have them.
Your home might be worth 1 million plus dollars if you can find someone to buy it for that amount. In the mean time, like I said, you can't tear off a shingle and buy a loaf of bread. House prices, at the median, have gone up, but nowhere near the same level of the stock market. House prices fluctuate, at probably the same level as your typical stock, but people don't see that on a daily basis. At best, housing is a poor investment and an illiquid asset. I have one for shelter, enjoyment and to waste tremendous amounts of time fixing up. I have no plans to count on it for retirement income or savings. The tax benefit is nice though.
Your house is probably insured as if, just like you and your bank believe, your house is worth around 1 Million USD$. But until you have a buyer that agrees to pay that price for it and go through a somewhat arduous process to give you that money, you house is only worth what it provides you in shelter and enjoyment. My stocks are worth what they are worth at the closing bell and I have a very quick and efficient way to sell them when I need the money. That's a huge difference between a house and a good investment vehicle.
As for the concept of leverage, that implies you have something to lever and get an advantage. With no money down, the ratio of what you owe for a house to what you have in the house is very high. In your case, that makes sense because lake front homes are expensive and highly valued. Any appreciation is a boon to you. But in the event of delfation, you're stuck in a bad situation and little to no equity to use in getting a new mortgage. You're stuck with that risk more and more as home prices increase.
And if that lake was in the Dells region of Wisconsin, your home is now worth nothing. Even though you had a good location, the risk profile changed for the home, it's maybe uninsurable now, and you won't be able to get a new mortgage for it without home owner's insurance unless you're willing to take on a majority of the risk. In that case, location, location, location just turned itself on its head due to nothing you could control. In the case of stocks, savings accounts, mutual funds, there are secondary markets to spread out that risk and further insure the investor. The FDIC was created after the Great Depression for just that purpose.
In case of dire emergency, a home owner has...a lot of fine print in their insurance policy, personal savings, a long drawn out process with the adjustor and the local bar to drown their sorrows. For the lake owner, hopefully a good advocate to help them negotiate through their flood insurance, which really only guarantees you the right to sue for damages. It's not a straight payout as in a fire.
For all of those reasons, houses make poor investments. They're great for a million other reasons, but not as vehicles to build and keep wealth. If they were all that great, then Mr. McMahon wouldn't be going into foreclosure on that high priced posh location estate in Beverly Hills that he thinks is worth 4.25 million and the market says is not worth buying right now.
Best Regards,
Chris
abbysdad.
Well my currant home is 2.4 million not a mere million.. ( the property alone is valued well in excess of a million), but all that aside, A home is not a liquid investment. Not like cash or stocks are..
However a home provides you with shelter unlike cash or stocks.. If you have cash or stocks you still must have shelter. In addition a home provides tax breaks that ownership of stocks and cash don't. Finally a home is a highly leveraged asset which in the time of potential inflation is a very great thing..
Now stocks can lose value quicker than a home will lose value. In Oct. of 1987 I lost nearly a million dollars in a few hours. Cash as well has no real protection against the ravenges of inflation.. A classic example is Germany in the 1930's, a lot of south American countries, and several Asian countries..
Finally my home can be used for temp cash flow. It's called a home equity loan and I used them to pay off the debt I incurred on my interest free credit cards building this place.. I would put 50 or $60,000 on the interest free credit cards and if by some chance I not get new interest free cards with no transfer fee before the interest kicked in I'd use some of my equity to pay them off..
I didn't, but I could have used that loan to buy that loaf of bread you mentioned..
So to a degree a homes equity can be used like cash..
Here's the magic of a home.. Over time all property inflates.. Look at todays value of the Lousiana Purchase for a simple example or Alaska etc..
Shorter term? Look at the intial cost of those 1950's era tract homes compared to today's value..
Ignore recent rise and falls because that doesn't matter.. property appreciates over a long enough time.. they aren't making any more of it and they certainly are making more people!
As to your loss of home in Lake Delton Wisconsin, If that was insured for it's value by today he has a check in his hand for it's full insured value.. so it's sold to the insurance company instead of a private party. He probably got money faster then selling it on the market..
I wish you could buy such insurance for your stock purchases.. <grin>
You might be right. Or you might be wrong.
I am debt free and live in a comfortable home. Buttiski followed your plan and where is he today.
I did once borrow to buy a house, even though we could have paid cash. Got the tax breaks etc, did OK. Just not sure I really came out strongly ahead for the amount of risk I took.
Everythings about risk..... I will risk my money, but I better be compensated for it. Big risk better have a chance for a big payday
bobtim
timing is important as is the old realitors maxim, Location,location,location..
It's absolutely true that there is no promise of great profits in realestate.. however, real estate makes up 60% of the average family's wealth..
I'll use myself as a foil for Buttkickski's situation..
I bought my first home with nothing down and even had to borrow $50 from the realitor for earnest money. I paid $27,800 for that place, sold it 9 years later for $99,000 and bought this place for $107,000
Last December during the real downturn the bank appraised my home at 2.4 million currant estimates place the number above that. My mortage is pretty small (I have nearly 2 million in equity) and I have no credit card debt.. In addition I have many other assests available.
Yet my income is about what the national average is.. (well except recently, I've been unemployed for the last 10 months). yes my payments are currant and I do have some cash reserves yet..
larryscabnuts.
Have you ever played a game where the rules are you can't win no matter what? That's the case for most of those 12 million+ buyers who are expected to be upside down in the homes they bought.
Owning a home is a reasonable goal.. The government has been giving zero down Loans since WW2 and haven't had a problem.
When the private sector tried to do that they failed and the government had to bail them out. So much for the myth of the private sector being more efficent than the Governmant..
That is a ridiculous assessment regarding the government and private business. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Blue,
Why so? because it proves that Reagan didn't understand what he was talking about?
Take a deep breath Frenchy and stick to one topic ata time. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Of course frenchy is right.Just look at the Federal Board of Tea Expert.It only took the government 99 years to disband that group after starting it.Do you think that the private sector could work that fast?.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Ironic isn't it. Just imagine a tea testing board set up to protect the big business (at the Time ) of tea importing and being finally eliminated under the Clinton administration. Yep one more example of govt for the business interests.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
BillHartmann
There are countless such boards and groups, Most are created at the insistance of private enterprise for some reason and since they are government funded and seldom can do any real harm are encouraged by the industry they serve..
So you are saying that the government just does whatever other people want and should be abolished..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
I just heard on the Rush show today that congress is outsourcing their dining room rather than increasing their meals by 25%. Frenchy, why can't the government figure out how to cook a hamburger better than private corporations? Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Blue,
Why do I have to pay $35.00 for raw hamburger at a private resturant in town? (steak Tar tar)
I'm working with a woman buying a houseI contacted seven lenders and asked what kind of interest rate they would give on a 30 year fixed rate loanInterest rates ranged from 6.75 to 6.375She has a good credit score of about 710But in today's market she needed a 720 to get their best rateSo she is paying 1/4 point higher (approx) than she would have a year agoA year ago she would qualify for a better interest rate at 680She feels like she is being penalized for the problems in lending and the mess we're inOne lender offered her a 5.3 percent adjustable rate loan and she said "no"It would adjust in five years.She feels like she is paying a higher interest rate and being penalized because of the banks losses this past year or two
Her feelings might be naturual but business is business. They've obviously tightened things up. Its not personal. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
This is off topic but I've shown this woman about 30 homes.We're looking at 1000-1100 sq ft homes priced $130 to $140The reason she has chosen this particular house is because:THE HOUSE HAS MATCHING GRANITE COUNTERTOPS AND BACKSPLASHES in kitchen, bath #1, bath #2, the bar counter top in basementThey used the same granite throughout the house and it really stands out !She is not buying a fixer upper - she's buying the home from regular home sellers.But you might want to try this sometime when you are flipping your next house.THIS IS WHAT REALLY SOLD THIS WOMAN ON BUYING THIS HOUSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited 6/11/2008 10:13 am by mrfixitusa
I just love this subject . You know that .
Irst off youre way to high priced.
I just sold a 1400 sq ft new home for 90 grand with double garage and brick. Fence too on curb and gutter street.
"We're looking at 1000-1100 sq ft homes priced $130 to $140"
2ondly a house that size will certainly not have granite . Formica. We dont build houses that small anymore because they are too small. Our first time buyers houses start at 1200 sq ft .
But anyway if we did do that we would give it away. It wouldnt appraise . They would average a sq ft price of other homes in the area. So how would you get paid for it ?
Tim
Tim, I've got to head out the door and I'll get back to you on thisThe house she is buying was built in 1998 so it's a newer home and it's in pretty good shape
Why couldn't you put granite in? It would only be a small piece. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
"
Why couldn't you put granite in? It would only be a small piece."
Huh? One of us screwed up reading I guess . <G>
I was pictureing all counter tops.
Not exactly cheap add for a cheap house .
Im not tryin to be negative I hope . Im open for anything .
I just tried add ons and it didnt work so well.
Tim
Im trying to point out that in a 1000 sf home, the cost of granite won't be a deal breaker. It's such a small amount and it's so common that it won't drive the cost up on a new house that much. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Ok. I dont even know how much it is because I dont ever consider it . duh. I just thought it was very high. guess I better check.
Tim
When I think back to my Mom's house I remember about 10 square feet of counter...including the sink space. My cost is about $30 per square foot , including labor, for granite so the total retail selling price might be $600 including markup. A custom formica top would be at least half of that so the difference would be a couple hundred bucks. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Cheap enough for them to rave its got granite
Exactly! I dont' think I'm telling you anything new but sales are made on emotion and justified by rationalization. The granite wows them and then they explain it by saying that it's good value because it will last forever. The bedrooms might be too small...the foundation cracking but they have granite! Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
hahaha , I live in a cave baby but I drive a corvette.
Tim
There are thousands and thousands of people living in Detroit that drive around in cars that have a lot more value than their houses. Your joke wasn't too far off that mark. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
SO?
RE what the lady is thinking .
Edited 6/11/2008 3:38 pm by Mooney
Myth? If you think its a myth then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
My understanding is that you are right about not having lawyers. Maybe that is what is wrong? Any law student with basic math skills could have forseen the problems.
The CDO's for mortgages were not the problem, it was and is the person that set the rates in these instrurments. The amount of risk turned out to be much higher than expected.
My understanding is that the gov. on 100% vet. loans made sure the loan rates were fixed, whereas the industry made sure the rate was not. Frency, this is and was the major difference.
There appears to be enough problems with these loans to blame everybody that sold this product and everyone that used these products.
Everyone, 80% of these loans are still working, ie people are still paying them off. This leaves 20% of the loans as potential problems. These loans were only 20% of all mortgages sold during that time period. This means that the actual problem is very small in real terms , compared to the total number of actual loans outstanding.
I have tryed to get this number, but it appears to be elusive.
That was a good rant
frammer52
There are permits being issued here as well. However the number issued reflect the lack of confidence people have in the recovery under currant administration.
Last month I heard we were at the slowest (nationwide) number of new housing starts in 27 years..
Considering the population increase in those last 27 years that's especially troubling.
Don't you rely on experts to explain things to you? Most people do especially on complex items..
If i'm dealing with the devil, I sure as hell dont trust him, I bring in an attorney. Most were to cheap or proud to do so.
This is already hurting me, so do suggest we punish the banks cause "those bastards have money" or should we punish the ones who were foolish with their equity (or illusion of equity)? Instead were working on programs to bail these people out.
MSA1
We should punish those responsible for the problem and not blame the victims..
Banks benefited from their cheating and lying.. banks should pay for that..
If you cheated and lied on a credit application then you should pay for that. Just because they have access to money doesn't make them morally superior. In fact because they violated the public trust there needs to be far tighter rules and enforcement.
Smith Barney is a classic example.. they packaged false and deceptive home loans and sold them internationally causing their downfall. Instead of letting them fail as they properly should in a free market the federal governament stepped in and bailed them out using the full faith and trust of the US government.
By helping the victim (the home owner) survive the government is doing the same thing for the tax payer who pays for the full faith and trust of the government.
It shouldn't take million dollar lobbiests to achieve the same treatment for everybody.
exactly
And Ed's in hock too much to keep up that Hollywood lifestyle and payoff three- count 'em - three divorces. That will wreck anybody's finances."What's an Arkansas flush?......It's a small revolver and any five cards."
or over one in 6.25 homes..
16% of homes going into forecloser???????
I'm going to have to ask for your source on that.
Plumbbill,
I incorrectly estimated the number of mortages in America. It's 2.5% of all mortages.
Currants can be good in muffins.
They go well in turkey salad as well.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Where did you get this info, Frenchy?
Maybe here. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/05/news/economy/foreclosure/?postversion=2008060514
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
The numbers I have seen weren't as bad as that sounds. I wonder if the report was for all loans or just the loans made by the motgage bankers association.
It just seems strange all the different numbers floating out there.
Yes, I notice that as well. I caught an article this morning about the unemployment rate the govt. has been putting out the last two months is significantly lower than the latest revised figures as well.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
It is a mess. the numbers are all over the place.
I read that the largest number of houses in forclosure in S. Cal., are investor owned. People trying to flip houses, getting caught as houses lose value.
This too will pass, hopefully sooner rather than later!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Biggest jump I ever heard of. It still doesn't make sense, unless a lot of people started to look for jobs that were on the sideline before. It doesn't go with the next statement of loss of 60000 jobs.
Sounds like the gov. accountants that figure the national debt. I believe it is called creative accounting!
Sure that may be true but you also have people living in car parks in the back of their SUVs because they lost their homes. That was not a investor it was a home owner buying for a place to live. If you need a home and prices are high you ether rent at a high monthly rent or you buy at a high mortgage rate you have to live in something. Sure many may have bought more home then they needed or could afford I accept that but that does not change the fact that many are in trouble and the cost of that will be paid by not just them. As long as foreclosures are on the way up home prices will be on the way down and if you build house for a living that is not a good thing.
Please show mw some documentation that that is occuring. We have sicial agencies and churchs that help in that situation
Here is one:
http://newsblaze.com/story/20060629215751nnnn.nb/topstory.htmlAlso it was covered on National TV on the today show on good morning america and was on the nighty news at 6:00 if you have not heard that people are living in their cars you must be living in a cave.Want more google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=people+living+in+cars+in+CA&spell=1
Heres the opening paragraphs in a piece in the Detnews.com online by Brad Oconner. It's a very simply opined synopsis of the mortgage mess. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080610/OPINION03/806100352/1128/SPORTS0103Bad loans turn into game of hot potatoThe financial wizards who cooked up the crippling mortgage and credit crisis thought they had created something like the world's most fabulous no-calorie chocolate souffle.Instead, they boiled up a huge batch of hot potatoes.Now, with trillions of dollars in losses piling up, all the players from mortgage brokers to banks to hedge funds are trying to stick somebody else -- anybody else -- with the scalding spuds."All the financial institutions are trying to get these bad loans off their books however they can," says Peter Cohan, an economic analyst and professor at Babson College in Wellesley, Mass.But somebody has to get burned.Quicken vs. Wells Fargo:
Right now in U.S. District Court, Wells Fargo Bank and the Quicken Loans division of Metro Detroit's Rock Financial are each playing toss the tuber on more than $4 million in home equity loans. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
"The financial wizards who cooked up the crippling mortgage and credit crisis thought they had created something like the world's most fabulous no-calorie chocolate souffle"John McCain's go-to economics adviser isn't holding up very well under close scrutiny.Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator and economist...A former economics professor at Texas A&M....Gramm also played an integral role in the financial scandal commonly known as the "subprime meltdown."Gramm took to the Senate floor on Dec. 15, 2000 -- just two days after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Bush v. Gore decision -- and inserted a 262-page measure into a massive budget bill.The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the [SEC] nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps--and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."......Bottom line is the free-for-all in credit-default swaps during the past seven years added greatly to the financial markets' instability, as investment banks began laying out cash like... "bookies trading bets."...Whether or not Gramm had bothered to ponder the potential downsides of his commodities legislation, having helped set off an industry free-for-all, he reaped the rewards. In 2003, he left the Senate to take a highly lucrative job at [UBS], Switzerland's largest bank, which had been able to acquire investment house PaineWebber due to his banking deregulation bill. He would soon be lobbying Congress, the Fed, and the Treasury Department for [UBS] on banking and mortgage matters.... how long and intimate Gramm's relationship with McCain has been:Gramm's record as a reckless deregulator has not affected his rating as a Republican economic expert. Sen. John McCain has relied on him for policy advice, especially, according to the campaign, on housing matters. The two have been buddies ever since they served together in the House in the 1980s; in 1996, McCain chaired Gramm's flop of a presidential campaign. (Gramm spent $21 million and earned only 10 delegates during the GOP primaries.) In 2005, McCain told a Wall Street Journal columnist that Gramm was his economic guru. ... Media accounts have identified Gramm as a contender for the top slot at the Treasury Department if McCain reaches the White House. "If McCain gets in," frets Lynn Turner, a former chief SEC accountant, "we'll have more of the same deregulatory mess. I like John McCain, but given what I know about Phil Gramm, I wouldn't vote for McCain."http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/todays_must_read_346.php"there's enough for everyone"
I always liked Phil Gramm. I don't know anything about his financial policies though. Frankly, I think the Republicans have squandered their claim to being the fiscally responsible party. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
there ya go - we agree again - "there's enough for everyone"
you of course realize why the rep. have been overspending, they are following the dems lead. The difference is they have a conservative base that believes that the more you tax the more you spend.
I believe that the rep. lost their way after being elected to control spending back in the 90's.
As far as Plil Graham, I did not realize that he held such an important position in McCain election campaign.
I do think you had better go back a little further to realize why the subprime mess started. Look at the bill that Clinton signed. Look at the fed during Clinton's years in office. Look how long the kept the interest rates to low for to long. Look at Clinton pushing banks during the 90's to make loans to people that turned out to be deadbeats.
I for one am not happy with the rep. party for being spendthrifts. I believe that dems harping, falsely that they were trying to starve kids, by reducing the amount of money for school lunch programs. I guess that a gov. that believes that all parts of income and outgo should not be in the fed budget, have no problem telling people that a slowdown in spending, is a cut.
"...conservative base that believes that the more you tax the more you spend"and the last seven years prove conclusively that the less you tax, the more you borrow - "...why the subprime mess started."what part of 'Gramm took to the Senate floor on Dec. 15, 2000 -- just two days after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Bush v. Gore decision -- and inserted a 262-page measure into a massive budget bill....The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the [SEC] nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps--and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."......Bottom line is the free-for-all in credit-default swaps during the past seven years added greatly to the financial markets' instability, as investment banks began laying out cash like... "bookies trading bets."..are you having trouble understanding? - I don't care what clinton did - if you have a problem with it, what did Bushco do to straighten it out?what can we expect from McCain with Gramm being his go-to economic 'guru'?"there's enough for everyone"
first statement, unless you cut spending in line with what you have to spend.
@nd., no I don't have a hard time understanding you, why should I?
I was merely pointing out your bias in only blaming the reps.. Go back a little further and you will find it is not a problem that is only a rep. problem, or don't you understand?
I understand that any problem that existed was exerbated by McCain's go-to economic guru's "act, (that) would ensure that neither the [SEC] nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps--and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."...aided and abetted by bushco - so - what could we look forward to in a McCain administration? - edit: for spelling"there's enough for everyone"
Edited 6/15/2008 11:54 pm by DavidxDoud
"As far as Plil Graham, I did not realize that he held such an important position in McCain election campaign." I have to tell you that in light of your earlier comment about not watching ABC, NBC, CBS, because of their bias the fact that you missed knowing of the connection between these two gentlemen certainly does not speak well of lack of bias at whatever channels you do watch.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I like you don't watch many news programs. The channel on continuesly is CNBC. This also has a bias, they can't help it as NBC is the parent co., where their news comes from.
The Republican's are taking a beating because they tried to out Democrat the Democrats.
Wanted to have it both ways. Please everyone.
Instead of doing what they knew was right.
"Coming to recognize you are wrong is like coming to recognize you are sick. You feel bad long before you admit you have any of the symptoms and certianly long efore you are willing to take your medicine." -Charlton Heston.
Now that's funny. Let me understand this.
The republicans torpedo legislation at the request of big banks and investors that would have tightened regulations and as a result big money banks and investors proceed to make a killing (including the author of the legislation) on the lack of regulation and it is the fault of the dems (who never should have been popular with the voters to start with if things were well with the pubs in control) because the republicans rational after the facts are in about just what a disaster they caused both to voters and the nations economy is that they only did it to be popular? RIIIIGGGHHHHTTT. Gotcha.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Yep. Trying to out spend the Dems.
Just shopping in different stores.
It's all a lot simpler than you think.
"Coming to recognize you are wrong is like coming to recognize you are sick. You feel bad long before you admit you have any of the symptoms and certianly long efore you are willing to take your medicine." -Charlton Heston.
I think I understand how simple it is. Group of people running in circles trying to pass each other so they can be the richest when it comes time to die.
No cares about anybody else, just keep running.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
intrepid cat
Not hard to out spend the democrats. you've been doing it nicely since you became a party..
I'll use your parties own information for a source.. according to white house.gov. The democrats reduced the debt to GDP to 31% under Carter.. Reagan/Bush raised it to77% Clinton cut it back to 58% and as of last year Bush (jr) has raised it back to 67%
So the republicans are the true tax and spend champions! Congradulations!
One thing I know about the Dems....
you can't out spend them
Another thing......
when you try you always get taken for a ride.
"Coming to recognize you are wrong is like coming to recognize you are sick. You feel bad long before you admit you have any of the symptoms and certianly long efore you are willing to take your medicine." -Charlton Heston.
intrepidcat,
But republicans always do outspend democrats! I just gave you numbers from the president's own web site and you don't believe him?
Would you like me to repeat those numbers?
frammer52
For once I agree the republicans are the true tax and spend champions!
I'll use your parties site as a source.. according to white house .gov
Carter had the GDP to debt ratio down to 31% Reagan/Bush raised it to 77% Clinton brought it back down to 58% and Bush (jr) as of last year has raised it to 67% Debt is now at 9 1/2 trillon dollars. Congradulations.
Please remember one thing, the dem both reduced or slashed military spending to get the debt down, the one area of gov. they could cut spending and not run afoul of their supporters. Even Clinton realized he went to far, increasing military spending in the later years in office.
I like many cons. believe the fed. gov. has no business in funding education, the one area the dems could not cut because of their support by the teachers unions.
If the fed gov would reduce spending all over, the debt would go away.
Again, there has been no calls by your party to reduce spending except for our war. How anyone can support the troops without funding them, is beyond comprehension.
frammer 52
Why not cut military spending? We spend many times what the rest of the world combined does yet we have allies?
If you are like republicans military spending is a god to you. Forget that most civilizations were ruined by military spending. Rome wasn't destroyed untill she over spent and then could no longer fund her military.. want a more recent example? How about England? She spent her empire on the military and today relies on our umbrella.
OK what about the Former Soviet Union? She lost the cold war because she spent too much on her military and not enough on her society..
Are you determined to follow that path?
Let's look at some of the wasteful spending during the republican administration..
Refurbishing three WW2 era battleships, battleships which were last an effective weapon in 1918 off the battle of Juteland (which was a stalemate with no real outcome)
Or the billions wasted on the Bradley and countless other weapons systems..
How about the most recent boondogles? Building new aircraft carriers when they can be made ineffective by simply attacking their required (unarmed) supply ships..
Those supply ships aren't nice things they are absolutely essentail, the fuel for the planes, Fuel for the escort ships that protect the carrier, spare parts, food, etc.. They can be attacked in the harbor resupppling or any place between between resupply ports and the carrier..
Not to mention the economic burden of 4 million dollars a day per carrier operationg costs (does not include the cost of building them currantly around a Trillon dollars each)) and expected to go higher with the increase in oil. (that cost is higher in port because of refurbising costs)
Now as for education.. Why not federally fund it? Any American can move any place in the country so they should be educated to a national standard.. isn't that what no child left behind is supposed to do? Why not take a little of the money the wealthy school districts have and spred it to where the local economy can't properly fund a natioanl standard of education? You never know where our next president is coming from do you? or business leader or etc..
As dems are fond of saying when convenient, where in the constitution is a dept of education authorized?
"As dems are fond of saying when convenient, where in the constitution is a dept of education authorized?"it's not the dems that say that, its the repubs - the democrats don't let details get in the way of govt programs - used to be the repubs would make noise about 'small govt' and 'states rights' and 'personal freedom', but the party has demonstrated in the last 7 years that they represent authoritarianism - they demand that they be able to decree from washington - the department's budget increased nearly 70% under Bushco - technically, its existance is authorized/legitimized under the 'promote the common welfare' clause - "there's enough for everyone"
But remember that is a cut from what dems wanted!
Therefore the rep are strangling education. (some of the new math)
"Quicken vs. Wells Fargo:Right now in U.S. District Court, Wells Fargo Bank and the Quicken Loans division of Metro Detroit's Rock Financial are each playing toss the tuber on more than $4 million in home equity loans."
4 million doesnt sound very bad . If you divide it up per bank and divide the number by the average loan or house. Yes it isnt good but somehoe it doesnt sound like disaster. Those would be very big banks .
Tim
Why must you insult me, I did not insult you.
No I don't watch NBC<CBS<ABC, I find those broadcasts to be highly biased.
No I don't watch NBC<CBS<ABC, I find those broadcasts to be highly biased.
No shid! Their main objection is to march some poor victim out in front of the camera and tell the American people how they have been screwed over by some big greedy conglomerate...........all in a 3 minute segment!
It's usually a lot of fluff and no filler.
Doug
I watch them occasionally to look for bias. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
"Even Ed MCMahon isn't immune from having his home foreclosed on.."
That blew me away. An 85 year old with a mortgage?
That blew me away. An 85 year old with a mortgage?
IIRC Ed has a much younger, trophy wife, his third or fourth.
A 85 year old who made over a million a year with a mortgage he can't pay
No sweat.
Let all the dumbies who decided they wanted to live in a fashion they couldn't really afford go ahead and crumble and bite the foreclosure dust. Each market will then be more true to the economy of those living in it and the nation will be more stable.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
hasbeen,
You're blaming the victim in all of this. Thinking that because you didn't do that it won't affect you.
Well it will! Think of the great depression! It started just this way.
With an over inventory (in this case of housing stock) which caused millions to become unemployed as the result of lay-offs (which is happening in the housing industry as we speak) In return because there are fewer people buying those new pickup trucks etc. and so now car makers are closing their plants and laying off their employees etc..
It will continue to spiral out of control untill either inflation kicks in or we start another world war..
Since we shot our wad on IRAQ we are now in a much weaker position than we were entering WW2 aren't we?
"Think of the great depression! It started just this way. "
I think there was a little more too it than that..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Buttkickski2
Well what's differant? The great depression started because too much wealth was in the hands of too few people. Today we have the same, actually worse condition. the top 4% of wealthy individuals now own more than 50% of the wealth of this nation..
There is a massive surplus of inventory, this time it's housing instead of cars. As a result of that surplus inventory a whole industry is currantly under pressure.With employees from that sector seeking fewer and fewer jobs because of factories that are laying off people and exporting jobs as quickly as possible.
GM just announced closing of six plants used to build pickups previously sold to contractors who built houses..
Part of what worsened the depression was the dust bowl which drove up commodity prices. Instead we have the specture of $140.00 a barrel oil driving up the cost of everything..
Remember, less than seven years ago the cost of a barrel of oil was $17.00
Here are 2 cases of people just walking away from mortgages.http://tinyurl.com/5hjsm9"Rep. Laura Richardson, whose Sacramento home was recently sold into foreclosure, has two other homes in Southern California that have fallen into default six times, according to a published report.Five of the defaults totaling nearly $71,000 occurred in the last 13 months for the homes the Democrat still owns in San Pedro and Long Beach, according to county documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.During much of that time, Richardson used $177,500 to finance her campaigns for Congress and the California Assembly, the newspaper said.She faces two challengers in Tuesday's primary."As I noted in my statements earlier this week, due to multiple job changes, divorce, illness/death, and nine campaigns over the last ten years, these major life-changing moments have come at great personal expense and at challenging financial strain," Richardson said in a statement Saturday."Instead of politicizing a personal housing crisis (two personal properties that are current and the third that is being challenged by my lender questioning the validity of its sale), I have been transparent with this matter and share with my constituents the anguish that the housing industry is in a severe crisis," Richardson said.Richardson has acknowledged using her money to finance her campaigns and falling behind in mortgage payments. She claimed her Sacramento house was sold into foreclosure without her knowledge, contending she had renegotiated her loan to pay it off.Neighbors in the upper middle-class Curtis Park neighborhood said she neglected the property.Sean Padovan, a retired Sacramento police sergeant who lives three doors away from the three-bedroom, 1 1/2-bath house, grew concerned when the grass grew nearly a foot high."I finally went down there and said, 'Would you mind if I mowed your lawn for you?' She said, 'I've been awful busy. Sure.'"Richardson's Craftsman-style house has also fallen into disrepair. The beige paint is peeling, a garage window is broken, and the grass has turned brown.This week, her challenger Peter Mathews staged a news conference near the house to highlight what he termed Richardson's "pattern of fiscal irresponsibility."Richardson bought a four-bedroom, two-bath house in Long Beach for $135,000 so she could run for an open seat on the Long Beach City Council in 2000. In 2006, she was elected to the Assembly and then to Congress the next year in the special election to replace the late Juanita Millender-McDonald to represent the 37th Congressional District, which includes Long Beach, Carson and Compton."What she did not mention was that the "death" was of the the person that held the congressional seat at that time and all of the "job changes" where so that she could more up in politics..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
And here is the other one." State Sen. Julia Boseman and her former domestic partner have defaulted on a $1.3 million mortgage on a house in a ritzy subdivision near the Intracoastal Waterway.The house is now expected to be sold at public auction later this month after Boseman and Melissa Jarrell, the head softball coach at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, failed to pay months' worth of bills on the loan from Regions Bank.Boseman and Jarrell, who lived together and were raising a son before separating, had the mortgage on the house at 1526 Portsmouth Place in the Avenel Subdivision just across the bridge from Figure Eight Island.According to evidence presented Wednesday at a hearing in New Hanover County Superior Court, Boseman and Jarrell hadn't made the $7,156 monthly payments on the house since Aug. 1, 2007.The current principal balance owed to Regions Bank is $1,249,000, according to the court records. With interest and other fees, the total owed as of April 21 was more than $1.3 million.According to online New Hanover County tax records, the couple purchased the property in June 2005 for $1,350,000. More than $4,700 in New Hanover County property taxes are also owed on the property, according to county tax records.According to county records, Boseman transferred the property to Jarrell on April 25, effectively removing her name from the title."It is my ex-partner's house, and I haven't lived there in over two years," Boseman said in an interview Wednesday.John Martin, Jarrell's attorney in the couple's recent custody case, said Boseman had her name taken off the home's title without Jarrell's knowledge, which Boseman confirmed.He added that his client was resigned to the fact she would have to leave the house, which is her primary residence.Boseman said she had done "everything in my power" to work with Jarrell to relieve Jarrell of the debt and have her taken off the note and title.The Wilmington Democrat and real estate attorney is running for re-election to her third term representing New Hanover County in the N.C. Senate. She faces Republican attorney Michael Lee in the November election.At the hearing at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Wilmington attorney Jim Bonner presented evidence on behalf of Kellam & Pettit, the substitute trustee handling the foreclosure for Regions Bank.The house is now scheduled for public auction to the highest bidder at 10 a.m. June 25 at the New Hanover County Courthouse. Bonner said Boseman or Jarrell can still pay off the loan or make other arrangements with the lender before the sale."Obviously, a lot of things can happen between now and then," Bonner said. "It's not done until it's done."Boseman said she doesn't plan to do anything about the debt."Unfortunately, it's gotten to this point," she said.Boseman said the situation is "personal and private matter I hope will be resolved quickly, and in no way will it affect my commitment and dedication to working families and businesses in New Hanover County.""It amazes me that some that claims to be a RE ATTORNEY thinks that she could wipeout her liability by just deeding off the property..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
she is in fact a real estate attorney, but whether or not you are liable depends solely on the promissory note.
if you are not on the promissory note and you are on the title and deed you are still not liable to repay the debt, and you are immune from any negative credit reporting with default of said property.
go ahead, ask me how i know.
But that was not the case here.I searched for property records. The news article gives the county and enough info to search the county recorder of deeds and the tax records.The software is similar to what we have in my area. But while there was a place for the subdivision, but no place for the lot and section numbers, which I got from the tax records.So I could not do a search of all transactions on the property.But I did find all of the transaction that Boseman issued in that subdivision. She did sign the deed of trust.Also when she transfered the deed to Jarrell she issued a warrantee deed in which she say she warantees that the property is free and clear.And it states that it was drawn by Julia Boseman, Attorney at law.I suspect that the bar will be interested in this also..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
There was some comment about speculators not to blame for the foreclosures.http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/foreclosure_2791___article.html/properties_percent.html"Nearly 9,500 properties — with a total loan value of $3.86 billion — were sold at auction statewide, according to ForeclosureRadar, a company that provides data on distressed property.Properties occupied by non-owners accounted for $1.71 billion of that total and represented 44.3 percent of the properties sold at foreclosure auctions."Many blame sub-prime lending for our current real estate crisis, but rampant speculation, even by those with great credit, played a leading role," said Sean O’Toole, founder of ForeclosureRadar.com."The sub-prime market took the first hit as those borrowers had the least to lose when they walked away. Now that nearly half of foreclosures represent non-owner occupied properties, it is clear that speculators are walking away, too." "http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2007/sep/23/speculators-bear-brunt-foreclosures/"A Sun computer-assisted analysis of RealtyTrac data found that new foreclosure filings in Southern Nevada have skyrocketed in the past six months, from 2,165 in March to 5,242 in August.Combining the RealtyTrac figures with data from the Clark County assessor's office, the analysis found that 74 percent of all single-family homes in foreclosure during the past six months were owned by investors who did not live in the homes.Roughly 85 percent of actual auctions or repossessions of homes from March 1 through Aug. 31 involved properties not occupied by their owners, the figures show.The Sun was able to determine which homes were owner-occupied because their property tax increases are capped at a lower rate than homes owned by investors."The fact that investors are more likely to walk away from their property shouldn't be surprising to anybody," said Jeremy Aguero, a Las Vegas economic analyst.Speculators have played a prominent role in the real estate market here, making up as much as 40 percent of it in recent years, Aguero said."http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/30/real_estate/flippers_fuel_foreclosures/index.htm"As of June 30, in Nevada, 32 percent of all prime mortgages in default and 24 percent of subprime defaults were on non-owner occupied properties, according to the MBA. The numbers for Arizona were 26 percent prime and 18 percent subprime. In California, they were 21 percent and 15 percent respectively.The default rates in Florida for non-owner occupied homes were 25 percent for prime loans and 14 percent for subprime ones.In the rest of the nation, non-owners accounted for just 13 percent of prime loan defaults and 11 percent of subprime."One article, which I lost, mentioned those 4 state where fueled by speculators and OH & MI by local ecomony problems.But these where dated last Aug, Sept and since them the drop in prices have affected other borroweres..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
BillHartmann,
I hope you give us the full details on the rest of the more than a million homes in foreclosure. This time try to be a little more balanced in your approach won't you?
All the years i worked i made a sandwitch and a thermos for lunch.
All our cars are worth 5 grand total. The neighbors gave us a tv and DVD player. I have records i bought in thrift shops{got some good Frampton comes alive too}.
We paid off our house years ago but borrowed to buy rentals but the rent covers all expenses.
I do regret not going on more vacations but my wife did not work when the kids were young..
Everybody bragged for years all there new homes and cars now there crying.
I dont think people can live without all this crrapp..
Now im a genius but boy did we sacrifice.
We went through hard times , I dont think the 30 to 40 year old people know what its like to have bad times.
When intreast was 18 percent we could not get into a home.
In fact when we got married NO body had a credit card, Remember????.
The only people i ever knew with credit cards were executives and it was a VERY big deal.
I never carried a credit card....or money either! I didn't need either! Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Blue,
I have used credit cards wisely for the tool that they are.. I've been carefull that they are promptly paid off and no interest is accrued.
Used in that manner they can be a wonderful asset and only those incapable of properly managing their fincial affairs fear them..
bobbys
I bought a home when the interest rates were above 18%. I bought it with nothing down and in fact borrowed $50.00 from my realitor for earnest money..
Thanks to the GI bill..
However the economy allowed me to get a decent job and keep it so my gamble paid off.
In fact when I bought this house I had to get a bridge loan from one of the loan shark companies to allow me to do so..
Today my home is worth nearly 2.5 million. (most of which is equity)
So taking risks in realestate can pay off and when they do society as a whole benefits from your doing so..
You took a risk that you could get and keep good renters on that property you purchased.. If your town suddenly loses major industries those renters won't be able to make those payments for you and you too will be exposed..
It's not the fault of those who have ambition and try to succeed, instead the fault lies with those who didn't obey their own hard learned rules and packaegd poor loans as if they were good loans..
today your home is worth 2.5 million?
what is that dollars american? i will bet you any money a current appraisal of what your house will SELL for in todays market is less than 2.5 million.
i like you and respect you frenchy, but i have to call you on this one. it might have been 2.5 mil a year ago, but not today, not with 10 million foreclosures looming.
segundo,
Probably true enough! My bank appraisel is over a year old so it reflects some of the bad news but not all of it. However like most lakeshore property we aren't being negatively impacted as much as some of the bedroom communities are..
The most recent numbers I heard were from a city meeting less than a month ago. We are supposedly one of only 4 comunities in the nation where our city has such a high credit rating.. that we borrow money at 1.4 points under prime.. The city had just recieved a commitment to borrow millions of dollars at 3.6%
Anyway. according to the mayor home values have declined an average of 3.5% in this community. That's not a clear number either because not all of the property is lakeshore in my community.. so the bedroom homes may have declined much more than that while lakeshore homes are staying where they were or slightly raising..
Sell for # is purely academic, since I have no need to sell nor any desire to sell. It's like the number they tell you your body is worth.. <grin>
Edited 6/7/2008 4:57 pm ET by frenchy
you sir are under obilgation to pay for it. no I made a mistake, here are the keys, pay for it. If you can't, go to the bank and try to renegotiate the loan.
You keep repeating this over and over, you are or were responsible. I don't care if the worth of your house went down 50%, pay for it.
This reminds me of a friend of mine, he kept buying and financing new cars every 3 years. The 3 or 4th time he was way upside down, to the tune of oweing 50% more than the car was worth. According to your way of thinking, he should walk away, go bankrupt.
Wat the person that was relating the bathroom story to you, was trying to point out to you, is that banks are just larger versions of a small construction co.. You took advantage of the bank, knowing full well that if the market went down for your house, you would just walk away.
People who walk and try to justify this as a business decision, do not get any sympathy from me.
You're missing the point. He and I and millions of others lost substantial value in our homes due to the lending practices of the very banks we're obligated to pay. So by your reasoning, they can continue to screw us with poor decisions and make more money from us as long as we continue to do "the right thing".
Screw that!
Looking at this from a business point of view when you're in a bad investment you don't hang onto it; you bail out asap. I will not continue to pay a mortgage in NC and a mortgage in MI much longer. That MI money could be better served in the bank as an IRA or additional monthly funds to my 401K. It would be stupid for me to hang onto that house and continue to watch it drop in value.
You think I'm hurting the bank? My loan was for $200K. I've paid nearly $80K in interest. If they sell it for $140K then they're doing just fine and I'm out $80K so I'd say I paid my share.
That being said, so you say we owe it. Well, how do you propose we pay it? Say the home seels for 140K but the note still shows 200K. No bank will give a loan for 60K so then what? Cash out the retirement fund and borrow from the family? .
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
"You think I'm hurting the bank? My loan was for $200K. I've paid nearly $80K in interest. If they sell it for $140K then they're doing just fine and I'm out $80K so I'd say I paid my share."Maybe you should get that FREE money from the same place that the bank got their FREE MONEY..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
How was my 80 free? I earned that $$ and I'm giving them the house..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
You must think that the bank got it for free.""You think I'm hurting the bank? My loan was for $200K. I've paid nearly $80K in interest. If they sell it for $140K then they're doing just fine and I'm out $80K"Now do you think tht they are "doing just fine"..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Yes, they are doing just fine..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
you are a different situation than segundo. He explained himself in a prior thread.
Yes I am afraid you owe this money. You let the bank take the house, sell it, what about the deficit balance? You are still responsible for it.
If I were you I would be talking to your bank. No one forced you to sign the mortgage in the first place. The bank was loaning you money because they thought you were a good credit risk. This is how they make money. By working with the bank you may find a way to relieve the burden somewhat.
I still don't know how your deficit balance will be treated.
Yes if it was purely a business decision, rather than a place to live, you would sell at any price and move on.
Yes you are hurting the bank, they depend on you and any other borrowers to repay what they signed for, to pay their employees and make a profit to allow them to remain in business.
I already talked to the bank and they won't help. Pay the loan balance or mail the keys. There's so many foreclosures in my county they don't give a shid anymore.
I asked about a short sale and to have them loan me the balance on a personal loan and the bank said no again.
I don't know segundo's story but I do know there's millions of people that are homeowners and in damned if you do or damned if you don't situations. I don't have the answer and I don't blame the Gov't (though many do) but I do know each case is different so to make a blanket statement that we're all greedy homeowners and deserve what we got is just ignorant (not you directly, but many here imply that feeling).
.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Have you tryed the 800 number to the nonprofit organisation that helps as a mediator between homeowners and banks?
It sounds like you need to talk to the pres. of your bank! It sounds like they are cutting their noses off. This makes no business sense whatsoever!
frammer,
Take a drive through Livingston County Michigan and report back to us about what makes sense. LOL there's prob more banks in the county now than there are occupied houses!.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Did you complain about their lending practices when you applied for and recieved the loan?
That was the time to complain, not after the fact...
That's not a fair argument for several reasons:
-It was 2001 and they're public screwing hadn't started yet.
-I like many of the general public are not loan specialist and had (have) little knowlege of the stuff going on behind the scenes that caused this.
-I bought at fair market price which was the only option unless we continued to rent.
-I didn't have a choice but to use a bank because I didn't have $240K cash!.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
That is a fair argument if you are blaming the bank now. See my other response.
You made the decision to borrow, how can you blame the banks for that?
The things going on "behind the scenes" have nothing to do with your problem today. It has to do with your decision to move.
I know that you feal you are between a rock and a hard place, but the worst thing to do is to turn over your keys, without having a lawyer write up a contract eliminating your obligation in a short sale.
Your banks refusal to work with you now is the problem.
The banks refusal to work with people like us is proof that they don't give a shid about us but you guys are asking us to care about them..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
I understand you dilemma about the bank being unfair etc......This is a bit different, but the same principle.My wife goes to emergency room,...get a dr. bill for 1400.00.EVERYBODY say's you gotta pay...I say to dr. Kiss my a--, if I gave a client a bill pumped up like that he'd hit me with a law suite.Morally right? Morally wrong? Is in the eyes of the beholder. All I gotta say is good luck however you decide.....and I hope your old enough like me to not any longer give a damn about your credit.
>> lost substantial value in our homes due to the lending practices of the very banks we're obligated to pay
I haven't followed all of your story, and I know it's a long one.... but this statement strikes me as pure BS. You made a choice to borrow X amount of money to pay for a given house. It's entirely your responsibility. It does not matter that banks loaned money using loose standards, and that homeowners and speculators ran up the price of property. It happened everywhere, it happened here, and I could see that prices were too high and I haven't bought in a while... but I will soon.
Your whining is really distasteful and unfortunately typical. So many Americans seem to want to say that they are victims, that someone DID something to them. It's ridiculous. Walk away from your obligation if you want, but call it what it is.
My whining is not about the loan being owed. I said I'd pay it if they gave me a loan for the balance, but they won't. My whining is about the banks unwillingness to help in that manor thereby forcing us to walk away and suffer the credit hit and endure the scalding of people like you who offer no solution just ridicule.
Now I ask you, how do you propose I pay the $60K+ balance on the house assuming I (or the banks) find a buyer?
Keep in mind my daughters college is far more important to me than that vacant house in MI..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
You took out a loan. It came with a schedule of payments. If you got a variable you assumed the risk that it would go up. Why do you think banks, corporations, or the government are going to help you?
Again, all I ask is that you call it what it is. If it makes more sense to walk away, I have no problem with you fcking the bank. They took a risk too. You are all in it together. But saying someone else DID it to you is ridiculous. People in this country... they trip on the sidewalk and they say the sidewalk caused it.
The banks control the market. They caused the bubble. They make money while millions of HO's lose.
I blame them. If you don't like reading that, turn the page..
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Classic. You have no responsibility for your own decision.
I already said I'd pay the full amount if they'd loan me the balance. What more can I do besides forfeit my kids college fund?.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
Frammer52
Why not make a buisiness decision to walk away from an upside down loan? Business does it all the time!
If someone runs a business into the ground and they owe more than it's worth they declare bankruptcy and walk away with no personal responsibilty.
Ahh. Good questions you pose. My neighbor moved out. He is a great guy, honest as the day is long, just got sloppy, over mortgaged, lost accounting of his situation and cant pay the bills.
He paid everyone he owed except the mortgage company. Now he is stuck. Going into Bankruptcy and has no choice.
Sucks. He had subdivided off 2 acres that we bought to build our home. He just got caught. Didnt plan it. Did not intend it. Now at 56 years old, he has gotta start over.
I am real tight right now. Gotta sell real estate to get out of it.
Fortunately, I can drop my price to the point where it will be bought by someone if I have to because I have plenty of equity.
Working 6+ days a week but margins are down and money is not flowing as it used to.
I will work my way thru it. I can, and I will.
My neighbor could not. He didn't.
I respect his decision. He inadvertently caused it and he has got to live with it.
I mean it when I say it could not have happened to a nicer guy nor better neighbor. (Watched our house when we were away, brought in the mail, etc)
The market took a hard correction. Heck in 1929 people decided to jump out windows. The ones that lived thru it and stuck it out had a different perspective of the world after it.
The other option is a Socialist Society where we could have high unemployment, everything paid for by the government, and we all live similar lives, whether we bust our butts or do nothing.
I will work thru my tight finances in this hairy market.
Everyone will have to make the best decision they can and live or die with it.
Heard a call in lawyer show yesterday, Handle on the Law. Now it is 1/2 commedy so I would not state this as fact. And it was about CA.But the caller had an 80/20 mortgage. The bank foreclosed on the mortgage and under CA law they can't go after the HO for definicies.And while that is not the law in all other states I understand that under the current conditions few if any banks are doing that.However the 2nd lien holder is not protected by the CA law and the holdeer of that mortgage was going after the HO for their loss..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
"what happens when banks change their lending/business practices and subsidize speculation? they get the keys back!"
I agree that the changes in the lending practices are a very significant reason why the run up occurred as well as the plunge done. The banks win in both markets. They have the staying power to take back everything, then make money on it all. Their short term profits might look bad but their long term outlook is excellent, even if some will fail and get eaten up. The failed bank's assets end up in someone's portfolio and it aint the homeowner...
The new lending practices have essential stripped millions of Americans of their equity and ability to move.
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
McMahon bought the six-bedroom, five-bathroom, 7,000-square-foot house in January 1990. The mansion, which is listed at $6.25 million, is in a gated hilltop section off Mulholland Drive called The Summit. Britney Spears is among his neighbors.
Asked why a millionaire couldn't make house payments, Pamela McMahon said the couple had less money than people may think and suggested they could have done a better job managing their finances.
"We didn't keep our eye on the ball. We made mistakes," she said. "It's embarrassing to say the least, and it's sad, because you know, Ed's worked his whole entire life."
McMahon, a former pitchman for the American Family Publishers' sweepstakes and former "Star Search" host, received a $7.2 million settlement after a toxic mold spread through his house and led to the death of their dog in 2001.
With legal fees and construction costs of fixing the mold problem, the money did not go far, McMahon said.
"We had nine lawyers, they had nine lawyers," McMahon said. "By the time that's all over, and you rebuild the house from the outside in. ... A lot of things went wrong.".
thats from the yahoo story.
I kinda wonder why a 85 year old man needs 6 bedrooms and 5 baths but i can see wanting to live next door to Brittney. NOT.
At any rate my good friend sold his ocean view house last year for a million, Went to Bend OR bought a wonderfull 3 bed 3 bath 3 car garage house for 380.
Paid some taxes and owns it outright and sits in his hot tub.
Well this is a disgusting thread to say the least .
Yea it happened and its spilt milk . So much negativity.
Its still happening too. The goverment is loaning upside loans every day.
I just got out of a closing selling one where the gov loaned 103,000 to give me 90 grand .
What Id like to hear is what to do about it . Tax payers are going to go deep on this subject. Mebbe deeper than the war I dont know as neither is over yet.
I you got bit by this then your bit . Figgure out how to take the loss and move on.
You cant continue making payments loosing money. Thats gotta stop.
Make it somewhere else and pay it off or go down. Just get over it . Tomorrow is a new day and it doesnt have to be like today. Tomorrow you either look for a deal to get by it or start rebuilding credit . Watch the Rocky movies for inspiration or read some good books .
A life is a long long time of deals . You dont win them all . If you make the best decisions you can and get your money in when you have the best of it you should win most of them.
Tim
I was one who suggested that you'd be better off paying to protect your credit. I still think protecting your credit is important but I also understand that everyone's situation is different and that there are different ways to protect that credit. Sometimes it's better to dump the big note to be able to pay all the little ones.
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Yes, we are scammers and dirt bags and dead beats whatever. The banks are good upstanding businesses and would never manipulate the market or screw anyone to make a buck. Duh...
.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
No, you're a bad-bad man and should uphold your end of the deal no matter what the banks did. Screw your family and your future; the bank is more important than them.
.
.
"Thank goodness for the Democrats! If you are terminally unemployable, enjoy living off of govt welfare and feel you owe society nothing you're in luck: there is a donkey waiting for you."
You see the difference with me is I would have an attorney, I trust look over the mortgage and point out the problems.
I have never gone to a house closing without my attorney. It only cost a few dollars to have his advise. In fact I have never entered a large contract with anyone without my attorney advising me about the potential problems. Shoot, I even have my attorney look into developers, to find out if they are what they purport to be.
I had my attorney draw up a purchase agreement. He reviewed all closing documents. He handled the entire closing. Six years later, I discovered that everything about the deal was wrong. 15k later, it was solved. Another attorney told me that I had a clear cut case of attorney malpractice but the statute of limitations was expired. The lesson? Don't think that your attorney makes every piece of paper and contract foolproof. There are attorneys that don't understand anything about real estate yet they take your money and act like they are experts. To protect yourself, you have to read every detail and understand it enough to question the attorney on very specific points. That is far beyond the abilities of most common everyday Americans because everthing is written in legalese. They should outlaw legalese but it wouldn't matter. They'd write that law in legalese and leave enough loopholes to make everything pointless. The point is: the American public got jobbed. The Banks got wealthy and no one should feel guilty walking away from their notes. The banks don't mind. They are making good money on their new foreclosure business. The losses are written off against their investors but the banks are still making money every day just like they always have and always will. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
I know where you are coming from, but I now have a top notch attorney that I can trust.
Its another pair of eyes to look at things!
You top notch attorney might be a specilist in one or two areas of law. So, you are feeding yourself to the wolves when you get outside of his specialty. You are in good hands if he's got ethics and morals and actually knows other people like himself. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
He does and referes me to the proper people.
Count yer blessings. The lawyer that screwed the pooch with me was a referral by a guy that I highly respected. The lawyer that handled the "fix" was a crook too. In my life, I've dealt with far more crooks than normal people in the lawyering business but I'm all set now. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Im not getting into an arguement over your preferences. But we are here to discuss.
Ive found for me anyway Ive got into trouble trusting professionals. Just about any area. Contractors too! Lets see off the top of my head other than many contractors;
Doctors big time . One ruined me but saved my life . ??????? What can I say?
Lawyers ; I came out with 20 percent in a divorce . Best I remember Im the one that paid for everything including the divorce. Ive been used as a witness in some court cases over building . The lawyers didnt know enough about the subject to talk about it but they did anyway. Im sure I knew that . <G> So, I could just guess the other subjects they could butcher. Ive been very disgusted hearing them in courts over building . Thats all I know .
Bankers arent there to give advice and neither are RE agents. Dont look there for answers .
Most all are there for their own interrests however that gets served. They all want to cover their butt. They want to make money to take home to their house. You might be last on the list if you are there at all. Some people dont even like what they do or the people they have to deal with and show it somtimes . Those types of folks are not gonna hold my horse. I might have to hire them but Im on them as well the whole time . Thats pretty hard to do when I dont have sufficient knowledge my self .The best thing to do is learn and read all you can and not totally trust them.
If you have good friends or family that are in the same profession it helps if you are a good friend to them yourself. Im not saying your not . Im saying someone that owes me favors by me being a real friend should go out of their way for me if I ask on advice . It doesnt hurt to ask around just like we do here and pick what we think is right . Then because we dont have enough knowledge we still arent sure a lot .
In my investing business I need to know a great deal about real estate and some about banking . I need to know a lot more than I do and its not even my job , but I guess it is too. I know one thing . I shoulda just went to real estate school if I never listed anything . Its as important as building to me. Im so sick and tired of agents giving wrong answers.
Sorry , I guess I got to venting some. <G>
Tim
I will agree with you about RE agents, I wis they wouldnt say anything rather than some of the "advice" I have heard from them.
I have found that lawyers need to specialize to be any good. That is why I have used multiple attorneys over the years. I have a lawyer that is good at recomending the right person to talk to, for a price. I figure that price has been some of the best money I have ever spent!
"
I have found that lawyers need to specialize to be any good. That is why I have used multiple attorneys over the years. I have a lawyer that is good at recomending the right person to talk to, for a price. I figure that price has been some of the best money I have ever spent!
Now that sounds like a plan! Youre a step ahead of me .
Tim
Thanks tim.
With the hot potato analogy, I was thinking the same thing. I think that is what people are trying to get the government to do--bail them out long enough for the properties to become valuable again.
Bid low and put tenants in it. Theres no big secret. Look at what MSA1 i doing: finding decent rental units that can cash flow. Mooney been doing it for years. It's not that hard if you are willing to do the landlord business.
I'm not interested in that. I'd rather make money some other way.
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07