Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterBanks seeing advantages of home short sales
Lenders might get more money, faster, than through foreclosure
STEVE MARCUS / LAS VEGAS SUN FILE
A predicted new wave of foreclosures may not arrive if lenders turn to short sales, which will require them to retrain loss mitigation workers.
Monday, Nov. 2, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Topics
Sun Coverage
A prominent real estate analyst says banks are showing more interest in working with financially pinched homeowners in the sales of their “underwater” homes by agreeing to take some of the hit themselves.
Larry Murphy, president of the real estate monitoring firm SalesTraq, says he expects 25,000 repossessions in Clark County this year, about the same as in 2008. But Murphy says he thinks banks are starting to realize it makes better financial sense to allow owners to sell homes through short sales than to repossess them.
Of the 35,742 closings through the first three quarters, 75 percent were foreclosures and only 10 percent were short sales — transactions approved by the bank in which the house is sold for less than the balance owed on the mortgage.
But Murphy says that of the 11,249 contingent sales in place of homes on the Multiple Listing Service, 71 percent are short sales and 21 percent are sales by lenders of homes that were foreclosed.
The reason banks are increasingly interested in signing off on short sales is economic: The median price of homes sold through foreclosure is $116,900, compared with $150,000 for homes sold through short sales, Murphy says.
Sidestepping foreclosure also means banks don’t lose months of mortgage payments while gaining possession of the property, and it may prevent damage to the property that is sometimes inflicted by the dislocated homeowner.
For those reasons, banks are wising up and allowing more short sales to go through, Murphy says.
“I would like to send this to every bank,” Murphy says of information about short sales. “It says that when you foreclose on a property and throw the owner out, the house sits vacant and sometimes the owner trashes it on the way out, the lawn dies and the homeowners association fees don’t get paid.”
Banks geared up their departments to handle foreclosures and now will have to do the same for short sales, Murphy says.
“The solution may not be as easy as it appears for banks to quit foreclosing on properties and start doing more short sales,” Murphy says. “It is … whether banks finally get it. It represents an opportunity and why I am not going to predict the second tsunami of foreclosures that we have been talking about the past six months. It has not materialized yet in Las Vegas.
“And if it hasn’t materialized in the worst city in the nation in the worst county and worst state in the nation, then it may not happen throughout the rest of the country.”
Dennis Smith, president of Home Builders Research, says the federal government has changed the rules for short sales, simplifying and standardizing them.
The bad news, he says, is that thousands of bank employees who have been specializing in loan modifications will have to be trained to handle short sales, which will slow the process.
Those bank workers, known as loss mitigators, are the ones who determine the price of the property. Short sales can take months to complete.
A version of this story appeared in In Business Las Vegas, a sister publication of the Sun.
Discussion: 35 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- CityCenter’s Mandarin Oriental makes Vegas debut
- As national jobless rate improves, LV sees signs of trouble
- Pacquiao-Mayweather fight on, March date likely
- Court upholds sex conviction for Las Vegas magician
- Barrick Gold to work on mine despite court ruling
- UNLV president denies reports of Livengood as new AD
- From Eva Longoria Parker to a cluster of execs, crowd takes a shine to Crystals
- Survey ranks Nevada among most unhappy states
- Rebels try to avoid the ‘trap’ at Santa Clara
- TUF 10 weigh-in: All fighters make weight, no Rampage
Blogs
Elsewhere
Dawn Gibbons' story: Nevada's first lady talks about her divorce, humiliation and fears (4 Comments)
The Kats Report
Kirk Kerkorian: CityCenter is 'simply the most amazing' Vegas project ever (3 Comments)
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Great Santa Run: Unofficial 14,595 runners would be a new record
Elsewhere
Rampage Jackson to return to UFC (3 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Superintendents want state to immediately seek Race to Top funds (1 Comment)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: The great Jennifer debate (2 Comments)
The Kats Report
From Eva Longoria Parker to a cluster of execs, crowd takes a shine to Crystals (8 Comments)
Calendar »
- 6 Sun
- 7 Mon
- 8 Tue
- 9 Wed
- 10 Thu
-
Rock 'n' Roll Marathon
The Strip | 5:30 a.m. to 11 a.m.
-
George Strait and Reba McIntire at the MGM Grand Garden Arena
MGM Grand Garden Arena | 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Randy Travis at the Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo Resort and Casino | 9:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lee Greenwood at The Orleans
The Orleans Showroom | 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
The LoneStarlets at The Golden Nugget
Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino
-
Isaias Hiram Urrabazo in "A Sunday Afternoon with Friends"
Trinity International School | 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Right from the get-go, this story is suspect.
"A prominent real estate analyst" got me excited, but then I saw you were quoting Larry Murphy, a local real estate shill who has been wrong about the housing downturn from the start.
The only reason this serial bottom-calling, buy-side pumper Murphy is "prominent" is because the Sun can't seem to find anyone else to quote who isn't similarly compromised.
Murphy's either an idiot or a liar when he says the second wave of foreclosures might not happen because the banks have smartened up about short sales. There are multiple reasons for them to drag their feet on foreclosures, not least of which is the magical hope that things will suddenly get better and valuations will come back.
Failing that, they know that if they foreclose, they have to take on all the taxes, HOA dues and upkeep fees. Since they know the "homeowner" is a stiff anyway, they see no sense in taking back the house and taking all of those fees onto their books.
Also, if they start foreclosing en masse, then all of those silent second mortgages that they are still carrying on their books at 100 percent valuation will have to be written down to ZERO. If all of the banks in the U.S. were forced to write down their second mortgages (the "20" in 80/20 loans) to their true value, most banks would be insolvent immediately.
Don't let spinners like Murphy and Dennis Smith twist what's going on into a buying opportunity. They know what's going on, but they don't want to level with the public, because if all would-be buyers knew the truth about how much lower home values are going to get in Las Vegas, they wouldn't buy.
And then shills who rely on housing sales, such as Murphy and Smith, will have to go out and get real jobs, not be "consultants" and "gurus" who get quoted by lazy stenographers/reporters.
the start of second wave of foreclosure will start when people start getting letter from lender or they start getting unemployment check it not looking good in this city in 2010 have a happy holiday
Short sales are great. In Henderson (south of 215) the only way you can buy a house is a short sale unless you have cash. It took me a year to find a rental house and the only luck I have is with the lengthy short sales.
The rest (foreclosures) get bought up before the sale sign is even up. The real estate agents aren't helpful either, as most don't reply to emails/calls when your interested.
The better plan is to get the problem loans modified and let the current homeowners stay. Most of these homeowners have steady good jobs but having problem with the upside down balooning mortgage rates. When will these companies share the stimulus money by modifying the loan principals? They will get more money by modification instead of foreclosures or short sales and will help solve the problem by eliminating or lesseing foreclosures. Foreclosure will increase the number of residents, with stable good jobs, fall into the categories of residents with bad credit ratings. It's like, they are adding more foreclosed homes in the market and at the same time, eliminating more prospective buyers by foreclosing their current homes.
No principal modifications. Period.
You gambled on buying a house in a rising market. In fact, you counted on prices continuing to climb so you could re-fi. But the market went bust. You lost. The value went down. Deal with it.
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
Anyone who buys while the value is still dropping deserves what they get.
There is no way that a reasonably intelligent person will not be able to get a home at or near the bottom of the market.
Prices will not be going up nearly as fast as they dropped. No way will the banks or the regulators let that happen.
Just propaganda from "experts" with a vested interest in what they are talking about.
Like a stock broker giving you a "hot tip".
You people who are upside down in your house need to let go of your American nightmare and let the bailout that we gave the banks go to work. You are just prolonging the nightmare by helping to keep the market artificially high due to your desperate attempts.
Walk away, accept the consequences and get a nice apartment.
judgesmales: Everytime the word "you" was used it becomes confrontational and won't solve any problem. I don't have problem with my mortgage because my house is almost paid off. My comment is a neutral suggestion that might help solve the snowballing problem of foreclosures. The "No Modification" instance is not working and not solving the problem so why don't we have an open mind and try other ways. Again, this is just a neutral observation.
All -- your basis is all wrong, even though the opinions posted are good. The reality is a high percentage of foreclosures (40% or more) are being performed by entities who can't prove they have a legal right to the properties they're taking. Yet they're taking properties by the thousands.
As local federal judge Riegle has found, the involvement of MERS alone voids out many deeds of trust, which are merely the security instruments for the obligations created entirely by the notes. And Nevada law requires those notes to be exhibited on demand after presentment. It's a house of cards waiting to be knocked down, and that's already happening across the country.
I've posted on this over and over again this year. Not going to do it here unless requested.
Hitting the bottom is a worthy goal. There can be no recovery until that happens.
The legal basis can be mitigated in a class action suit by those being sued by the lenders for loss on proceeds when the value hits the floor. Ending the flawed and illegal MERS system. Only by hitting them in the pocket will it end.
Why would anyone want to hold on to a mortgage that is 100's of thousands more than the house is worth?
If you bought your house to live in. You still have it. If you bought it as an investment, you gambled and lost.
If you were planning to retire from this investment, again you gambled and lost. Should have taken the "sure thing" at a lower yield rather than risking all.
Walking away from a mortgage still allows them to stay in their home for a while. They can take the money saved by not making their mortgage payments and use it to stimulate the economy for Christmas.
: )
judgesmales:
Good comments, especially about the 'shills' trying to pump this market. They're the type that throw a dart in the wall and draw the bullseye around it...they've been wrong every time they've been quoted!
Buying in this market is like trying to catch a falling knife...prices have a long way to go. Rent to housing ratio is still far too high and the rental market is still going DOWN...prices will be in the $70 -$74/sq ft. range as the 'bottom'...larger and higher priced homes have yet to be affected but will due to unemployment. Houses are stuck in contingent status because people are not getting the financing. They walk away from their current underwater property, then try to buy another house, therefore locking up TWO properties that make it look as the 'market is recovering'...it's just barely trudging through the quagmire and no bank is going to take a hit if they don't have to...bubbles burst and what goes up must come down...
Granted there were some people taken advantage of and that's unfortunate, but for the most part, this bubble was caused by overzealous, uneducated buyers/sellers trying to live far beyond their means. I paid cash for my homes and didn't use them for 'investments'...your home is not an investment, nor is it an ATM machine.
Quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of subsidizing those who bought the McMansions on the 'free money' that was being offered.
Some advice to the editors: Find another CREDIBLE source for these types of articles...geesh!
An idea for Barry & Harry to end the housing crisis..
Use the trillion bucks that they borrowed to strong arm the mortgage industry into..
Offering homeowners a re-finance with a 1% loan service fee for the length of the mortgage
at its inception cost ..example ..200,000 loan for 20 yrs would give the banks a payback
of 10,000 per yr. plus 2,000 loan service per yr. for 20 yrs = 12,000 mortgage payment a yr.
for 20yrs or 1,000 dollars a month = rent in Vegas ... bank recieves 240,000 payback over
20 yrs as compared to foreclosure and resale at 100,000 less foreclosure expenses.
The gov. could then treat all property that gets refinanced in this manner as a capitol gains
property where the owner is taxed long or short term capitol gains when they sell their
property or when they opt to refinance it to purchase toys ... they would need to pay the
capitol gains tax at the equity loan inception .. allow only education or medical bills as
an exception for equity loans.
The government would recoup the cost of supporting the banks in this idea with ease through
capitol gains from equity loans as people just cannot help themselves when they see some cash
on the table.
KillerB:
Nice theory, but don't depend upon this saving the foreclosure situation. You've basically pointed out the underlying flaw in this whole mess which was the selling of CDO's, which were basically bits and pieces of sliced up ownership interests in all types of mortgages by individuals, corporations and LLC's. These were eventually packaged and sold to pension plans, governments (Iceland, e.g.), and placed in other investment vehicles...
Now, it's true that you can ask for the ownership of the collateral prior to foreclosure, but you're just talking about the collateral that's in dispute. There is no dispute as to the contract to pay the debt, which the bank has in writing. So, while all the background wrangling commences (without any injunctive relief), the bank then gets a default judgment and a lien on all property to satisfy the debt obligation. So, now the homeowner has a pending foreclosure, probably a pending bankruptcy, a default judgment and liens on ALL their property, including their business property, if not properly protected. Oh, and their wages will be garnished, and they'll still be homeless...great solution...while we're at it, let's just put a stick in the spokes of the entire home buying industry while we sort this mess out. You'll see a lot of judges 'taking this under advisement', while the mess sorts itself out over the next ten years. And some magic regulation will suddenly appear that gives this MERS the 'right' to do what they've been doing all along...there's no silver bullet or silver lining in this mess, except don't spend money you don't have.
The tax law deductions, essentially, encouraged "Equity Stripping" of the alleged "Market Value" of houses.
Owners did this and blew the borrowed money on credit card bills, gambling, royalty style vacations, cars, and every other "destructive debt" endeavour they could dream up.
THAT'S what drove the economy (housing, sadly, is now 70% of the US economy - that's all we have left economy-wise, since we have nearly NO manufacturing base).
Couple that with FASB changed accounting rules, effective Jan 1, 2010, on SPE's so that in 60 days:
BANKS WON'T BE ABLE TO HIDE THEIR CDO LOSSES OFF-BALANCE SHEET NO'MORE.
Which in turn may have wee bit affect on their CAPITALIZATION REQUIREMENTS.
(Don't look now, but the lending and bad bank financial tsunami may be on its way...)
"No principal modifications. Period.
You gambled on buying a house in a rising market. In fact, you counted on prices continuing to climb so you could re-fi. But the market went bust. You lost. The value went down. Deal with it."
I wonder where you stand on the issue of corporate bankruptcies? If a company is losing money, the LLC or INC can walk away. But if a person is losing money, they can "deal with it." I find the two different standards completely incompatible. Of course, I don't know if you agree.
More to the point though, you're naive if you think the individual is the only person who took risk. The banks took risk too. They shelled out free money on with little protection. They're getting bailed out but it's the individual asked to absorb the fallout. Both took risk, but only one will be homeless with no credit rating left.
From a home-owner's perspective, there are abundant precedents to say "walk away." And most agree that that's worse than Principal Adjustments. Even if they annoy you because you think that your "word" is important or you think the re-negs negatively impact the market. No one in business would stay on a sinking ship. They would rework, restructure, or bail. Ethics went out a long time ago, Smales.
elgato -- your foundation is all wrong. There is no contract in the situations I'm referring to here -- there's only the note and the deed of trust. If these were contracts the lenders' and trustees' signatures would also be on those docs. They aren't because these are instruments controlled by centuries-old laws of negotiable instruments. We have them today as the Uniform Commercial Code, codified in all fifty states.
You'll find the silver bullet in Nevada's version of UCC 3-501 -- NRS 104.3501.
Judges are beginning to wake up all around the country. Early last month a federal judge in NYC voided a mortgage because the lender didn't give the court proof it had the legal right to the property -- check out Gretchen Morgenson's column in the NY Times, this one's called "If Lenders Say 'The Dog Ate Your Mortgage' " http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/busine...
Check out the rest of her columns on this topic since summer 2007.
Last month a Boston judge ruled both U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo's foreclosures back to 1989 are void -- they couldn't show the original notes.
As for MERS, you should pay attention. Judge Riegle threw out their claims on more than two dozen foreclosures. Both the Kansas and Arkansas Supreme Courts did the same -- MERS is a straw man and lacks standing to sue or even make a claim. Same as what Riegle found.
The sooner people wake up and tell these institutions to prove their claims or make their next call to Masto's mortgage fraud office, the sooner something resembling justice will be done.
"There is no dispute as to the contract to pay the debt, which the bank has in writing. So, while all the background wrangling commences (without any injunctive relief), the bank then gets a default judgment and a lien on all property to satisfy the debt obligation."
elgato -- a bit more on what you don't know. Nevada, like many others, is a non-judicial foreclosure state. No court necessary to take your home.
Your entire contract is the note -- read the bit under "BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY ..." followed by a uniform statement "I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the 'Note Holder.' " In that one sentence is the crux of the biscuit -- the only one entitled to receive payment is the Note Holder.
And since many banks no longer have that "in writing" -- keep in mind that means the original you signed -- the obligation disappeared with it.
Follow NRS 104.3501. Despite all the shell games and shuffles the banks and their pilot fish do, it's really that simple.
KillerB:
The promisee is still responsible for paying the NOTE, despite who 'owns' it, whether it's been assigned to one or a gazillion people as is the case in a lot of these CDO instances...
The promises to pay will trump any of your technical wrangling and creative interpretation of semantics when it comes down to it...the basis of common law, offer, acceptance, consideration...breach of contract, implied and expressed will become the foundation of the argument in law and in fact...
I promise to pay you for something and don't, I can't continue to use it...period...you can try your delay and stall tactic and quote statutes and civil procedure and UCC, etc.
And, by the way, whatever happened to good old honesty? geesh...always trying to find someone else to blame for your own problem...
Another question, how did the homeowner get the home in the first place? How can they prove THEY own it? I guess you're basically saying that without the note, NO ONE owns the house or everyone owns it? I invested in REIT's, so I might own it cause there were some CDO's there...maybe I should file a lien?!
What's on the recorded deed? A certified and filed instrument...
Your argument is specious and fallacious at best...
And, no, I don't read the borrower's notes because I pay cash for my homes...CASH IS KING...if you can't afford to pay cash for it, you can't afford it...
By the way, isn't this a story about a banks perspective on the foreclosure situation? Where are the banking sources? Basically I see the perspective of some not very credible real estate pimps and shills who have everything to gain by a positive story about this situation.
Appears to me that the sources have a Vestin, er, vested interest in this, don't you think?
Headline should read: Real Estate Promoters Want Banks to Share Pain and Assume Losses
"The promisee is still responsible for paying the NOTE, despite who 'owns' it..."
elgato -- the real law and the courts disagree with you. Look up that law -- it's all right there.
"...real estate pimps and shills..." -- you called that one right.
KillerB:
I'm going to presume you're an attorney, so with that in mind, do you not consider things as stated in law and in fact?
And, laws can change, but facts cannot...
Given the facts in these cases, these homeowners have agreed to buy the house from someone by borrowing money from another. When you borrow money, you must pay it back unless it is forgiven, or illegal (bad faith) none of which occurred in these instances.
I believe there is also a presumption that the buyer/borrower knew they had an obligation based upon their past performance in paying the mortgage. There's no denying the obligation...common sense kinda takes over...
whatever happened to honesty, integrity, accountability, decency and consideration in this society. NO ONE should be able to just walk away from their decisions/obligations just because they don't like it and feel they've been taken advantage of...if that were the case, this city would not exist...
elgato -- I'm an attorney. The law is by and for the people, it's created and enforced on our authority. Just because that priesthood called the Bar decided to restrict its practice to their members does NOT mean the rest of us can't read, think, use and comment on it.
Your recitation of the same basics over and over shows you're not interested in either the well-settled laws of negotiable instruments nor reality. None of what you said has much relevance in this context. A promise to pay is not the same as borrowing money. That Money as Debt II series on YouTube will educate you on that, starting at Part 6.
As for "...whatever happened to honesty, integrity, accountability, decency and consideration in this society" I suggest you direct that toward the real fraudsters -- those foreclosing on thousands of Nevadans without even having the legal right to do so.
elgato, y'all -- CORRECTION!! I'M **NOT** AN ATTORNEY! Bad typo! Bad, bad typo!
Sorry 'bout that. Other than that, meant every word.
KillerB, sir, you impugn my grasp on reality and common sense, with your statement "...Your recitation of the same basics over and over shows you're not interested in either the well-settled laws of negotiable instruments nor reality." This in fact is a description of exactly what YOU are doing. You are reciting the same thing over and over. You are stating law that can and probably will be changed. Well-settled is not stare decisis, nor does it mean it is set in stone. This is what appellate courts are all about...to challenge the status quo...it used to be against the law to blow your nose in a restaurant. I believe that law has been overturned. It may be the case here. Repitition of your rant against the alleged fraudsters does not make your argument any more valid than mine. I actually agree with your side...but there are always THREE sides to every story...yours, mine and the truth...I like to get all sides of the story before commenting. I've already looked at the political and economic impact of what you're proposing and there's no one who will support your argument on the scale that you're proposing...you may continue to get the one-off delays in various states, but there will be no wholesale effort. It's very noble of you however...you want me to do more research to contravene your efforts, I will accept the challenge (again not with YouTube...give me something from Lexis, and something I can Shepardize)...
You sound very knowledgeable about the process, but do some more investigation into the CDO situation, and I'll look into the MERS situation, but, please not on YouTube...I'll trust Lexis or Cornell or some other credible source, or even NPR which by the way does have a great series on the CDO debacle, starring a rather dubious character from Las Vegas...and you're speaking of fraud like it's something new around here...this whole town is a fraud...everyone pretending to be something they're not, it's all a fantasy to enjoy with discretionary income then you go back home to your wife and three kids and mow the lawn and clean the gutters...
Like I said, I agree with your basic premise of making the lender produce the note, but having investigated it, it ain't going to work...it's going to obfuscate, delay and dissemble but, in the end, someone borrowed money, and you're going to have to pay it back...period...Really, what if no one honored their markers in this town? Where would we be?
When the tide goes out, you can tell who's been swimming naked...
elgato --
"You are stating law that can and probably will be changed."
It's centuries old. Look at the origins of negotiable instruments laws, the UCC, and the Law Merchant. And the common law.
"Well-settled is not stare decisis, nor does it mean it is set in stone."
"Well-settled" IS usually what stare decisis means -- the higher courts have done the settling.
"...there's no one who will support your argument on the scale that you're proposing..."
I'm not proposing anything. I've been studying this for three months, sorted out all the noise and theories from what the REAL players say. I've posted these in various threads here.
I'm here to educate a bit, but not to convince anyone. YouTube is just a convenient place the Canadian gentleman who formulated Money as Debt posted a more understandable approach with lots of pictures. You know, for the herd.
That you use Lexis and Cornell rather than the headlines is worth respect. Don't use the first myself, VersusLaw is more my budget.
Perhaps you're a fellow meat eater. Look up 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2969, then go to http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jc2009/refer.... After you read it take a fresh look at UCC 3-501/NRS 104.3501. If you wish to take it to the next level click me, send a note.
For MERS, if Lexis allows, look up another ruling from Bufford, In re Vargas, 10/22/08, Case No. LA08-17036SB, then what the Honorable Linda Riegle ruled 3/31/09, Case No. BK-S-07-16226-LBR, In re Mitchell. She tore MERS a new one on page 7: "if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and quack like a duck, then it's not a duck."
Then perhaps we'll revisit the "show me the note/prove you have the right to my property."
About "When the tide goes out, you can tell who's been swimming naked..." -- more like when the emperor is going to parade naked, no amount of spin is gonna change that fact.
Don't be confused by my stance on no principle modifications. That doesn't mean I think homeowners must remain shackled to an underwater mortgage. By all means mail in the keys and walk away! When I said "deal with it," that's one of the options I was talking about.
I think there is plenty of blame on all sides, but there has already been too much moral hazard added to the equation by the banker bailouts, etc. If banks start doing principle writedowns for delinquent borrowers, it turns into another penalty for those have kept current on their bills.
Also, a lot of "stuff" was purchased with HELOC's and re-fi cash. SUVs, boats, etc. If the banks voluntarily chop someone's mortgage from $400,000 to $300,000 or less, they're essentially getting their Hummer or boat for free. And who do you think will eventually have to recapitalize the banks when their sorry balance sheets send them back to the gov't, hat in hand? The taxpayer, you bet. Well, I don't feel like paying for people's SUVs and other toys.
By all means, "efficient breach" of a contract works both ways. The deal was: you pay on your mortgage or the bank takes the house back. Well, the banks don't want the overvalued houses back, and that's why they're dragging their feet on default notices and follow-ups. They'd prefer people just kept paying, but that's fantasy land.
That doesn't mean the underwater homeowner can't exercise "efficient breach" as well. Businesses do it every day, and so should "the little guy." If you can't/won't perform on the loan, make the bank take the house back (they have to take it), absorb your credit-score hit and go on your way. By the time houses are worth buying again -- four or five years, maybe -- your credit will be plenty good enough to buy another house if you desire.
If things were being handled fairly, wouldn't everybody be receiving the same benefits? In other words, people who did their homework, looked at what constituted a reasonable proce and a reasonable contract, and stayed within their means, wouldn't these people be receiving the same breaks and benefits as people who acted irresponsibly and went in over their heads?
What a FREAK'N MESS !! Talk about sitting on the fence.....As much as I want to invest, I trust nothing.
There are a lot of smart and informed bloggers here but I think we need to go back to the subject of short sales versus foreclosures related to this article. The truth to it is that the banks and the realtors are the ones who benefit on short sales and the poor homeowners will only get headaches. The mighty realtor will get their regular commissions, the banks will dispose their problem properties at higher price, and the homeowners will deal with the prospective homebuyers walking all over the homes. Either way, the homeowners will lose their homes and still incur bad credit rating so there is no owner incentive on short sales.
Quit prolonging the misery.
Walk away from the overpriced home.
The banks took the bailout money, paid bonuses and have busily written off losses ever since. Some have even paid back the loans with a little profit clearing the way for year end bonuses this year. If everyone would have taken their cue and walked away then, it would have only been a year, maybe a year and a half. Now because they have held on with all hope, the banking industry has decided "Okay we'll give the idiots their short sells that they want so badly."
The fact is that until the bottom is achieved, even a short sell is still too much for the home.
The bankers make their living originating loans, they will find a way to make loans to those who are going through repossession and bankruptcy right now. And they would have figured a way to sell the huge inventory of homes.
Banks do not want to be homeowners.
destruct_mutt -- I disagree.
Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur has recommended a radical foreclosure solution from the floor of the U.S. Congress:
"So I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave."
"She criticizes the bailout's failure to protect homeowners facing foreclosure. Her advice to "squat" cleverly exploits a legal technicality within the subprimemortgage crisis. These mortgages were made, then bundled into securities and sold and resold repeatedly, by the very Wall Street banks that are now benefiting from TARP (the Troubled Asset Relief Program). The banks foreclosing on families very often can't locate the actual loan note that binds the homeowner to the bad loan. "Produce the note," Kaptur recommends those facing foreclosure demands of the banks."
Anybody got a good quote along the same lines from one of Nevada's own -- Reid? Titus? Anyone?
Let me clarify "walking away" from a mortgage. It means to stop paying and let the process, whtever that may be, begin.
Like I said above, use that mortgage money for Christmas.
: )
I never imagined I would be economically ruined in Nevada. In 2002 I invested in residential real estate, development was starting to expand after 9-11. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine my own mortgage lender perhaps among others, would help destroy my investments, writing countless loans to persons in the same area I invested, that obviously did not qualify to make mortgage payments. The resulting mass foreclosures not only erased my gains but put my loans under water. NV, lenders can sue you to recover mortgage losses if your house at foreclosure is worth less, than owed the mortgage lender. That is a good reason not to lose your house.
Tough break Rwolf, but all the signs were there showing you when the market was gonna burst.
If a lender can sue you for your house being worth less than the loan, why aren't they do that en masse? They can't as you are not responsible for the house losing value due to a declining market.
All of the signs right now show that the housing market will continue to drop till June of next year, losing around 21%. That figure is based on the president/congress not doing anything that will interfere with the recovery. Should congress allow the tax break to lapse, it will fuel further unemployment.
This city in particular is in a tough spot. Too many properties, too many lost jobs, not enough tourists or conventions. Another dire sign is that Adelson and Wynn are focusing on their foreign casino's.
"I never imagined I would be economically ruined in Nevada. In 2002 I invested in residential real estate, development was starting to expand after 9-11. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine my own mortgage lender perhaps among others, would help destroy my investments, writing countless loans to persons in the same area I invested, that obviously did not qualify to make mortgage payments. The resulting mass foreclosures not only erased my gains but put my loans under water. NV, lenders can sue you to recover mortgage losses if your house at foreclosure is worth less, than owed the mortgage lender. That is a good reason not to lose your house."
Rwolf you gambled, you lost, now live with it.
Rwolf - Really?????? .... !!!!! ......????????
Incredulous!!!!