What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How's your housing market? (1 Viewer)

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.
my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.
:moneybag:
its not really the sf that makes it too small, but the bedroom design.you see some homes that are 2500 sf with 5 bedroooms, but very small and small common areas.if we want a guest bedroom, once we have our 2nd kid and they both get older, they'll each get their own room, which means no guest bedroom.do we need a guest bedroom...no. but having a casita as a guest house and man cave is always a good option...plus building one for $150 / sf and having it be valued at $300 / sf is instant equity.i guess its all relative...my former boss' house is 14k sf. o.O
big fan of the casita. :moneybag: I'm hoping for 1500 sf when i buy. really goes to show you how location means everything.
difference is in AZ this isn't my first or wive's first place. we each owned a condo. there is no way we could afford this place without already climbing a rung on the property ladder selling my wife's place and using the equity for our down payment.believe me, growing up in LA i know how there is a much higher barrier to enter owning property in SoCal.this is one reason i'll likely never move back...my quality of life and cost of living can't be matched living in SoCal.
 
Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.
my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.
casita? 700 sq. ft.?WTF?My apartment is about 850 sq. ft., 2BR. I lived in a 1BR (not studio) apartment that was under 40 sq. meters (like 400 sq. ft.). Are you using the extra room to store wheatback pennies or something?
two things you need to know:1) bagger has moolah. boatloads.2) bagger is bullish on RE. That should explain it. YWIA
1. all relative i guess...i wouldn't say boatloads and its not something i'd be doing in the next 5 years so it will be an entirely different picture then. it's definitley not something i'd be doing today, or in 2-3 years.2. long term, in AZ? of course.look, i've lived in small studios. i get it. but when you get married and look to have a house that you'll live in for 10 years all of a sudden you realize how much space you eventually will want (notice i didn't say need).could you take my footprint of my house and put in 5 bed / 3 bath and be fine? sure. i was just responding to the point of there are 3300 sf homes that only have 3 bedrooms...so your point of 8 kids is way off.personally i think our office and master is a little too big and would prefer a 3rd bedroom...but whatever.
I think this should be directed to Z. I'm not hating on your choices - if money wasn't a problem for me I'd also have/want a bigger house. Two thumbs up from me.
 
Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.
my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.
casita? 700 sq. ft.?WTF?My apartment is about 850 sq. ft., 2BR. I lived in a 1BR (not studio) apartment that was under 40 sq. meters (like 400 sq. ft.). Are you using the extra room to store wheatback pennies or something?
two things you need to know:1) bagger has moolah. boatloads.2) bagger is bullish on RE. That should explain it. YWIA
1. all relative i guess...i wouldn't say boatloads and its not something i'd be doing in the next 5 years so it will be an entirely different picture then. it's definitley not something i'd be doing today, or in 2-3 years.2. long term, in AZ? of course.look, i've lived in small studios. i get it. but when you get married and look to have a house that you'll live in for 10 years all of a sudden you realize how much space you eventually will want (notice i didn't say need).could you take my footprint of my house and put in 5 bed / 3 bath and be fine? sure. i was just responding to the point of there are 3300 sf homes that only have 3 bedrooms...so your point of 8 kids is way off.personally i think our office and master is a little too big and would prefer a 3rd bedroom...but whatever.
I think this should be directed to Z. I'm not hating on your choices - if money wasn't a problem for me I'd also have/want a bigger house. Two thumbs up from me.
oh i didn't think you were hating...just explaining.believe me, i fully understand the difference between wants and needs. my wife and i could move back into my 1100 sf condo and be fine like we lived when we were engaged.we honestly don't even use half our house now. but we'll be here for a long time and found a compelling enough buy that we wanted to stretch now and grow into it.
 
we honestly don't even use half our house now. but we'll be here for a long time and found a compelling enough buy that we wanted to stretch now and grow into it.
This is the sentiment that kills me. I'm not telling you that you CAN'T or even SHOULDN'T have a house like that. What I don't get it the DESIRE to have a house like that. (I felt like UBF typing that...)Wouldn't it be more effective financially to not buy a :mcmansion: and instead buy another property and rent it out? You are probably already doing this, so I suppose this comes down to "I have all this money and I don't know what to do with it."

 
difference is in AZ this isn't my first or wive's first place. we each owned a condo. there is no way we could afford this place without already climbing a rung on the property ladder selling my wife's place and using the equity for our down payment.
This brings up an interesting point for discussion. Not talking about you personally, but on a macro level, using the above situation as a hypothetical:What happens if/when the appreciation that was used to "move up" in house is lost in a RE correction?For example: First time home-buying couple buys 200k condo in 2002. 0 down, interest only, as was oft the case the past 5 years (and it keeps the numbers clean and easy). By 2005, home is valued at 400k. Couple has a baby on the way, so they sell and take the 200k profit, and put it down on a 600k home. Now their mortgage is 400k, on their new place.RE bubble bursts. 600k home corrects to 400k. Couple has now lost their "move up" equity that was captured at their initial sale. So I guess my question is, how does one make a move up without giving it back during the correction, w/o sitting out the correction in a rental?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
we honestly don't even use half our house now. but we'll be here for a long time and found a compelling enough buy that we wanted to stretch now and grow into it.
This is the sentiment that kills me. I'm not telling you that you CAN'T or even SHOULDN'T have a house like that. What I don't get it the DESIRE to have a house like that. (I felt like UBF typing that...)Wouldn't it be more effective financially to not buy a :mcmansion: and instead buy another property and rent it out? You are probably already doing this, so I suppose this comes down to "I have all this money and I don't know what to do with it."
I don't get it either. Seems like a waist to me but everyone is different.
 
So I guess my question is, how does one make a move up without giving it back during the correction, w/o sitting out the correction in a rental?
Is this a rhetorical question?
Apparently so. I didn't really mean it that way, although I guess on the surface it seems fairly basic.Unless I'm missing something, a lot of move up buyers who thought they were cashing out on the boom were just putting their money into a different shell. Lots of equity = ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow - talk about going from riches to rags, all in about 3 years:

Pamela Khamo, 42, began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. As the housing market heated up, so did her commissions. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. She favored downtown San Diego's new condo projects, sometimes partnering with relatives, she said. She also purchased properties in El Cajon.In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset from low “teaser” rates to higher rates – sometimes doubling her monthly payments.Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders – reeling from easy-money excesses during the boom – had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.“I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,” she said.Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.“It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,” she said.Khamo is embarrassed and said she shouldn't have bought so many properties. While she still works in real estate, she has put resumes out for jobs with a steady paycheck. “I'm looking for $40,000 or $50,000 a year to pay for health care, car insurance . . . ” she said.
 
Wow - talk about going from riches to rags, all in about 3 years:

Pamela Khamo, 42, began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. As the housing market heated up, so did her commissions. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.

Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. She favored downtown San Diego's new condo projects, sometimes partnering with relatives, she said. She also purchased properties in El Cajon.

In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.

Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset from low “teaser” rates to higher rates – sometimes doubling her monthly payments.

Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders – reeling from easy-money excesses during the boom – had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.

“I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,” she said.

Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.

“It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,” she said.

Khamo is embarrassed and said she shouldn't have bought so many properties. While she still works in real estate, she has put resumes out for jobs with a steady paycheck. “I'm looking for $40,000 or $50,000 a year to pay for health care, car insurance . . . ” she said.
BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, (gotta be black, right? Let it ride!) RED
 
So I guess my question is, how does one make a move up without giving it back during the correction, w/o sitting out the correction in a rental?
You don't. Hence the recession. For the last 5+ years the economy was artificially inflated from all that money that poured in from capital gains and HELOCs. Now that money is gone, and any discretionary income that would have otherwise gone into the economy is going straight to pay off oversized mortgages.We've suddenly become a nation of house-poor people. Millions and millions of them.
 
So I guess my question is, how does one make a move up without giving it back during the correction, w/o sitting out the correction in a rental?
You don't. Hence the recession. For the last 5+ years the economy was artificially inflated from all that money that poured in from capital gains and HELOCs. Now that money is gone, and any discretionary income that would have otherwise gone into the economy is going straight to pay off oversized mortgages.We've suddenly become a nation of house-poor people. Millions and millions of them.
And the dollar will suffer withering losses.Guess the European central banks weren't so stupid to play fast and loose with the monetary supply like the Fed. They prioritize steady growth over big explosions of growth followed by downturns.It's gonna be a LONG time until the Dollar is at parity with the Euro. I'm thinking 15 years, when the full force of the European entitlement programs come to fruition with the bulk of the postwar babies. We'll see.
 
So I guess my question is, how does one make a move up without giving it back during the correction, w/o sitting out the correction in a rental?
You don't. Hence the recession. For the last 5+ years the economy was artificially inflated from all that money that poured in from capital gains and HELOCs. Now that money is gone, and any discretionary income that would have otherwise gone into the economy is going straight to pay off oversized mortgages.We've suddenly become a nation of house-poor people. Millions and millions of them.
It will be interesting to see how our economy reacts to people's discretionary income coming from their paychecks, and not from the housing ATM that was operating from '02-'06. Especially since lots of people spent money they thought they had (home equity) which is now disappearing.
 
Raleigh NC - sold our house for 98%+ of asking in 10 days. :hifive:
Nice. How far is Charlotte from Raleigh? I have read that market is strong. Is all of NC doing well?
Charlotte is about two and a half hours away. Raleigh and Charlotte are doing better than just about anywhere. I think our buyers agent in Charlotte said something about Raleigh being the #1 sellers market in the country right now. I'm really not too sure about the rest of the state, but it seems to be doing pretty well overall.
House right across the street from us just sold in two weeks. I was pretty shocked with all the new construction competition still in the neighborhood. Seems to be doing just fine here in the CLT/Fort Mill/Rock Hill area :shrug:
Good for you Commish. I wonder if your area is an anomaly, or if it's just one of the last dominoes that haven't fallen yet?If your area didn't participate in the huge run-up from 2001-2006, you're probably safe. But I would think the new lending guidelines would be squeezing out marginal buyers everywhere, regardless of recent appreciation.Who knows?
Don't get me wrong, there are houses in our neighborhood that have been on the market over a year as well as ones like I mentioned above. The only thing I can tell you is what my experience was coming into the market. Prices of houses didn't appear to be changing much in this area and things seemed slow also. Where the "negotiating" came in was around perks such as "if you buy our house we'll pay your closing costs" etc. All those little things were up for negotiation when offers were presented. It seemed like a good angle to me :shrug: It doesn't really affect the house price but did make an impact on our bottom line which was good for us.
 
Wow - talk about going from riches to rags, all in about 3 years:

Pamela Khamo, 42, began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. As the housing market heated up, so did her commissions. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.

Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. She favored downtown San Diego's new condo projects, sometimes partnering with relatives, she said. She also purchased properties in El Cajon.

In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.

Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset from low “teaser” rates to higher rates – sometimes doubling her monthly payments.

Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders – reeling from easy-money excesses during the boom – had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.

“I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,” she said.

Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.

“It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,” she said.

Khamo is embarrassed and said she shouldn't have bought so many properties. While she still works in real estate, she has put resumes out for jobs with a steady paycheck. “I'm looking for $40,000 or $50,000 a year to pay for health care, car insurance . . . ” she said.
BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, (gotta be black, right? Let it ride!) RED
LOL. I don't feel bad for this woman at all.
 
we honestly don't even use half our house now. but we'll be here for a long time and found a compelling enough buy that we wanted to stretch now and grow into it.
This is the sentiment that kills me. I'm not telling you that you CAN'T or even SHOULDN'T have a house like that. What I don't get it the DESIRE to have a house like that. (I felt like UBF typing that...)Wouldn't it be more effective financially to not buy a :mcmansion: and instead buy another property and rent it out? You are probably already doing this, so I suppose this comes down to "I have all this money and I don't know what to do with it."
effective financially? maybe, although rentals have their own risks.it comes down to buying a place we want to live in for 10 years and as we'll be having kids within that time period buying a house that you'll grow out of too soon has its own costs.

we took the approach of getting as much sf at a good deal as we could knowing that in the long run that will appreciate. more sf appreciating = more equity. you then have the added benefit of living in a house you love so it is also a quality of life issue.

i could do a lot of things in my life that would be more financially effective. i think everyone could. but you need to balance that with quality of life.

this was a balance that made sense for us.

 
difference is in AZ this isn't my first or wive's first place. we each owned a condo. there is no way we could afford this place without already climbing a rung on the property ladder selling my wife's place and using the equity for our down payment.
This brings up an interesting point for discussion. Not talking about you personally, but on a macro level, using the above situation as a hypothetical:What happens if/when the appreciation that was used to "move up" in house is lost in a RE correction?For example: First time home-buying couple buys 200k condo in 2002. 0 down, interest only, as was oft the case the past 5 years (and it keeps the numbers clean and easy). By 2005, home is valued at 400k. Couple has a baby on the way, so they sell and take the 200k profit, and put it down on a 600k home. Now their mortgage is 400k, on their new place.RE bubble bursts. 600k home corrects to 400k. Couple has now lost their "move up" equity that was captured at their initial sale. So I guess my question is, how does one make a move up without giving it back during the correction, w/o sitting out the correction in a rental?
in this example, as long as you can afford your monthly payment and are not forced to move...who cares.maybe that means they're not moving up again for a very long time, if ever again. but the key is always affordability of the payment in my mind.
 
we honestly don't even use half our house now. but we'll be here for a long time and found a compelling enough buy that we wanted to stretch now and grow into it.
This is the sentiment that kills me. I'm not telling you that you CAN'T or even SHOULDN'T have a house like that. What I don't get it the DESIRE to have a house like that. (I felt like UBF typing that...)Wouldn't it be more effective financially to not buy a :mcmansion: and instead buy another property and rent it out? You are probably already doing this, so I suppose this comes down to "I have all this money and I don't know what to do with it."
effective financially? maybe, although rentals have their own risks.it comes down to buying a place we want to live in for 10 years and as we'll be having kids within that time period buying a house that you'll grow out of too soon has its own costs.

we took the approach of getting as much sf at a good deal as we could knowing that in the long run that will appreciate. more sf appreciating = more equity. you then have the added benefit of living in a house you love so it is also a quality of life issue.



i could do a lot of things in my life that would be more financially effective. i think everyone could. but you need to balance that with quality of life.

this was a balance that made sense for us.
:goodposting: I often disagree with bagger with re: to RE, but I agree with this approach 100%.
 
Wow - talk about going from riches to rags, all in about 3 years:

Pamela Khamo, 42, began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. As the housing market heated up, so did her commissions. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. She favored downtown San Diego's new condo projects, sometimes partnering with relatives, she said. She also purchased properties in El Cajon.In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset from low “teaser” rates to higher rates – sometimes doubling her monthly payments.Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders – reeling from easy-money excesses during the boom – had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.“I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,” she said.Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.“It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,” she said.Khamo is embarrassed and said she shouldn't have bought so many properties. While she still works in real estate, she has put resumes out for jobs with a steady paycheck. “I'm looking for $40,000 or $50,000 a year to pay for health care, car insurance . . . ” she said.
that's nothing. my former boss, now current client was worth $500M in 2005. he will be declaring bankruptcy this year.lots of millionaires losing everything right now who made their fortunes during the r/e bust of the early 90s. now there's a lot of new people coming in who will become millionaires off of these misfortunes. the question is whether these new people will be more conservative near the peak and bank their cash or reinvest all the way through the cycle losing everything.investments are so different than personal residences. investments in r/e you do need to time the market unless you're in a cash flowing rental. personal residences you just need to get into a place you can afford and ride the roller coaster as you'll go through 4-5 of these cycles in your adult home owning life.
 
we honestly don't even use half our house now. but we'll be here for a long time and found a compelling enough buy that we wanted to stretch now and grow into it.
This is the sentiment that kills me. I'm not telling you that you CAN'T or even SHOULDN'T have a house like that. What I don't get it the DESIRE to have a house like that. (I felt like UBF typing that...)Wouldn't it be more effective financially to not buy a :mcmansion: and instead buy another property and rent it out? You are probably already doing this, so I suppose this comes down to "I have all this money and I don't know what to do with it."
effective financially? maybe, although rentals have their own risks.it comes down to buying a place we want to live in for 10 years and as we'll be having kids within that time period buying a house that you'll grow out of too soon has its own costs.

we took the approach of getting as much sf at a good deal as we could knowing that in the long run that will appreciate. more sf appreciating = more equity. you then have the added benefit of living in a house you love so it is also a quality of life issue.

i could do a lot of things in my life that would be more financially effective. i think everyone could. but you need to balance that with quality of life.

this was a balance that made sense for us.
I think that's a solid approach to life, and I think you're spot on in your analysis. Obviously you and I don't share the same priorities on things. More square footage would simply stress me out. I'd much rather move to a more desirable part of town instead of moving up in size.
 
Wow - talk about going from riches to rags, all in about 3 years:

Pamela Khamo, 42, began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. As the housing market heated up, so did her commissions. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. She favored downtown San Diego's new condo projects, sometimes partnering with relatives, she said. She also purchased properties in El Cajon.In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset from low “teaser” rates to higher rates – sometimes doubling her monthly payments.Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders – reeling from easy-money excesses during the boom – had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.“I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,” she said.Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.“It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,” she said.Khamo is embarrassed and said she shouldn't have bought so many properties. While she still works in real estate, she has put resumes out for jobs with a steady paycheck. “I'm looking for $40,000 or $50,000 a year to pay for health care, car insurance . . . ” she said.
that's nothing. my former boss, now current client was worth $500M in 2005. he will be declaring bankruptcy this year.lots of millionaires losing everything right now who made their fortunes during the r/e bust of the early 90s. now there's a lot of new people coming in who will become millionaires off of these misfortunes. the question is whether these new people will be more conservative near the peak and bank their cash or reinvest all the way through the cycle losing everything.
Why do you think these guys lost so much? How did folks vested so heavily in the market not see the correction coming? Obviously they're crazy intelligent or else they wouldn't have been so successful early in the bubble. Do you think these guys got greedy, or lazy, or both?
investments are so different than personal residences. investments in r/e you do need to time the market unless you're in a cash flowing rental. personal residences you just need to get into a place you can afford and ride the roller coaster as you'll go through 4-5 of these cycles in your adult home owning life.
yeah, but most people's personal residence is the biggest investment they'll make in their entire lives. buying at the top of a bubble can wipe out years/decades of that investment. if you were to evaluate the ROI of buyers who buy the exact same property who bought at two different times (2006 vs. 2009), by 2020, you'll see a huge difference, in my opinion.losing 20-50% of equity in one's personal residence is nothing to sneeze at bagger, especially if you're making payments on that lost equity.
 
The set of people that were fist time homeowners during the price peak are the ones hurting the most here. Even if they are in solid financial shape it could be years before these people are not upside down on their mortgage. Coupled with ARM resets, this could cripple them financially for a while.

Some Gen Xers (now 35-45) made out like bandits, some Gen Xers are gonna get hurt. Most of Gen Y (25-35) will get hurt in this unless they didn't buy property in the last 8 years.

Most of the Boomers are gonna do just fine (as usual) and will come out of this OK with most of their retirement $$ in tact. Their children will be feeling the hurt form their financial decisions (personal and governmental) for years to come.

:bitter:

At least I didn't have enough money to even think about buying a place.

 
Wow - talk about going from riches to rags, all in about 3 years:

Pamela Khamo, 42, began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. As the housing market heated up, so did her commissions. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. She favored downtown San Diego's new condo projects, sometimes partnering with relatives, she said. She also purchased properties in El Cajon.In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset from low “teaser” rates to higher rates – sometimes doubling her monthly payments.Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders – reeling from easy-money excesses during the boom – had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.“I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,” she said.Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.“It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,” she said.Khamo is embarrassed and said she shouldn't have bought so many properties. While she still works in real estate, she has put resumes out for jobs with a steady paycheck. “I'm looking for $40,000 or $50,000 a year to pay for health care, car insurance . . . ” she said.
that's nothing. my former boss, now current client was worth $500M in 2005. he will be declaring bankruptcy this year.lots of millionaires losing everything right now who made their fortunes during the r/e bust of the early 90s. now there's a lot of new people coming in who will become millionaires off of these misfortunes. the question is whether these new people will be more conservative near the peak and bank their cash or reinvest all the way through the cycle losing everything.
Why do you think these guys lost so much? How did folks vested so heavily in the market not see the correction coming? Obviously they're crazy intelligent or else they wouldn't have been so successful early in the bubble. Do you think these guys got greedy, or lazy, or both?
investments are so different than personal residences. investments in r/e you do need to time the market unless you're in a cash flowing rental. personal residences you just need to get into a place you can afford and ride the roller coaster as you'll go through 4-5 of these cycles in your adult home owning life.
yeah, but most people's personal residence is the biggest investment they'll make in their entire lives. buying at the top of a bubble can wipe out years/decades of that investment. if you were to evaluate the ROI of buyers who buy the exact same property who bought at two different times (2006 vs. 2009), by 2020, you'll see a huge difference, in my opinion.losing 20-50% of equity in one's personal residence is nothing to sneeze at bagger, especially if you're making payments on that lost equity.
Maybe I am different but I just see ones home as what it is (a home that you pay to live in). Any price appreciation is gravy and it is not an investment.
 
tommyGunZ said:
Why do you think these guys lost so much? How did folks vested so heavily in the market not see the correction coming? Obviously they're crazy intelligent or else they wouldn't have been so successful early in the bubble. Do you think these guys got greedy, or lazy, or both?
I don't think there's a more accurate answer than "greed". They could have cashed out, made a nice profit, and secured their assets. They could have been conservative with their investments -- a little in real estate, a little in CDs, etc. But no. They went right back to the same well that gave them the maximum profit in the first place.My co-worker invested his life savings -- including his 401k -- into a real estate venture. His thinking was that the houses would make more than a silly little 401k would make. He'll be filing for bankruptcy later this year. It's easy to call him naive, but his business partner was a longtime real estate investor who lost $5 million on the deal.
 
Redwes25 said:
Maybe I am different but I just see ones home as what it is (a home that you pay to live in). Any price appreciation is gravy and it is not an investment.
In a normal, stable market, I agree that this is the idea. Would you still feel the same way if you were a 1st time homebuyer in '06 who paid 300k for a home that is now worth 200k? In the long run, if you don't lose your job, move, or outgrow the house, you just have to ride it out for the long haul. But you're essentially chained to your house.
 
Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.
No one needs it. But more sf = more prestige = more perceived value = more resale value. In theory. :goodposting: Five years from now these 3000+ sf behemoths will be the equivalent of V8 gas guzzlers from the '70s. Everyone will want compact houses with high energy ratings.
This makes no sense. Will people try to get more energy efficient? Yes. Will solar likely take off? Yes (matter of fact saw a guy selling solar in a booth at Costco for the first time this week). Will construction get more green? Absolutely. But comparing a complete depreciatiating asset like a car to a long term appreciating asset like real estate is apples and oranges. Everyone will want compact houses? Really? I don't think so.
This guy knows stuff. Last week 3 of us at work compared our electric bills and when we factored in the square footage the results were surprising:1800 sq/ft - $315 - .175 cents per sq/ft

2460 sq/ft - $330 - .134 cents per sq/ft (newest house)

3200 sq/ft - $285 - .085 cents per sq/ft (oldest house of the bunch)

I was shocked to see that the largest house and oldest house of the bunch was actually the cheapest to cool. All told, in Texas energy efficiency basically boils down to energy efficient windows (or lack of windows) and shade from mature trees.
This shouldn't be a surprise as a smaller house will have a higher percentage of the square footage dedicated to energy-draining fixtures. This is also why smaller homes historically have a higher price per square foot than larger homes (assuming comparable neighborhoods, quality of finishes, etc.).
 
tommyGunZ said:
bagger said:
tommyGunZ said:
Wow - talk about going from riches to rags, all in about 3 years:

Pamela Khamo, 42, began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. As the housing market heated up, so did her commissions. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. She favored downtown San Diego's new condo projects, sometimes partnering with relatives, she said. She also purchased properties in El Cajon.In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset from low “teaser” rates to higher rates – sometimes doubling her monthly payments.Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders – reeling from easy-money excesses during the boom – had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.“I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,” she said.Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.“It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,” she said.Khamo is embarrassed and said she shouldn't have bought so many properties. While she still works in real estate, she has put resumes out for jobs with a steady paycheck. “I'm looking for $40,000 or $50,000 a year to pay for health care, car insurance . . . ” she said.
that's nothing. my former boss, now current client was worth $500M in 2005. he will be declaring bankruptcy this year.lots of millionaires losing everything right now who made their fortunes during the r/e bust of the early 90s. now there's a lot of new people coming in who will become millionaires off of these misfortunes. the question is whether these new people will be more conservative near the peak and bank their cash or reinvest all the way through the cycle losing everything.
Why do you think these guys lost so much? How did folks vested so heavily in the market not see the correction coming? Obviously they're crazy intelligent or else they wouldn't have been so successful early in the bubble. Do you think these guys got greedy, or lazy, or both?
investments are so different than personal residences. investments in r/e you do need to time the market unless you're in a cash flowing rental. personal residences you just need to get into a place you can afford and ride the roller coaster as you'll go through 4-5 of these cycles in your adult home owning life.
yeah, but most people's personal residence is the biggest investment they'll make in their entire lives. buying at the top of a bubble can wipe out years/decades of that investment. if you were to evaluate the ROI of buyers who buy the exact same property who bought at two different times (2006 vs. 2009), by 2020, you'll see a huge difference, in my opinion.losing 20-50% of equity in one's personal residence is nothing to sneeze at bagger, especially if you're making payments on that lost equity.
a lot of people made all their money in r/e, thought they were smarter than others, had huge egos, were greedy, lost focus on risk mitigation, and thought that they could out maneuver the market. the majority also have a horrible understanding of capital markets and think that the availability of capital will always be there throughout all cycles.bottom line, most people that had a huge runup and lost it all hadn't gone through a cycle with their own money before. some may have done it with public companies, but it is a completely different beast when its your own money and liquidity is finite.on to your second point, you're right a loss of 20%-50% of equity is nothing to sneeze at. people that overpaid near the peak in temecula or other fringe areas in overheated r/e markets may be better off walking away from their home especially if they're in poor mortgages or have realized the area they are in is not a desirable long term area to live. there's no doubt that people that got sucked in at the peak are in a world of hurt, however in 10 years many will have likely recouped all of their losses and made a solid return their investment even from their horrendous initial basis, as long as you're in a fundamentally strong market like the sun belt or so cal.there's a mantra in r/e that you make your money on the buy, not on the sale, and is something i strongly believe in. you're right someone that buys in 2009 will do much much better than someone who bought in 2006. however, if that person who bought in 2006 can make the payments and love living in their home over the long run they will have significant equity in their house.my parents bought their home in 1978 in SoCal and still live in it. bought it for $90k, it is now worth in today's market of around $800k (down from $1.1M around the 2006 peak).this is the long run i am talking about.you're obviously doing your homework, more than most people do, so i think when you decide to buy you'll be in at a good basis.
 
Redwes25 said:
Maybe I am different but I just see ones home as what it is (a home that you pay to live in). Any price appreciation is gravy and it is not an investment.
In a normal, stable market, I agree that this is the idea. Would you still feel the same way if you were a 1st time homebuyer in '06 who paid 300k for a home that is now worth 200k? In the long run, if you don't lose your job, move, or outgrow the house, you just have to ride it out for the long haul. But you're essentially chained to your house.
I think that is just the way I look at a home purchase. If my house lost a 1/3 of its value I would be pissed but luckily that has not happened to me though I am fairly new home buyer. Though when I bought I did spend time comparing it to rents in the neighborhood and plan to stay for at least 5 years.
 
a lot of people made all their money in r/e, thought they were smarter than others, had huge egos, were greedy, lost focus on risk mitigation, and thought that they could out maneuver the market. the majority also have a horrible understanding of capital markets and think that the availability of capital will always be there throughout all cycles.bottom line, most people that had a huge runup and lost it all hadn't gone through a cycle with their own money before. some may have done it with public companies, but it is a completely different beast when its your own money and liquidity is finite.on to your second point, you're right a loss of 20%-50% of equity is nothing to sneeze at. people that overpaid near the peak in temecula or other fringe areas in overheated r/e markets may be better off walking away from their home especially if they're in poor mortgages or have realized the area they are in is not a desirable long term area to live. there's no doubt that people that got sucked in at the peak are in a world of hurt, however in 10 years many will have likely recouped all of their losses and made a solid return their investment even from their horrendous initial basis, as long as you're in a fundamentally strong market like the sun belt or so cal.there's a mantra in r/e that you make your money on the buy, not on the sale, and is something i strongly believe in. you're right someone that buys in 2009 will do much much better than someone who bought in 2006. however, if that person who bought in 2006 can make the payments and love living in their home over the long run they will have significant equity in their house.my parents bought their home in 1978 in SoCal and still live in it. bought it for $90k, it is now worth in today's market of around $800k (down from $1.1M around the 2006 peak).this is the long run i am talking about.you're obviously doing your homework, more than most people do, so i think when you decide to buy you'll be in at a good basis.
I certainly hope you are right. I think we disagree as to the size and reprecussions of the current bubble - this is way bigger than anything we've ever seen before, so IMO this won't be a "10 years we'll all be playing with funny money" type scenerio. I think 10 years from now we'll still be struggling to get back to 2006 prices. But who knows.
 
a lot of people made all their money in r/e, thought they were smarter than others, had huge egos, were greedy, lost focus on risk mitigation, and thought that they could out maneuver the market. the majority also have a horrible understanding of capital markets and think that the availability of capital will always be there throughout all cycles.bottom line, most people that had a huge runup and lost it all hadn't gone through a cycle with their own money before. some may have done it with public companies, but it is a completely different beast when its your own money and liquidity is finite.on to your second point, you're right a loss of 20%-50% of equity is nothing to sneeze at. people that overpaid near the peak in temecula or other fringe areas in overheated r/e markets may be better off walking away from their home especially if they're in poor mortgages or have realized the area they are in is not a desirable long term area to live. there's no doubt that people that got sucked in at the peak are in a world of hurt, however in 10 years many will have likely recouped all of their losses and made a solid return their investment even from their horrendous initial basis, as long as you're in a fundamentally strong market like the sun belt or so cal.there's a mantra in r/e that you make your money on the buy, not on the sale, and is something i strongly believe in. you're right someone that buys in 2009 will do much much better than someone who bought in 2006. however, if that person who bought in 2006 can make the payments and love living in their home over the long run they will have significant equity in their house.my parents bought their home in 1978 in SoCal and still live in it. bought it for $90k, it is now worth in today's market of around $800k (down from $1.1M around the 2006 peak).this is the long run i am talking about.you're obviously doing your homework, more than most people do, so i think when you decide to buy you'll be in at a good basis.
I certainly hope you are right. I think we disagree as to the size and reprecussions of the current bubble - this is way bigger than anything we've ever seen before, so IMO this won't be a "10 years we'll all be playing with funny money" type scenerio. I think 10 years from now we'll still be struggling to get back to 2006 prices. But who knows.
Once Obama is prez we'll be back to 2006 prices within 45...make that 53 days if he decides to end global warming first.
 
Current San Diego decline from peak: 30.1%

Here's a chart of price declines across California: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1680/ca...ne200806kp3.png

Some of those price drops look surreal. Over 50% in less than one year in some regions. On the bright side, CA sales were up 17.5 per cent YOY.
Got anything broken down by county or ZIP for CA? I would speculate that there's a few counties and more than a few ZIPs that aren't relaly getting hit very hard or at all.
 
Just getting done picking out a condo in Brickell which is essentially downtown Miami on the River. We looked and we see lots of building that have eithe rbeen completed in the last 12 months or are nto done yet...thousands and thousands of units. Most are priced starting in the $300s as these are high rise luxury buildings.

We are renting one of these fine units down there for a whopping $1,400 but that is about $500 less a month than what similar units were renting for over a year ago. I think the bottom has not been reached yet here in miami, and even when it does I think it will remain down for at least 18-24 months even right after the bottom is found. One good thing is there are no more bad loans being injected into the system...whatever is there is there and won't be seeing a lot of new suspect loans injected into the system.

 
Current San Diego decline from peak: 30.1%

Here's a chart of price declines across California: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1680/ca...ne200806kp3.png

Some of those price drops look surreal. Over 50% in less than one year in some regions. On the bright side, CA sales were up 17.5 per cent YOY.
Got anything broken down by county or ZIP for CA? I would speculate that there's a few counties and more than a few ZIPs that aren't relaly getting hit very hard or at all.
Sorry, this is all I have. It's a breakdown of California Association of Realtors data taken from a blog.From the CAR's May report I see the following:

Statewide, the 10 cities with the greatest median home price increases in May 2008 compared with the same period a year ago were: Sonoma, 61 percent; Cupertino, 16.7 percent; Mill Valley, 14.6 percent; Los Gatos, 10.2 percent; Sunnyvale, 4.7 percent; Fullerton, 3 percent; Burlingame, 2.1 percent; Santa Barbara, 2 percent; Los Altos, 1.8 percent; Folsom, 0.5 percent.
Don't know how that compares to the peak prices in those regions.
 
Current San Diego decline from peak: 30.1%

Here's a chart of price declines across California: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1680/ca...ne200806kp3.png

Some of those price drops look surreal. Over 50% in less than one year in some regions. On the bright side, CA sales were up 17.5 per cent YOY.
Just curious, where did you get your sales figures from? The realtor associations keep saying sales are way up year-over-year, except they only look at pending sales instead of deals that actually close. Closed deals in Orange County have been lower every month (year-over-year) for 31 straight months.
 
Current San Diego decline from peak: 30.1%

Here's a chart of price declines across California: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1680/ca...ne200806kp3.png

Some of those price drops look surreal. Over 50% in less than one year in some regions. On the bright side, CA sales were up 17.5 per cent YOY.
Just curious, where did you get your sales figures from? The realtor associations keep saying sales are way up year-over-year, except they only look at pending sales instead of deals that actually close. Closed deals in Orange County have been lower every month (year-over-year) for 31 straight months.
It's from the CAR report as well, I believe. It's third hand info at best coming from me. Interesting, but absolutely unsurprising, to hear they are distorting that information.
Home sales increased 17.5 percent in June in California compared with the same period a year ago, while the median price of an existing home fell 37.7 percent, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) reported today.
 
Perhaps this article lends some insight into the "increased" sales numbers?

Housing Inventory Eases, But No Recovery In Sight

Andrew Jeffery Jul 29, 2008 3:15 pm

Another month, another attempt to use a single data point to foretell the bottom in the housing market.

On the same day the Case Shiller Home Price Index reported the fastest drop in home prices on record (again), the Wall Street Journal released analysis indicating beaten down markets are beginning to work through inventory overhangs.

Shrinking supply in the most troubled markets is likely a blip, however, as volatile trading in distressed assets is driving the real estate market in these areas.

According to the Journal, metro areas like Sacramento, California, Denver, San Diego and Las Vegas actually reported a decline in housing inventory from a year earlier. Supply is still well above historical averages but, the report argues, if this trend continues it could usher in the end to the real estate slump.

But in cities like Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Charlotte, North Carolina and New York, where home price declines are just beginning, the backlog of unsold homes is piling up. Supply in New York and Portland is up 31% and 28% respectively. Stagnant prices and swelling inventory are signs of a market that's about to crack.

Even in markets poised for a correction, real estate brokers desperate for sales commissions are frantically pounding the table, calling this the buying opportunity of a lifetime.

Meanwhile, back in a world still loosely based on reality, easing inventory is a result of changing market dynamics, not an imminent bottom.

First, in troubled areas like California’s Central Valley and Inland Empire, (east of Los Angeles) Phoenix and Las Vegas, foreclosure and other distressed sales account for almost half the total transactions. As vulture funds and other investors swoop in to purchase delinquent mortgages and abandoned houses, such opportunistic buying has reduced inventory.

Small boutique investment firms, big hedge funds and Investment banks like Lehman Brothers (LEH), Goldman Sachs (GS) and Merrill Lynch (MER) are driving these markets. Some are buying foreclosed homes en masse, while others are snapping up delinquent mortgage at a deep discount. As the new owner of the loan tries to sort things out with the borrower, homes previously for sale come off the market.

The majority of these properties, however, will just end up for sale again: Almost half the delinquent mortgages traded in this market ultimately end up in foreclosure. Investment banks and hedge funds aren’t in the business of owning portfolios of residential real estate, so in a few months they’ll start punting homes at further discounted prices.

Second, year-over-year comparisons for real estate and mortgage data are about to get a lot easier. Think back to the beginning of the credit crunch last summer - the mortgage market all but shut down. Real estate transactions ground to a halt, inventory spiked and price declines began to accelerate.

For as bad as the real estate market is today -- and while prices have certainly come down -- activity last year around this time was even worse.

In the next few months, new calls for a bottom will ring out. But given that so-called experts have been calling for a bottom since, well, the top, Minyans would be wise to continue to wait patiently for real signs this has occurred.
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/LEH-ME...e/index/a/18267
 
excellent piece drpill.

It's really been a learning experience for me, reading every housing article in the local papers for the past few years. It blows my mind how journalists repeatedly include quotes from realtors in their articles and characterize them more as "RE experts" without the disclaimer that their cheerleading is because they actually have an interest in the market.

 
The other shoe is still left to drop...

Link

The New York Times

August 4, 2008

Housing Lenders Fear Bigger Wave of Loan Defaults

By VIKAS BAJAJ

The first wave of Americans to default on their home mortgages appears to be cresting, but a second, far larger one is quickly building.

Homeowners with good credit are falling behind on their payments in growing numbers, even as the problems with mortgages made to people with weak, or subprime, credit are showing their first, tentative signs of leveling off after two years of spiraling defaults.

The percentage of mortgages in arrears in the category of loans one rung above subprime, so-called alternative-A mortgages, quadrupled to 12 percent in April from a year earlier. Delinquencies among prime loans, which account for most of the $12 trillion market, doubled to 2.7 percent in that time.

The mortgage troubles have been exacerbated by an economy that is still struggling. Reports last week showed another drop in home prices, slower-than-expected economic growth and a huge loss at General Motors. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate in July climbed to a four-year high.

While it is difficult to draw precise parallels among various segments of the mortgage market, the arc of the crisis in subprime loans suggests that the problems in the broader market may not peak for another year or two, analysts said.

Defaults are likely to accelerate because many homeowners’ monthly payments are rising rapidly. The higher bills come as home prices continue to decline and banks tighten their lending standards, making it harder for people to refinance loans or sell their homes. Of particular concern are “alt-A” loans, many of which were made to people with good credit scores without proof of their income or assets.

“Subprime was the tip of the iceberg,” said Thomas H. Atteberry, president of First Pacific Advisors, a investment firm in Los Angeles that trades mortgage securities. “Prime will be far bigger in its impact.”

In a conference call with analysts last month, James Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said he expected losses on prime loans at his bank to triple in the coming months and described the outlook for them as “terrible.”

Delinquencies on mortgages tend to peak three to five years after loans are made, said Mark Fleming, the chief economist at First American CoreLogic, a research firm. Not surprisingly, subprime loans from 2005 appear closer to the end of defaults than those made in 2007, for which default rates continue to rise steeply.

“We will hit those points in a few years, and that will help in many ways,” Mr. Fleming said, referring to the loans made later in the housing boom. “We just have to survive through this part of the cycle.”

Data on securities backed by subprime mortgages show that 8.41 percent of loans from 2005 were delinquent by 90 days or more or in foreclosure in June, up from 8.35 percent in May, according to CreditSights, a research firm with offices in New York and London. By contrast, 16.6 percent of 2007 loans were troubled in June, up from 15.8 percent.

Some of that reflects basic math. Over the years, some loans will be paid off as homeowners sell or refinance, and some homes will be foreclosed upon and sold. That reduces the number of loans from those earlier years that could default. Also, since the credit market seized up last year, lenders have become much more conservative and have stopped making most subprime loans and cut back on many other popular mortgages.

The resetting of rates on adjustable mortgages, which was a big fear of many analysts in 2006 and 2007, has become less problematic because the short-term interest rates to which many of those loans are tied have fallen significantly as the Federal Reserve has lowered rates. The recent federal tax rebates and efforts to modify more loans have also helped somewhat, analysts say.

What will sting borrowers more than rising interest rates, analysts say, is having to pay interest and principal every month after spending several years paying only interest or sometimes even less than that. Such loan terms were popular during the boom with alt-A and prime borrowers and appeared appealing while home prices were rising and interest rates were low.

But now, some borrowers could see their payments jump 50 percent or more, and they may not be able to sell their properties for as much as they owe.

Prime and alt-A borrowers typically had a five- or seven-year grace period before payments toward principal were required. By contrast, subprime loans had a two-to-three-year introductory period. That difference partly explains the lag in delinquencies between the two types of loans, said David Watts, an analyst with CreditSights.

“More delinquencies look like they are on the horizon because so few of them have reset,” Mr. Watts said about alt-A mortgages.

The wave of foreclosures is still rising in states like California, where many homeowners turned to creative mortgages during the boom. From April to June, mortgage companies filed 121,000 notices of default in California, up nearly 7 percent from the first quarter and more than twice as many as in the second quarter of 2007, according to DataQuick, a real estate data firm based in La Jolla, Calif. The firm said the median age of the loans increased to 26 months from 16 months a year earlier.

The mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which own or guarantee nearly half of all mortgages, are trying to stem that tide. Last week, they said they would pay more to the mortgage servicing companies that they hire to modify delinquent loans and avoid foreclosures.

Delinquencies in prime and alt-A loans are particularly challenging for banks because they hold more such loans on their books than they do subprime mortgages. Downey Financial, which owns a savings bank that operates in California and Arizona, recently reported that 11.2 percent of its loans were delinquent at the end of June, a big increase from the 6.1 percent that were past due at the end of last year.

The bank’s troubles stem from its $6.2 billion portfolio of so-called option adjustable-rate mortgages, which allow borrowers to pay less than the interest owed on their mortgage in the early years. The unpaid interest is added to the principal due on the loan, so over time borrowers can owe more than the initial loan amount. Eventually, when loans grow by 10 percent or 15 percent, the borrowers are required to start paying both the interest and principal due.

Many borrowers who got these loans during the boom had good credit scores, but many of them owe more than their homes are worth. Analysts believe that many will not be able to or want to make higher payments.

“The wave on the prime side has lagged the wave on the subprime side,” said Rod Dubitsky, head of asset-backed research at Credit Suisse. “The reset of option ARM loans is a big event that will drive the timing of delinquencies.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'07-'08 price changes for the 5 regions of San Diego County from the San Union Tribune today:

Central San Diego: -25.9%East County SD: -26.9%North County Inland: -28%North County Coast: -15%South County SD: -31%
This isn't from the Nov '05 peak, this is over the last calendar year.Anyone who recently bet on SD housing, uh-oh. Don't say I didn't warn you. :bag:
tommy - pretty sure you and I are the only ones who still look at this thread.
It is interesting that many of the bulls who were regular posters in '06 and '07 have been silent.
:hophead:And rest assured, there are plenty that still follow this thread...just no longer vocal. One of the best threads here, in my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for sharing OC.

“The wave on the prime side has lagged the wave on the subprime side,” said Rod Dubitsky, head of asset-backed research at Credit Suisse. “The reset of option ARM loans is a big event that will drive the timing of delinquencies.”
EXACTLY. In SoCal, option ARMs were one of the loans of choice from '04-'06. Lots of prime borrowers with good jobs and good credit bought homes in more well-to-do neighborhoods with this vehicle.We're going to be inundated with "Alt-A" talk the next two years. This housing crisis is going to get far worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for sharing OC.

“The wave on the prime side has lagged the wave on the subprime side,” said Rod Dubitsky, head of asset-backed research at Credit Suisse. “The reset of option ARM loans is a big event that will drive the timing of delinquencies.”
EXACTLY. In SoCal, option ARMs were one of the loans of choice from '04-'06. Lots of prime borrowers with good jobs and good credit bought homes in more well-to-do neighborhoods with this vehicle.We're going to be inundated with "Alt-A" talk the next two years. This housing crisis is going to get far worse.
I'm now firmly in the TGZ boat, hoping for prices to come down so I can afford to buy a place someday.Money saved thus far = $0. Debt = $0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the WSJ: FirstFed Grapples With Fallout From Payment Option Mortgages

Like many mortgage lenders, FirstFed Financial Corp. is struggling with rising losses. ... Forty percent of its borrowers became at least 30 days delinquent after the payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages were recast. The number of foreclosed homes held by the bank doubled in the second quarter from the first quarter.

But FirstFed isn't another bank grappling with the fallout from subprime mortgages that went to less-creditworthy borrowers. ... [T]he Los Angeles bank is on the front lines of what could be the next big mortgage debacle: payment option mortgages.

It seems like Tanta and I have been writing about the coming wave of Option ARM defaults forever, but it's only been since 2005!

Barclays Capital estimates that as many as 45% of option ARMs, as they are often called, originated in 2006 and 2007 could wind up in default. Another analysis, by UBS AG, suggests that defaults on option ARMs originated in 2006 could be as high as 48%, slightly higher than its estimate for defaults on subprime loans.

The key here, for the housing market, is that the next wave of defaults will be hitting middle to upper middle class neighborhoods.
From my favorite econ/finance blog: Calculated RiskAlt-A paper is why Freddie is getting smacked around today, and why any financial institution heavily involved with Alt-A paper is going to get hammered again in the coming year, IMO.

Anyone calling a bottom in housing is insane, IMO.

 
From the WSJ: FirstFed Grapples With Fallout From Payment Option Mortgages

Like many mortgage lenders, FirstFed Financial Corp. is struggling with rising losses. ... Forty percent of its borrowers became at least 30 days delinquent after the payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages were recast. The number of foreclosed homes held by the bank doubled in the second quarter from the first quarter.

But FirstFed isn't another bank grappling with the fallout from subprime mortgages that went to less-creditworthy borrowers. ... [T]he Los Angeles bank is on the front lines of what could be the next big mortgage debacle: payment option mortgages.

It seems like Tanta and I have been writing about the coming wave of Option ARM defaults forever, but it's only been since 2005!

Barclays Capital estimates that as many as 45% of option ARMs, as they are often called, originated in 2006 and 2007 could wind up in default. Another analysis, by UBS AG, suggests that defaults on option ARMs originated in 2006 could be as high as 48%, slightly higher than its estimate for defaults on subprime loans.

The key here, for the housing market, is that the next wave of defaults will be hitting middle to upper middle class neighborhoods.
From my favorite econ/finance blog: Calculated RiskAlt-A paper is why Freddie is getting smacked around today, and why any financial institution heavily involved with Alt-A paper is going to get hammered again in the coming year, IMO.

Anyone calling a bottom in housing is insane, IMO.
Just on sentiment alone, we are not near a bottom. Some are desperate, but we need rampant desperation. I want to hear people thinking that there's no way out -- experts included -- that it's worse than anyone imagined. I still hear/see people talking about bargains and/or opportunity. That needs to stop.Being a contrarian, my interest will pique when I see the whole flock flee the market.

 
From the WSJ: FirstFed Grapples With Fallout From Payment Option Mortgages

Like many mortgage lenders, FirstFed Financial Corp. is struggling with rising losses. ... Forty percent of its borrowers became at least 30 days delinquent after the payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages were recast. The number of foreclosed homes held by the bank doubled in the second quarter from the first quarter.

But FirstFed isn't another bank grappling with the fallout from subprime mortgages that went to less-creditworthy borrowers. ... [T]he Los Angeles bank is on the front lines of what could be the next big mortgage debacle: payment option mortgages.

It seems like Tanta and I have been writing about the coming wave of Option ARM defaults forever, but it's only been since 2005!

Barclays Capital estimates that as many as 45% of option ARMs, as they are often called, originated in 2006 and 2007 could wind up in default. Another analysis, by UBS AG, suggests that defaults on option ARMs originated in 2006 could be as high as 48%, slightly higher than its estimate for defaults on subprime loans.

The key here, for the housing market, is that the next wave of defaults will be hitting middle to upper middle class neighborhoods.
From my favorite econ/finance blog: Calculated RiskAlt-A paper is why Freddie is getting smacked around today, and why any financial institution heavily involved with Alt-A paper is going to get hammered again in the coming year, IMO.

Anyone calling a bottom in housing is insane, IMO.
Just on sentiment alone, we are not near a bottom. Some are desperate, but we need rampant desperation. I want to hear people thinking that there's no way out -- experts included -- that it's worse than anyone imagined. I still hear/see people talking about bargains and/or opportunity. That needs to stop.Being a contrarian, my interest will pique when I see the whole flock flee the market.
:tinfoilhat: Just the other day a good buddy of mine was trying to talk me into buying a house in his neighborhood telling me I could flip it for a 30% profit in a few years. I just didn't have the heart to laugh in his face.

 
From the WSJ: FirstFed Grapples With Fallout From Payment Option Mortgages

Like many mortgage lenders, FirstFed Financial Corp. is struggling with rising losses. ... Forty percent of its borrowers became at least 30 days delinquent after the payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages were recast. The number of foreclosed homes held by the bank doubled in the second quarter from the first quarter.

But FirstFed isn't another bank grappling with the fallout from subprime mortgages that went to less-creditworthy borrowers. ... [T]he Los Angeles bank is on the front lines of what could be the next big mortgage debacle: payment option mortgages.

It seems like Tanta and I have been writing about the coming wave of Option ARM defaults forever, but it's only been since 2005!

Barclays Capital estimates that as many as 45% of option ARMs, as they are often called, originated in 2006 and 2007 could wind up in default. Another analysis, by UBS AG, suggests that defaults on option ARMs originated in 2006 could be as high as 48%, slightly higher than its estimate for defaults on subprime loans.

The key here, for the housing market, is that the next wave of defaults will be hitting middle to upper middle class neighborhoods.
From my favorite econ/finance blog: Calculated RiskAlt-A paper is why Freddie is getting smacked around today, and why any financial institution heavily involved with Alt-A paper is going to get hammered again in the coming year, IMO.

Anyone calling a bottom in housing is insane, IMO.
Just on sentiment alone, we are not near a bottom. Some are desperate, but we need rampant desperation. I want to hear people thinking that there's no way out -- experts included -- that it's worse than anyone imagined. I still hear/see people talking about bargains and/or opportunity. That needs to stop.Being a contrarian, my interest will pique when I see the whole flock flee the market.
Scummy Lube-It hit the nail on the head. This will be your bottom. Where no one can sell, a lot of people want to sell but are under water, and lending money is tight.
 
From the WSJ: FirstFed Grapples With Fallout From Payment Option Mortgages

Like many mortgage lenders, FirstFed Financial Corp. is struggling with rising losses. ... Forty percent of its borrowers became at least 30 days delinquent after the payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages were recast. The number of foreclosed homes held by the bank doubled in the second quarter from the first quarter.

But FirstFed isn't another bank grappling with the fallout from subprime mortgages that went to less-creditworthy borrowers. ... [T]he Los Angeles bank is on the front lines of what could be the next big mortgage debacle: payment option mortgages.

It seems like Tanta and I have been writing about the coming wave of Option ARM defaults forever, but it's only been since 2005!

Barclays Capital estimates that as many as 45% of option ARMs, as they are often called, originated in 2006 and 2007 could wind up in default. Another analysis, by UBS AG, suggests that defaults on option ARMs originated in 2006 could be as high as 48%, slightly higher than its estimate for defaults on subprime loans.

The key here, for the housing market, is that the next wave of defaults will be hitting middle to upper middle class neighborhoods.
From my favorite econ/finance blog: Calculated RiskAlt-A paper is why Freddie is getting smacked around today, and why any financial institution heavily involved with Alt-A paper is going to get hammered again in the coming year, IMO.

Anyone calling a bottom in housing is insane, IMO.
Just on sentiment alone, we are not near a bottom. Some are desperate, but we need rampant desperation. I want to hear people thinking that there's no way out -- experts included -- that it's worse than anyone imagined. I still hear/see people talking about bargains and/or opportunity. That needs to stop.Being a contrarian, my interest will pique when I see the whole flock flee the market.
Scummy Lube-It hit the nail on the head. This will be your bottom. Where no one can sell, a lot of people want to sell but are under water, and lending money is tight.
Actually, we've been at that point for a year now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top