Failed Bailouts and the Neverending Mortgage Crisis

Astute Observations

Astute Observation by awgee
2010-04-12 05:02 AM

Told ya so.

The latest principal reductions while being trumpeted as a continuation of help for the homeowner are not and not really intended as such.  Government subsidized principal reductions are a bailout of bank held CDOs and other MBS, just like every other government bailout so far.  Bailouts will not stop as long as the member banks are insolvent.

Think about it.  Who do these bailouts benefit?  Are ya starting to get it?

Astute Observation by AZDavidPhx
2010-04-12 08:08 AM

I have yet to see any plan to give house debtors a full fledged principal reduction.

The latest scam is just lipstick on pig dressed up as a principal reduction.  If you read the rules, it’s just a shell game of deferred interest.  You owe 100K on a house worth 50K so they let you pay interest on a 50K balance - you still owe the 100K. They are simply playing games with the interest that you are paying.  They then call it a principal reduction because they will write off a portion of it over X number of years.  The debtor is still paying interest to the banks and they will still have to pay the majority of it all back.  It’s nothing more than another lame gimmick to engineer some more monthly payment voodoo.  The “principal reduction” amounts to nothing more than an “interest deduction”.  By the time the house is paid off the debtor will have paid 3x the original sales price rather than 4x Whoopty Doo big time principal reduction you have there.

Astute Observation by avobserver
2010-04-12 11:30 AM

Yep. The name of the game should be called “feeding the zombies”. Most of large money center banks are insolvent and have been turned into zombies by repeated rescues (courtesy of public funds) and change in accounting rules. To keep these zombies “alive” our gov’t and Federal Reserve set up various forms of feeding traps to provide endless quantity of flesh and blood:

1.  Feeding on savers/renters thru zero rates policy. Banks pay virtually nothing on deposits and turn around making risk free money by buying treasury or gov’t guaranteed agency debt.

2.  Feeding on underwater house debtors by escalating foreclosure prevention plans aimed at squeezing out a steady stream of payments.

The whole objective from day one has always been keeping this feeding frenzy going under the false pretense of helping “people”. But zombies will remain zombies no matter how much you feed them. Look at Japan – after 20 years of non-stop feeding you can still hear that giant slurping sound everywhere.

Most politicians we voted into the office (including Obama) have chosen to sleep with zombies and perpetuate this feeding process. But you have to admire their ingenuity in coming up with ever more elaborate feeding plans to control the pace and make sure no one gets sucked dry overnight. But give it 10 – 15 years it will become obvious what this will do to the collective financial health of American middle class.

Astute Observation by cara
2010-04-12 05:27 AM

Wow, that “cozy” picture makes me clausterphobic just to look at it. Worse than Larry the Lamprey.

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2010-04-12 07:37 AM

The listing has a dozen pictures of the complex (the sign, the pool, etc.), but no pictures of the actual condo for sale.  Lovely.

Astute Observation by AZDavidPhx
2010-04-12 08:48 AM

It’s a very rare apartment I mean condo.  The last time one was available to be photographed was 1983.

Astute Observation by SoOCOwner
2010-04-12 08:06 AM

I love the candy man image.  Dare I ask: “What’s behind door #1?”

Astute Observation by AZDavidPhx
2010-04-12 08:14 AM

Seller Needs OUT, let’s make a deal.

Astute Observation by Joe
2010-04-12 08:29 AM

Astute Observation by AZDavidPhx
2010-04-12 08:36 AM

So recent distressed sales have artificially depressed the value of these units…..

This is how the realtor ( little ‘r’ ) mind doublethinks.  They absolutely refuse to publicly admit that a housing bubble existed LONG after it has become commonly accepted knowledge.

Instead, we get this nonsense about an ‘artificial’ price depression on the downswing but these Jackals were not peppering their 2005 ads with stuff like:

“Recent downgrades to lending prudence and monetary policy combined with housing pornography and irrational exhuberance have artificially inflated the values of these units”

No sir, don’t want to present any information to the patsy that could cost you a commission.  Sleaze.

Astute Observation by Serenity Now
2010-04-12 09:20 AM

I wasn’t interested in this place… at first. But I’ve gotta admit that the groovy day described in the description sold me. Where else could you hang in the courtyard, hit the pool, toast some s’mores and then chill in the spa? Monaco? .... maybe. Any of you lovely IHB ladies interested? We could hit Target afterwards.

Astute Observation by Sue in Irvine
2010-04-12 02:21 PM

Thanks for the invite Serenity Now wink

But, the next time I move it will be OUT of Irvine.

Astute Observation by tonyE
2010-04-12 08:55 PM

zip code 98011

Astute Observation by RedBear
2010-04-12 09:59 AM

IR,
Quick question off topic - have you ever written a post about how lease-to-own process works? I’ve thought you have, but can’t find the article in the library. If you have, can you direct me to the link?

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2010-04-12 11:52 AM

I have not taken on that subject. Are you specifically thinking about land installment contracts? There is a great deal of complexity in the law regarding these things, particularly concerning equity build-up in a long-term contract that is broken.

Here is a brief overview

These arrangements are not very common. Lenders generally will not permit them, so it is usually a property owned free-and-clear being sold to a tenant with no downpayment. There is much opportunity for abuse which is why the case law is complex.

Astute Observation by Cram downs
2010-04-12 10:28 AM

In order or keep alive a mortgage investment market, cram-downs can not be forced down an investor’s throat. If I had $100K to loan out to somebody to buy a home, would I loan it if I knew or thought that it can be reduced in half or whatever with the stroke of a pin?

Astute Observation by AZDavidPhx
2010-04-12 11:06 AM

The big difference is that banks do not lend out their own money like you or I would have to do.  Government allows them to counterfeit the money that enters circulation and collect interest on it by people who actually produce things for society.

The banks don’t have to worry about your scenario because the money they “loaned” was never theirs in the first place - eneter Too Big To Fail where the government chooses which institutions shall stay and which shall go rather than the free market.

The game is rigged.

Astute Observation by squareround
2010-04-12 02:39 PM

Hi, Irvine Renter,

Please help me to understand this investor (below). I makes no sense to me.

An investor just bought 5 Cipriani, irvine, ca 92606 (Westpark II) at 995K dollars. And immediately put it on market for lease for only $3600/month. Thanks.

Astute Observation by Another Dumb Caveman
2010-04-12 02:48 PM

Duh.

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2010-04-12 02:56 PM

“An investor just bought 5 Cipriani, irvine, ca 92606 (Westpark II) at 995K dollars. And immediately put it on market for lease for only $3600/month. Thanks.”

I would have to do a study to be sure, but it sounds like a cashflow-negative investment. In other words, it is a foolish speculator hoping to get lucky when prices go up.

Astute Observation by ME
2010-04-12 03:02 PM

Or just a really stupid person who was convinced by NAR it was “a great time to buy.”  LOL.

With that rent they should have paid 648k at the most.

Astute Observation by matt138
2010-04-12 03:46 PM

if the guy paid all cash that would be a 3% capitalization rate assume 30% expenses.

Tack on 2% long term appreciation (a conservative estimate).

What are you getting for your money in the bank?  Getting raped by bernanke, that’s what.

don’t know if buyer was all cash but that is what money is doing right now.

Astute Observation by Muzie
2010-04-12 06:50 PM

Just a question for you.. Exactly how high do you think your 2% conservative appreciation will lead us if wages appreciate at 0%?

Or do you expect housing to always grow faster than wages, with 10 people packing themselves in one house so they can afford it while there’s vast tracts of empty land right outside their door?

I’d really like to know if you have a genuine answer.

Astute Observation by matt138
2010-04-12 11:20 PM

Housing will never outpace wages long term.

Short term, wages will decrease.  Looong term, wages will increase.  I am not arguing in real v nominal terms.  Wages will eventually increase.  If inflation is running at 10% and wages go up 2%, we are getting poorer no doubt.  Deflationists, please refrain from posting gov/t concocted CPI banter.

I don’t completely understand the connection between rising cost of goods and rising wages, and I guess it is possible that wages could never rise for the next 30 years while everything else inflates; but standard of living can only be reduced so far.  Eventually you pay me so little I just work somewhere else or grow vegetables and not work.  There is a free market mechanism to wages embedded in unfree markets.

Economies (if i remember correctly it was argentina) that suffer hyperinflation create work contracts with pay increases (which actually perpetuate inflation and make the snowball harder for the government to stop once it comes to its senses)

And RE has appreciated at 4% since the 50s, so I figure 1/2 that is fairly conservative. That’s where I pulled the 2% number out of.

Astute Observation by matt138
2010-04-12 11:26 PM

And I am not arguing this is a great investment, just that buyers feel it is a better place to put money than in the bank - and I agree.

Astute Observation by wheresthebeef
2010-04-12 03:54 PM

You better get Planet Reality on the horn regarding this one.  He is the rental partiy expert around here.

I won’t even waste my time running the numbers on this.  Purchase for 1M and only get $3600/month rent = FAIL.  There seems to be this perpetual belief that you simply can’t lose with Irvine RE.  This buyer might think otherwise in a few years.

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2010-04-12 04:29 PM

I’m no expert, but you would probably want a GRM of something like 100.  That is, for every dollar you get in monthly rent, you only paid 100 times that.  So, for a $1 million house, you would want to be able to rent it for around $10,000 a month, not a little more than a third of that.  Definitely a boatload of fail.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2010-04-12 04:30 PM

Right now rental parity would be around $800k so they are cash flow negative with a loan.

If they paid cash then they are making around a 4% dividend plus any appreciation or depreciation that may occur.  It’s like buying a million dollars of stock with a 4% dividend.  I took out 0.35% for yearly ownership fees.

Astute Observation by no worries
2010-04-12 05:05 PM

“It’s like buying a million dollars of stock with a 4% dividend”

...that costs 3.5% buy in, and a 3.5% exit cost. And it’s not guaranteed (months vacant, renovation costs, etc)

Astute Observation by Muzie
2010-04-12 06:56 PM

Shouldn’t you take off 1% for property taxes?

Astute Observation by matt138
2010-04-12 11:42 PM

Planet Reality: Is my calculator broken?

$3600 * 12 = $43200   GROSS INCOME

$43200 * (1-.35)= $28080   NET INCOME

$28080 / $995000 = 2.82%  CAPITALIZATION RATE

2.82% would be the return (pretax) to an all cash buyer assuming 35% expenses.  4%?  Does that include the realtor roundup?

Astute Observation by ME
2010-04-12 02:54 PM

Correct. Banks don’t loan anything. Banks have absolutely no skin in the game. Loans are just a PROMISE the borrower is making to pay the bank within a given time period, ...with interest ofcourse.

The more interest a bank collects, the more promises they can “loan out”.

The only rub is when the items people borrow money for start deflating. A natural symptom that happens when people realize they actually can’t afford it.
The system is not rigged, it just has a limit like everything else in life.  Trying to extend and pretend the limit is when it feels like the game is rigged.

Astute Observation by AZDavidPhx
2010-04-12 05:44 PM

California personal income down 3.5% since January ‘09

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2010-04-12 08:40 PM

Thanks. That will be an upcoming post.

Astute Observation by matt138
2010-04-12 11:28 PM

You forgot the * pointing out “except in irvine”

Astute Observation by matt138
2010-04-13 12:20 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2_Hmt-MKLA

how does one stop the realtor propaganda?

Astute Observation by Dubai Blog
2010-04-13 03:37 AM

Match the above made cycle with that of the economic cycle and you will get the answer of why this is repeating again and again. (where are the jobs from which consumers will earn to pay back)

Astute Observation by Sad Buyer
2010-04-13 08:26 AM

I apoligize for changing the subject.  I just wanted to let you know what is happening in our neck of the woods.  I’m sure it is happening in other places as well.

My husband and I have paid off our home, saved a bunch of money and are looking for a larger home now.  This home will probably be the last home we ever buy.  So, I have picked out approximately 12 homes here in Lake Elsinore we would like to buy.  Recently, one of those homes came on the market so I called the realtor to schedule an appointment to see the home.  I was told it is a drive by examination only.  The people living in the home are refusing to let the realtor show the home and the only time the buyer can examine the home is just before escrow closes.  How are buyers like myself suppose to examine floor plans to see if we want to purchase the last home we will ever buy?  Hmm.  Because this house is a short sale all we can do is make a bid. 

I asked the realtor what her current highest and best bid is on the home and she replied $270,000.  I would gladly pay $300,000 for this 3,300 sq. ft. home Built in 2009 on 1.25 acres if it has a floor plan I can live with but I will never know if it does.  The conversation continued and I found out there are 3 cash bids from investors on the home.  So, if the investors are buying up the houses that move up buyers are trying to buy how are we ever going to get a home we really want to purchase without giving all our money to the flippers.

The realtor told me to hold on because she did not think the flippers would get this house.  The owners-squatters are using this as a staling tactic.  She informed me she has tried to short sale 8 houses this year and what the squatters have done upon the closing of escrow is demand the bank pay them $10,000 to move out of the home.  The banks refuse to do this so the deals fall apart and it takes another year to a year and a half to get the squatters out of the house via foreclosure proceedings.

After talking to this realtor my husband and I are trying to decide do we try to buy our house now and drive ourselves crazy with this pretend and extend tactic by the squatters or do we sit back and what for the investors to buy the homes we would consider purchasing and pay them double the price down the road.  What do you think we should do in this situation?  I’m sure there are dozen more people like us trying to buy a home and encountering the same discouraging experience.

I have been watching our area and San Diego county and the flippers are creating another “Housing Bubble”.  When you look at median incomes and the prices of homes I can not understand how people can still be buying these over priced homes especially in San Diego county.  It is very discouraging to be a person trying to do the right thing, namely be financially responsible.

What do you folks think?

Sad Buyer

Astute Observation by theyenguy
2010-04-13 02:06 PM

You relate: “Once widespread HELOC abuse became the preferred method of financial management, borrowers developed equity surfing techniques to consistently extract equity as it became available and spend it.”

Only now, have I become aware of this; it’s ok, you can call me nieve and simple too. 

But the Czar of Subsized Financial Irresponsibility, Alan Greenspan, was aware of this long, long ago.

Fred Sheehan provides Alan Greenspan’s position on lending and mortgage equity withdrawl, in Safehaven.com article .... The Best And Brightest Protect Greenspan And Betray The American People ... http://tinyurl.com/y4xu552 ... where Alan Greenspan addressed The Brookings Institute and on March 19, 2010 presenting the 48-page paper entitled “The Crisis”—the title was one of the few honest statements of the day.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

<< Back to main