Home price drops exceed Great Depression: Zillow

cpwill said:

yeah. too bad we had to screw over the other 299,300,000 Americans to keep them there.

Click to expand...

how so?
i think enabling 700,000 families to remain in their home, and eventually pay off their mortgage, is a significant accomplishment

Erod said:

True, but it's going to happen anyway. These banks will never see that money because they were dumb enough to loan it to people who didn't have the credit history in the first place.

The governmnent should get out of it and let the banks work out whatever they can.

Click to expand...

the banks you're refering to already got paid, they're not holding this debt, we are. (it would save everyone so much time if you'd read my posts ha!) bofa gs jpm citi all of them created these programs to get the toxic debt. then they wrapped them up in cdo's, then they sold them to gse's, the fed, and pensions. each one of those are backed by you and me. the banks made profit, and now are not responsible for the mess.

justabubba said:

how so?
i think enabling 700,000 families to remain in their home, and eventually pay off their mortgage, is a significant accomplishment

Click to expand...

so, if you were a fireman, and set 1,000 houses on fire but put 100 of them out that makes you a hero. nice logic.

scourge99 said:

I'm glad. Homes were way overpriced. They are actually worth their value now.

More Americans can actually afford to buy decent homes now.

Click to expand...

frankly i'm still not positive that they've fallen far enough. once the Federal Government stops propping up the mortgage market, it will dive again to recalibrate where it should be.

Zyroh said:

so, if you were a fireman, and set 1,000 houses on fire but put 100 of them out that makes you a hero. nice logic.

Click to expand...

well, the logic is that you saved those 100 homes. so, for those whom it helped, the program worked. it's a nice standard, by which no government program ever has been a failure.

Erod said:

True, but it's going to happen anyway. These banks will never see that money because they were dumb enough to loan it to people who didn't have the credit history in the first place.

Click to expand...

Now, this is one level of the scam, government passed the legislation forcing banks into accepting loans that they might otherwise reject... SO, these banks in cases ENCOURAGED people into loans they could not afford through fraud... etc.. the bank doesn't really 'care' all that much because they got insurance for the whole deal.

BUt here's the beautiful part, they get payments for however long, and then the people can no longer afford the payments, once they are foreclosed on, the bank gets the full value of the house for insurance payment + they get to sell the house to the next person.

The scam goes deeper though : "asset backed securities" were allowed when the glass-stiegal act was repealed... this allowed the banks to take the thousands of mortgages they had on file and to turn them into investments... they used the rate of the mortgage as the rate of return. That's fine and dandy, until you split the 'good loans' from the 'bad loans', sell the good packages to your friends and the bad packages to everyone else...

Then you get your friends at the rating agency to use these 'bad loans' and to appraise them as AAA grade investments... meanwhile, they were all the 'liar loans', the '0 down loans', 'ninja loans' (not sure quite what that was, but sounds cool), etc...

Then your 401(k) gets invested into these high rated bonds with a stable ROI, only to find out in 1998, oh, 'most of those loans are bad loans'... BUT, as I pointed out in my last post, a bank can have 10times on loan what they have in reserve... so for all the bad loans there was more then likely EQUALLY a 10 times more investors then ACTUAL investments...

The proper term you're looking for is a 'ponzi scheme'.

The governmnent should get out of it and let the banks work out whatever they can.

Click to expand...

If the government wasn't full of bankers and their lobbyists, and paying Obama's way into the whitehouse by 'donating' 4 times to Obama what they gave to McCain... not that McCain was any better for president.

scourge99 said:

I'm glad. Homes were way overpriced. They are actually worth their value now.

More Americans can actually afford to buy decent homes now.

Click to expand...

To a point this is true... but I don't think that this has hit the bottom yet... I mean I'm sure there's going to be SOME rebounding here and there... but I've listened to several economists walk through the numbers in various ways and they ALL come to the conclusion that it's "mathematically impossible" or something similar.

Zyroh said:

so, if you were a fireman, and set 1,000 houses on fire but put 100 of them out that makes you a hero. nice logic.

Click to expand...

please tell us who committed arson on those 1000 homes

justabubba said:

please tell us who committed arson on those 1000 homes

Click to expand...

oh gosh, the list is endless. the Fed, the Carter Adminstration, the Clinton Administration, the second Bush Administration (though halfway through they at least realized what they were doing and stopped), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Barney Frank, AIG, ACORN & Co., the American Consumer....

cpwill said:

oh gosh, the list is endless. the Fed, the Carter Adminstration, the Clinton Administration, the second Bush Administration (though halfway through they at least realized what they were doing and stopped), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Barney Frank, AIG FP, the American Consumer....

Click to expand...

so, you are acknowleding the arson was rampant from a number of perpetrators but that it would be wrong to salvage the homes that could be saved

notice how ignorant that position is
almost as bad as the weak metaphor

PeteEU said:

Not really a concern. The recession did end in 2009, but recession and house prices dont have much to do with each other.

Like it or not the housing market in the US went nuts for 10 years with massive price rises and that takes time to get back to what it should be. Some places will go faster, others slower, but with the exception of the uber rich areas most likely, then house prices are still going decline for a while yet.

And it of course does not help thathttp://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112, and of course the fact that the average US consumer debt is huge.. people cant get money to buy houses, and that will push prices down too.

Click to expand...

If "US banks are so screwed up", as you claim, do you have any idea how or why they became that way? Even if we choose to disregard Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae?

Scroll down this list to 'People' to see what Community Organizers, and ACORN, have done to force banks to make bad loans to those who can't afford them. We don't hear as many arguments about 'the homeless' and 'affordable housing' anymore. BHO certainly made housing more affordable by helping to destroy traditional lending practices, and thus the market.

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

justabubba said:

so, you are acknowleding the arson was rampant from a number of perpetrators but that it would be wrong to salvage the homes that could be saved

Click to expand...

at the expense of all the others, yes. when a bubble pops; you don't help the economy (or the people in it) by attempting to reinflate it.

cpwill said:

at the expense of all the others, yes. when a bubble pops; you don't help the economy (or the people in it) by attempting to reinflate it.

Click to expand...

there was no reinflation which was precipitated by HAMP
if anything, its successes would have mitigated the downward spiral of home values

justabubba said:

there was no reinflation which was precipitated by HAMP

Click to expand...

indeed there was, as with other attempts to prop up property values and save flawed mortgages.

cpwill said:

indeed there was, as with other attempts to prop up property values and save flawed mortgages.

Click to expand...

the HAMP program in no way propped up property values
it was a program devised to allow home buyers with adequate cash flow - after loan modifiation - to repay their mortgages
the only implication of home value was these loan mod recipients tended to be those who were trying to pay off mortgages having a higher basis than the underlying value of the home (loan collateral)
that those homes were not subject to foreclosure proceedings limited the number of properties found where evaluating comparables for valuation purposes. had they been sold at distress sale, they likely would have had a downward impact on the market values of similar properites in the buying area
otherwise, the HAMP program had no impact on property valuation

Grant said:

If "US banks are so screwed up", as you claim, do you have any idea how or why they became that way? Even if we choose to disregard Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae?

Scroll down this list to 'People' to see what Community Organizers, and ACORN, have done to force banks to make bad loans to those who can't afford them. We don't hear as many arguments about 'the homeless' and 'affordable housing' anymore. BHO certainly made housing more affordable by helping to destroy traditional lending practices, and thus the market.

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Click to expand...

BS


The vast majority of subprime loans were made by lenders not subject to the CRA

Countrywide, Ditech etc were not subject to the CRA regulation (which had very little in the way of punishement) and made subprime loans, and then sold them in CDO's

justabubba said:

the HAMP program in no way propped up property values
it was a program devised to allow home buyers with adequate cash flow - after loan modifiation - to repay their mortgages
the only implication of home value was these loan mod recipients tended to be those who were trying to pay off mortgages having a higher basis than the underlying value of the home (loan collateral)
that those homes were not subject to foreclosure proceedings limited the number of properties found where evaluating comparables for valuation purposes. had they been sold at distress sale, they likely would have had a downward impact on the market values of similar properites in the buying area
otherwise, the HAMP program had no impact on property valuation

Click to expand...

i swear, it had no effect on the value except for the effect it had on the value.

i don't have enough juice in these tired fingers to straighten out your twisted logic.

Zyroh said:

i swear, it had no effect on the value except for the effect it had on the value.

i don't have enough juice in these tired fingers to straighten out your twisted logic.

Click to expand...

had those homes been allowed to go into foreclosure, THEN their diminished - distress sale - values would have been available for a correlation of market value in the buying region
but they were not subject to foreclosure, thus keeping their values out of the database of recent sales ... which means their impact on current market value was nil
see how embarrassing it can be when it is obvious you have no idea about the subject of discussion

Lord Tammerlain said:

BS

The vast majority of subprime loans were made by lenders not subject to the CRA

Countrywide, Ditech etc were not subject to the CRA regulation (which had very little in the way of punishement) and made subprime loans, and then sold them in CDO's

Click to expand...

the question was rarely one of punishment as it was one of being constrained. want permission to put out an ATM machine or set up a branch office? well let's see what your local community organization says about your attitude towards hispanic home-buyers, etc. banks of all stripes definitely faced political pressure to lend to those whom they knew could not pay them back. but hey, as long as we can securitize the things and/or sell them off to Fannie and Freddie, who cares, eh?

justabubba said:

had those homes been allowed to go into foreclosure, THEN their diminished - distress sale - values would have been available for a correlation of market value in the buying region

Click to expand...

see, what you are missing is that their "diminished" value is closer to their "actual" value. if the homebuyers could not afford their mortgages, then those homes should have gone back onto the market, with the subsequent downward pressure in price.


supply. demand. not really that complicated.

cpwill said:

see, what you are missing is that their "diminished" value is closer to their "actual" value. if the homebuyers could not afford their mortgages, then those homes should have gone back onto the market, with the subsequent downward pressure in price.


supply. demand. not really that complicated.

Click to expand...

and what we recognize is that the HAMP program is what kept those homes' discounted values from the marketplace, allowing us to see that HAMP did not alter the valuation of the market place
the residents of those HAMP homes were able to pay their mortgages due to the loan modifications - based on repayment ability and NOT on collateral value
that was the point which caused me to make this distinction

justabubba said:

had those homes been allowed to go into foreclosure, THEN their diminished - distress sale - values would have been available for a correlation of market value in the buying region
but they were not subject to foreclosure, thus keeping their values out of the database of recent sales ... which means their impact on current market value was nil
see how embarrassing it can be when it is obvious you have no idea about the subject of discussion

Click to expand...

You sure sound like a bank appraiser. Overvaluing properties, allowing yourself to be influenced by the banks' interest. That's one of the reasons the housing market collapsed.

Edit: Stop showing us your lack of knowledge.

Lord Tammerlain said:

BS


The vast majority of subprime loans were made by lenders not subject to the CRA

Countrywide, Ditech etc were not subject to the CRA regulation (which had very little in the way of punishement) and made subprime loans, and then sold them in CDO's

Click to expand...

Report Revealing New VIPs Shows How Countrywide Used Mortgage Deals to Buy Influence, Block Reforms

More Reasons to Hate Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo « Dealbreaker: A Wall Street Tabloid – Business News Headlines and Financial Gossip


FT.com / Financials - MBIA sues Countrywide Financial

justabubba said:

had those homes been allowed to go into foreclosure, THEN their diminished - distress sale - values would have been available for a correlation of market value in the buying region
but they were not subject to foreclosure, thus keeping their values out of the database of recent sales ... which means their impact on current market value was nil
see how embarrassing it can be when it is obvious you have no idea about the subject of discussion

Click to expand...

i'll try to use small words for you. you were claiming the hamp program wasn't an attempt to reinflate the bubble. i'll put the case-shiller evidence aside for the moment and just focus on this case you're mentioning. if there was no hamp, the 700k houses woulda gone into foreclosure and increased supply in the market, and that would have allowed the slide to continue. instead hamp kept them in the house and kept the house off the market, so there was no addition to the supply on the market for those specific houses.

i understand your logic, it doesn't mean it's not flawed. you think that since the houses didn't get added to the market, the hamp program didn't effect prices. hamp slowed down the speed of decline of the houses. it doesn't stop it, it just delayed it at a tremendous cost.

Zyroh said:

the banks you're refering to already got paid, they're not holding this debt, we are. (it would save everyone so much time if you'd read my posts ha!) bofa gs jpm citi all of them created these programs to get the toxic debt. then they wrapped them up in cdo's, then they sold them to gse's, the fed, and pensions. each one of those are backed by you and me. the banks made profit, and now are not responsible for the mess.

Click to expand...

Except that the real cash isn't there. They got paid on paper, not in cash.

Hence, this is why you've got to have serious capital to put down and excellent to buy a house right now. That is, IF you can sell the one you've got.

Zyroh said:

i'll try to use small words for you. you were claiming the hamp program wasn't an attempt to reinflate the bubble. i'll put the case-shiller evidence aside for the moment and just focus on this case you're mentioning. if there was no hamp, the 700k houses woulda gone into foreclosure and increased supply in the market, and that would have allowed the slide to continue. instead hamp kept them in the house and kept the house off the market, so there was no addition to the supply on the market for those specific houses.

i understand your logic, it doesn't mean it's not flawed. you think that since the houses didn't get added to the market, the hamp program didn't effect prices. hamp slowed down the speed of decline of the houses. it doesn't stop it, it just delayed it at a tremendous cost.

Click to expand...

your conclusion is quite flawed
there is reason to anticipate that 700,000 houses will NOT appear on the foreclosure market due to the limited success of the HAMP loan modifications
so, HAMP did not impact the value of the marketplace
absent HAMP, the likely added foreclosures would have added to the downward spiral of market valuation
HAMP did not delay any slide
but glad you are paying attention and taking notes!