Middle Class Disolving Further - US Real Estate Market

Started by stretchedout, Jun 13 07 09:29

Previous topic - Next topic

stretchedout

Wow, 175,000 foreclosures per month in the US.  I guess 107% financing wasn't such a good idea after all.  The rich will buy up these bargain properties which will lead to a further separation of the haves and have nots.  The government has failed doing its job yet again - distribution of wealth.
C'mon, the city is sleeping!

Contracted In

[A href="jvascript: window.close()"][img class=image title="greatstory.jpg
Click image to close this window" height=303 alt="" src="vny!://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/0822/greatstory.jpg" width=450 border=0][/A].

Michel

The government has failed doing its job yet again - distribution of wealth.



LOL, THE GOVERNMENT IS A MACHINE  MANAGING THE OPPRESSION OF ONE CLASS BY THE OTHER, PLEASE GET REAL.

  ANYWAY, WHERE'S YOUR SOURCE, I WOULD LOVE TO READ THAT NEWS. PLEASE POST A LINK.

  (sorry not shouting' i just have to work in caps lock now)  

Observer


Contracted In


49er

stretchedout wrote:
Wow, 175,000 foreclosures per month in the US. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"] I guess 107% financing wasn't such a good idea after all.  [/FONT]The rich will buy up these bargain properties which will lead to a further separation of the haves and have nots.  The government has failed doing its job yet again - distribution of wealth.[/DIV]
 How is the homeowner hurt?  Property is financed 107%!!!!!.........therefore it means no money downed....the 7% financed the closing costs....ie. no out of pocket costs.  Most likely got hell of good financing deal (like interest only and adjustable for the first few years);  paid no rent;  wrote off interest and property taxes paid in yearly income tax returns;  probably able to write off losses due to foreclosure also.

  The mortgage companies are the losers......and they can blame themselves for that for offering these creative mortgage loans

Turned off

The people who have to leave their homes are the losers!

P.C.

I don't fully understand all the ins and outs of mortgages etc.  .....but how can the mortgage company ever be the loser, 49er?  Exactly what did they lose?
Sir Isaac Newton invented the swinging door....for the convenience of his cat.

Observer

They aren't - 49er has no idea what he is writing about!

49er

P.C. wrote:
I don't fully understand all the ins and outs of mortgages etc.  .....but how can the mortgage company ever be the loser, 49er?  Exactly what did they lose?[/DIV]
 the property is collateral for the loan.  Initially, the mortgage company figured that the value in the property was enough to cover the loan and expenses........that's why they send out their assessors before approving the loan.  If the homeowner walks away, the mortgage is left holding the collateral which is now worth less then before.

  Observer wrote:

 They aren't - 49er has no idea what he is writing about!



The original poster quoted US statistics........and thats what my comments refer to.  Canadian mortgage transactions may differ.[/DIV]

Lil Me

We can't write off our primary residence or our property taxes :(
 If we could, we'd be out spending money like the Americans.
   
"In the absence of clearly-defined goals, we become strangely loyal to performing daily trivia until ultimately we become enslaved by it."  Robert Heinlein

Sportsdude

 yup and you'd be in debt too, living in denial thinking the economy is doing awesome!  
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

P.C.

the property is collateral for the loan.  Initially, the mortgage company figured that the value in the property was enough to cover the loan and expenses........that's why they send out their assessors before approving the loan.  If the homeowner walks away, the mortgage is left holding the collateral which is now worth less then before.

  Let me get my pea-like brain around this....lol

  The mortgage company doesn't actually give a loan for the purchase of the property (as in cold hard cash.....all paperwork.....yes, no?

The mortgage company doesn't actually own the property that the purchaser is mortgaging....yes, no?

If the homeowner walks away, the mortgage company now owns the property...yes, no?

  Why is the property necessarily worth less than before?    Could it not just as easily be worth more than before?

Don't they receive money monthly that they can now get all over again for the same property?

Where is the loss to the mortgage company ?

  I'm still confused.  
Sir Isaac Newton invented the swinging door....for the convenience of his cat.

49er

Lil Me wrote:
We can't write off our primary residence or our property taxes :(
If we could, we'd be out spending money like the Americans.
   
...... and making a house your residence for a total of 24 months in the last 5 years....a couple filing jointly don't have to pay taxes for the first $500K of capital gains.  Life is sweet!!!  

Lil Me

and y'all can use your cold, hard cash to pay your medical bills!!!!  
"In the absence of clearly-defined goals, we become strangely loyal to performing daily trivia until ultimately we become enslaved by it."  Robert Heinlein