10 Comments

1. 

   Jim the Realtor on August 1, 2011 at 11:21 am

   For those looking for more short-sale reading material, the previous post on the new SS law in California has worked its way onto the front page of google, and has sparked some lively debate:

   https://www.bubbleinfo.com/2011/07/16/sb-458-no-recourse-short-sale-bill/

2. 

   Anon on August 1, 2011 at 12:23 pm

   Is it just me or does this seem like a decent deal in RSF-ish?

   http://www.redfin.com/CA/Escondido/17940-El-Brazo-92029/home/22787283

   Nothing “bad” really jumps out at me??? Am I missing something?

3. 

   Mozart on August 1, 2011 at 12:44 pm

   What’s interesting is that basically all 4 just “went down with the ship”. Why?

   I’m guessing they just didn’t want the hassle of a short sale because they knew that short sale or foreclosure, they are out of the game for years to come. Now, where to rent a 4,000 sf house that is full of all that stuff? Should be a bunch of garage sales with McFurnishings.

4. 

   LM on August 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm

   Mozart

   You can’t get 3-4 years of free rent program if you sell to avoid foreclosure!

5. 

   Susie on August 1, 2011 at 3:53 pm

   A McMansion @ $1.225 million with NO down payment? What bank was that, Jim? I’m just shaking my head…

6. 

   FutureRSFbuyer on August 1, 2011 at 7:19 pm

   @Anon – 17940 El Brazo does look like a good deal. I just wonder if Cielo is too isolated. Still trying to figure that out.

   I have also heard that it is very windy in Cielo. Anyone else heard that?

7. 

   Mozart on August 2, 2011 at 7:52 am

   LM- I’m not so sure about that. It would seem if you want to game the system to get maximum free rent you play footsy with the servicer and talk and talk to earn the free rent. I could be wrong.

   Also, I imagine the banks are seeing an opportunity to get more back on the higher end, better located properties which will sell at just under retail, (there must be an algorithm for this). My guess is that if you’ve got a $1MM home then you are more likely to have a bank take action than if you were in a $500K home. Maybe playing footsy wasn’t responded to either?

8. 

   Daniel(theotherone) on August 2, 2011 at 9:57 am

   I can’t believe this was in the LA Times.
   http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/31/opinion/la-oe-gelinas-foreclosure-california-20110731

9. 

   Mozart on August 2, 2011 at 11:30 am

   The problem with the LA Times article, actually from the “Manhattan Institutes City Journal”, is this little nugget in her logic where she talks about underwater homeowners:

   “This all adds up to $196 billion in dead-weight debt in California that isn’t backed by property value. If home prices were to fall by an additional 5% — not an unlikely scenario — that figure would rise to $225 billion.”

   But what if prices rise by 5%? It would seem we’d erase the dead-weight.

   Basing our national budget on current revenues or using this moment in time as the meter for all financial measures is misguided.

10. 

    livinincali on August 3, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    “But what if prices rise by 5%? It would seem we’d erase the dead-weight.”

    Really, let’s try a little simple math and see.

    If a 5% decline is = 225-196 = 29 billion then a 5% increase in prices would result is the dead weight being 196-29 = 167 billion. Of course 167 billion these days is nothing.