Lovehound
join:2005-08-18
Northridge, CA
| reply to No_Strings
Re: SoCal & The Economy ~ Financial Markets ~ Housing ~ Etc
said by No_Strings  :If on the other hand, your goal is to take money away from people who have earned it through hard work and smart decisions and use it to reward those who have dug their own hole, you'll probably be disappointed by whatever bailout, if any, emerges. That would be me. I've been very conservative with my finances, and I object to my tax money being used to subsidize people who are too stupid, too greedy, or too careless to manage their own finances so as to not need a government bail out.
said by No_Strings :The world would be a far better place and the economy would be bursting at the seams if more people took my approach instead of looking for someone else to blame or fund their misjudgments and misfortunes. I'm one too, in fact even more conservative because I always save up for a new car rather than financing. I'm appalled by all the people who spend all their income, who live month to month, who think that buying a house with zero down and artificially low interest rate is a good idea. This was a train wreck waiting to happen, and now (mixing my metaphors) this house of cards is crashing down, and even the conservative people will be hurt. |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| reply to No_Strings
said by No_Strings : If one is to occur, though, trying to apply some misguided Robin Hood approach will make it worse. well, i got the distinct feeling that "solvent" people were the ones buying a second or third house, the ones providing the funds that were loaned, etc (so they could continue to offer home loans, he said).
i haven't thought about it much, but preclude bailout for anyone not actually living in the house as their sole residence? and the business property bailout would have to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. rental properties get no bailout? sole proprietor manufacturing plant property does? refinances from what would have been affordable payments would not, but first time loan would?
it gets complicated fast, and i just can't imagine a scenario where someone with 10 houses on loans wouldn't be able to slip through the cracks and take the rest of us to the cleaners. similar to whats happened in LA.
i don't think we're opposed on this, i certainly don't want to see a bailout, and certainly not a lopsided one. |
|
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC
Host:
Wireless Networking
All Things Unix
Cox HSI
Qwest
Efficient
| reply to dogma
I've been known to exaggerate to make a point, but Jesus, dogma , you take it to an extreme.
I don't know what, if any, criteria have been proposed to sort the wheat from the chaff in the Forbes proposal. I also don't support a bailout. I simply said that Steve's logic was sound - don't bother with the terminal cases; focus on the ones who can be helped.
As for taking a thin dime, I benefit from government money just like you do. I drive on federally-funded highways and rode my bike this morning in a county park. I contribute more than I benefit by wide measure and I resent that. I pride myself on being self-sufficient. I don't borrow money unless I absolutely have to, like a mortgage, or when it's more convenient, like my car loans. Home improvements are done with cash, credit cards are paid monthly, etc.
The world would be a far better place and the economy would be bursting at the seams if more people took my approach instead of looking for someone else to blame or fund their misjudgments and misfortunes.
And yes, the pretty people should get priority over ugly ones, thin over fat, well-mannered over rude and intelligent over dull. But, that's why they don't let me run things. |
|
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to No_Strings
said by jig :steve forbes ... he distinguished between "solvent people" and "people who got in over their heads", and then proceeded to say that "we need to help the solvent people,... we'll see. it depends on how many people are watching closely whether or not something like that could get passed in congress. so, do you think the "we need to protect the rich so they can distribute to the poor" argument is going to work this time? said by No_Strings :I don't think there should be a bailout. I've tried to be consistent about that. If one is to occur, though, trying to apply some misguided Robin Hood approach will make it worse. I would think why jig is aghast, as am I, is just who defines whom is "Solvent" and who "got in over their heads"? Common sense would seem to say everyone in need of a "bailout" certainly "got in over their heads".
Will Forbes head up this economic segregation goon squad? Sorting out which are the pretty people who get PUBLIC ASSISTANCE to the tune of $700,000+, and which are the ugly people that don't?
With respect to;
said by No_Strings :If on the other hand, your goal is to take money away from people who have earned it through hard work and smart decisions and use it to reward those who have dug their own hole, you'll probably be disappointed by whatever bailout, if any, emerges. I suspect that you are an absolute Libertarian. One who under no circumstances would you ever take a thin dime from the government? |
|
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC | reply to jig
I don't think there should be a bailout. I've tried to be consistent about that. If one is to occur, though, trying to apply some misguided Robin Hood approach will make it worse. |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | reply to No_Strings
strings: there is some logic if you think that public money has to bail someone out... but i think there's got to be some estoppel here, and the "solvent" should be held to a higher standard of financial sophistication.
dog: gah! |
|
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to jig
said by jig :steve forbes ... he distinguished between "solvent people" and "people who got in over their heads", and then proceeded to say that "we need to help the solvent people,... we'll see. it depends on how many people are watching closely whether or not something like that could get passed in congress. so, do you think the "we need to protect the rich so they can distribute to the poor" argument is going to work this time? Since we are sooo busy with the more important things in life, your elected federal representatives have already got that ball rolling:
»biz.yahoo.com/ap/070918/congress···ml?.v=12
(the media-tized version is ok, but it behooves anyone to actually read the House Bill, which h.r. 1852, which makes massive amendments to the banking and housing codes, both linked below and about an hour read)
»www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex···110-1852
»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/···_13.html
It reads as Forbes suggested; The absolute mother of all welfare scams (except for the Corporate welfare stuff which this is anyway, as any "bailout" only helps and rewards the investment houses and worlds most wealthy people that have backed these loans).
Yep, for all the posturing about Illegals or inner city mothers that are getting a "free ride", this takes the cake. The Feds (that's us hostage taxpayers) will underwrite people with $730,000 mortgages (my calculations based on the documents are really as much as $894,000.) In a manner that, for the lenders, removes all risk from the transaction. So folks in Laguna Nigel, San Clemente, and the like will have the good fortune to re-write their loans and have them guaranteed by you...the taxpayer.
BTW, for those keeping score, this bill is sponsored by : Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA] |
|
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC
Host:
Wireless Networking
All Things Unix
Cox HSI
Qwest
Efficient
| reply to jig
I didn't see the interview, so I'm only going on your report. In spite of your Socialist leanings, Forbes' comments are logical. Why throw good money after bad? If your goal is to keep the economy rolling and the real estate market strong, you'd want to help those capable of using the help. Those who are beyond help ... well. Triage is not a new concept.
If on the other hand, your goal is to take money away from people who have earned it through hard work and smart decisions and use it to reward those who have dug their own hole, you'll probably be disappointed by whatever bailout, if any, emerges. |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| reply to aztecnology
well, here is some unsettling propaganda.
this morning steve forbes was being interviewed about the economy in general. he's pretty much groveling at the republican alter, disgustingly so. giuliani is regan, according to him.
anyway, he was asked about the sub prime stuff, and he said there would probably be some legislation to help people out. and then, he distinguished between "solvent people" and "people who got in over their heads", and then proceeded to say that "we need to help the solvent people, that's the most important thing."
huh. well, not surprising, but it seems that if there is a bailout, only the rich will be able to partake. everyone else will get their just deserts. it's always interesting to hear someone talk about supply and demand economics right before they pump for a lopsided bailout.
we'll see. it depends on how many people are watching closely whether or not something like that could get passed in congress. so, do you think the "we need to protect the rich so they can distribute to the poor" argument is going to work this time?
--
A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law. -Ben Franklin |
|
Kibbles
Premium
join:1999-07-31
Mission Viejo, CA
| reply to dogma
PITI is about $2,200 a month...in 5 years it will be $1,400.00 a month.
I hate to see it sell,it has been in the family ~ 35 years,
I noticed another house in pre-foreclosure for 530k so we may have to sell it even lower than 599k.
Existing mortgage balances is ~ 319k.
The Realtor we may use has a fee of 3% and an additional 2.5% if another Realtor brings a buyer in....those alternative listing companies look like they have a better deal. |
|
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to Kibbles
Assuming the house sells at $500K (just for easy numbers), a 5% commission would be $25,000. Add in an additional 3.5% in seller closing cost of $16,000. Assuming too that there are no outstanding property taxes or liens.
So, $500K - the existing mortgage (assume $250K)= $250K - $41K in total closing = $209K/3 in gross profit or (approx.) $70K per sibling.
I would list well below market to move it NOW. If/when it languishes on the market for 12+ Months, you need to include "carrying cost". If the current PIIT = $3K/Mo, then you need to subtract an additional $36K from your gross profit.
Other alternatives that remove the leach "traditional" RE agent expense ($25K+?) from the transaction you should pursue:
•Zilliow.com - Free listing on their site.
•Craigslist.com - free listing
•Assist-2-Sell - Pick & choose your RE services
•forsalebyowner.com - $90 - $900 flat fee to list in MLS + website ads.
•fsbo.com - $500 to list on MLS
•Help-U-Sell - do it yourself homes sales help
•housepad.com - $149 for 6 Month MLS listing
•Redfin - $4K flat-fee agent/but requires buyers agent get a commission.
•Catalist Homes - Discount RE agency, 3% max commission.
•ZipRealty.com - Flat fee RE agency, 2% + negotiated fee for buyers agent.
It's the 21st Century (no pun), who here uses "travel agents" to book airline reservations?? It's about as
ridiculous as using RE agents to sell a house IMO. RE agents offer zero value in the modern world. EVERYONE shopping for a house uses the Internet. Most Internet sites use the MLS as a database.. All you need is a MLS listing at most, and perhaps some very limited RE services like showing the property (which you SHOULD do yourself anyway).
I recently purchased a FSBO property I found online. Cost the seller $500 for the MLS listing and he made a "For Sale" sign out of 2x4's & cardboard. We haggled to a price without all that offer/counter-offer 8-page-triplicate-"California-certified"-form bullshit the RE agents use, and had my RE attorney (at sellers expense of a whopping $650) finalize the sale. No magic. No rocket science. ... no "traditional" RE agent rip-off artist needed.
Again if you price it to move, buyers will come to you. If you remain greedy, and allow these "traditional" RE agents to bamboozle & con you, you may wind up with nothing.
Whats the difference between a Mississippi catfish and a "traditional" RE agent?
One is a bottom-feeding, scum-sucking, scavenger, the other is a fish. |
|
Kibbles
Premium
join:1999-07-31
Mission Viejo, CA
| reply to jig
Update 
The home inspection report came up with 1500+ items...items as small as a missing cap on the chimney to the HVAC needing to be replaced.
The Realtor suggests we list it as 599k 
I sent my sisters the report and titled it "I told you so"
The Realtor seems to be in a hurry for us to sign...but I am holding off until I get a few more estimates as well as a Mold inspection....yes a room and the bathroom has mold.
Looks like home prices are in a free fall.
»money.cnn.com/2007/09/19/real_es···y_latest |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
| reply to dogma
is there anyone stupid enough to sign a contract tying the percentage to the asking price instead of the sale price?
i can't think of any other reason why a real agent would spend time and money listing that house at that price. i mean, they aren't supposed to get anything unless the house sells, right? |
|
Lovehound
join:2005-08-18
Northridge, CA
| reply to Kibbles
Although I can appreciate that when you gotta sell you gotta sell, but I think the present is the worst time in years to try to sell a house. Many buyers who are able to hold off are holding off, not only to find out where things will shake out, but expecting reductions, perhaps drastic reductions in the coming months. There is no reason to buy now unless the buyer absolutely must have a house and can't wait.
I'm coming up on another decision point next spring, sell then? I'm sure the market will be better shaken out by then and probably we will all have a good idea where things are going. Fortunately for me I'm intending to buy an equivalently priced house, or perhaps slightly more, and hoping to move to a cheaper area out of state and get a nicer house. I say fortunately, because the house I end up buying is also falling in price, so I'll get better property tax payments from waiting.
I'm sure glad I don't have to go on today's market. This is like the hangover after the binge. I wish you luck! And I'm happy to see your sisters get their comeuppance. That'll teach them for thinking you were ripping them off. Sorry to say, you've been hurt too. Six months ago you might have caught the peak of the market, particularly if you'd priced it to sell quickly. Today, I won't be surprised if your house is on the market next spring when I hope to put mine on the market too. |
|
Kibbles
Premium
join:1999-07-31
Mission Viejo, CA
1 edit | reply to dogma
All three agents that looked at the house agree that the house could have sold for 800k about three years ago...but now it would sell for the low 600's...so we plan to set it at 650k and see what happens the first week.
It was appraised at 675k a few weeks ago and 696k four months ago.
What is ironic I told my sisters the house is not worth more than 650k to me..both thought I was trying to rip them off...now three Realtors agree with my evaluation...if the house does sell for 650k...they will end up with less then my offer would have given them...the one big problem is if the home inspection comes up with the same items I noted and have estimates for...a buyer will want to negotiate the pool re-plastering 10k,wall/decking repair 42k,windows 20k,termite repair 5k,mold abatement,pool equipment replacement 15k and so on.
Both are coming over today to start fixing up the house so we can get it on the market asap..both think it is loosing value the longer we wait...they are 6 months too late.
I noticed in some areas there are a sheetload of houses for sale..in Marbella,2-5+ million dollar homes, there are 33+ for sale...I remember there used to be 3-5 for sale.
This market reminds me of what was happening in 1993...builders were dropping the prices of their houses from 250k to 200k and older houses were taking 6-12 months to sell. |
|
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to CurtesyFlush
Who here wants this house? 2Br/2Br,1500s.f. A steal at $849K!!! {NOT!} |
said by CurtesyFlush :I feel an anti-real estate agent rant brewing in my gut. Don't get me started. First, there are no less than 9 FOR SALE signs within a 4 block perimeter of my house. That's 9 FOR SALE signs on 4 blocks. This house, around the corner from me, just went on sale last week. 2Br/2Bth, 1500s.f. The MLS shows the asking is $849,000...American Dollars. FOR SALE sign #10.
A RE Agent must have suggested that this was a "fair" price for the property. This property wouldn't sell at $500K. Perhaps $850K 3 years ago, perhaps 2 years ago, but not today. Why a RE Agent would agree to list a home they know is $300K over priced today is beyond my grasp.
So this RE agent will kill time during their 90-day exclusive waiting for the "seller" to come to grips with reality. Even then, they may lower the price only 10%. Then the owner (and 4-5 different RE agents as the owner hops from one to another) will chase the market down over the next 2 years until it sells at $370K...what it will be worth then.
I give you ( Kibbles ) this to illustrate that unless you list your house for 15% less than the lowest listed house in the area, it wont sell. period. I could be wrong...but I doubt it.
Tell the RE Agent that the listing price will be rock bottom, therefore the house will sell quickly, therefore no entrenched sales cycle, therefore minimum time & expense on their part. A quick buck for them, but in return, they get 3% AND they rebate you $4000...or (.0075%) towards the down on your Houston Ranch (where they represent you again).
If you don't do this, again IMO, you will wind up like the owner of the house pictured. |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | reply to Kibbles
if you're in a rush, then they might be worth it. otherwise.... just be sure you can run a decent credit check.
3% to a listing agent? are they on drugs? i bet more than 50% out there are running unlicensed. |
|
Kibbles
Premium
join:1999-07-31
Mission Viejo, CA
| reply to CurtesyFlush
said by CurtesyFlush :I feel an anti-real estate agent rant brewing in my gut. Don't get me started I talked to two more agents....same bs about needing to spend more time "pushing" a sale...if they were spending 8 hours a day for 6 months getting a buyer it would be worth giving them ~ 35k....but I think the most they will spend is 15 minutes a day. |
|
CurtesyFlush
Bababooey, fafafooey, tatatoothy.
Premium
join:2002-08-23
Fontana, CA
| reply to Lovehound
I feel an anti-real estate agent rant brewing in my gut.
Don't get me started.
Why do they think we want to see their ugly real estate faces in the display ads and on their ridiculous business cards?
Ooops, rant started.
--
Jack Horkheimer gives me the creeps. |
|
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC | reply to Lovehound
I chase Cristal with Rolling Rock. I'm probably not a good judge of these things.
 |
|
