patrick.net

I just took a glance over at homefacts.com to see 244 houses going into foreclosure in my area. The interesting one is on West Cliff Drive, $900K+ oh oh.

clambo says

Few people may be aware that about 50% of outstanding mortgages today are "sub-prime".

I suspect they aren't aware of it because it isn't true. The peak of sub-prime mortgage lending was between 2004 and 2006 and that was at around 20%.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

clambo says

Few people may be aware that about 50% of outstanding mortgages today are "sub-prime".

I suspect they aren't aware of it because it isn't true. The peak of sub-prime mortgage lending was between 2004 and 2006 and that was at around 20%.

Source or link??

Try googling sub-prime. What's the first thing you see? Read that article. And why not ask Clambo to substantiate his 50% claim? Or do you just want to accept it because it's what you want to hear?

Call it Crazy says

No, it's just MORE of your baseless comments you make here not routed in any fact or proof and which you never provide links, data or charts to support.... Just another day with you...

My mistake. Type in SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS. Let us all know what you find. And why is it that you so readily accept a ridiculous claim of 50% without any proof whatsoever and instead happily go off on one of your oh-so-predictable attacks?

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Call it Crazy says

No, it's just MORE of your baseless comments you make here not routed in any fact or proof and which you never provide links, data or charts to support.... Just another day with you...

My mistake. Type in SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS. Let us all know what you find. And why is it that you so readily accept a ridiculous claim of 50% without any proof whatsoever and yet happily go off on one of your oh-so-predictable attacks?

See.... You want ME to go prove YOUR comment.... Perfect example how useless you are... Talk about predictable...

YOU go find the links and copy and paste the data that supports YOUR claim... SHOW US YOUR PROOF if you're going to object to a comment...

Talk about TROLLS...

I don't want or need you to prove my comment. I already know the veracity of my comment. I want you to understand how easy it is for you to actually check claimed 'facts'. Unfortunately you are too much of an irritating fact free little shit to want or bother to actually check the facts for yourself to see how fucking wrong you are (as usual). But hey, as you are such a lazy shit, try clicking on this link and read the second paragraph. You can also try thinking how ridiculous a claim 50% was and why it was you so readily accepted such a highly dubious claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Bigsby says

I don't want or need you to prove my comment. I already know the veracity of my comment. I want you to understand how easy it is for you to actually check claimed 'facts'.

You guys are both fact free idiots. The peak was in 2008. There were 3 million out of 50 million sub prime mortgages or 6%. I haven't seen any more recent charts but with all the foreclosures that number must have dropped a lot.

He's got you there CIC, you can't beat the veracity of Wikipedia, I mean it has graphs...

indigenous says

He's got you there CIC, you can't beat the veracity of Wikipedia, I mean it has graphs...

I don't use wiki for research, just casual lookups, the graph was from the carpe-diem-housing website.

@Bob

I don't get your point. 20% of mortgages were sub-prime between 2004-2006 as I stated (a figure also reported by Forbes among others). How does your post counter that?

indigenous says

He's got you there CIC, you can't beat the veracity of Wikipedia, I mean it has graphs...

Wikipedia is simply an outlet for individuals to report other people's facts. Check Forbes or any other site you care to research sub-prime rates on. If you want to question that figure, YOU post up something that counters it.

Call it Crazy says

indigenous says

He's got you there CIC, you can't beat the veracity of Wikipedia, I mean it has graphs...

Ha Ha Ha.... I was going to respond the same way, but it wasn't worth the effort for a Troll like him....

Well done. So you disagree with what I referenced and what I could reference on many other sites? Please go ahead and demonstrate the accuracy of the 50% claim and the inaccuracy of what I said seeing as you are such a lover of supported claims.

Bigsby says

I don't get your point. 20% of mortgages were sub-prime between 2004-2006 as I stated (a figure also reported by Forbes among others). How does your post counter that?

You are confusing originations in 2004-6 with total mortgages. Clambo said 50% of mortgages were sub prime. You said 20% of mortgages were sub prime. Neither is true, sub prime is specific legal defintion.

bob2356 says

Bigsby says

I don't get your point. 20% of mortgages were sub-prime between 2004-2006 as I stated (a figure also reported by Forbes among others). How does your post counter that?

You are confusing originations in 2004-6 with total mortgages. Clambo said 50% of mortgages were sub prime. You said 20% of mortgages were sub prime. Neither is true, sub prime is specific legal defintion.

I wasn't confusing it with total mortgages. Look at what I posted up. I referenced a report that the peak in sub-prime lending was 2004-2006 at 20%. Nowhere did I say this was the overall rate. If the peak of subprime was 20% then and the usual figure was more like 8%, then how could total outstanding mortgages be almost 50% sub-prime? That was the point I was making.

Bigsby says

I wasn't confusing it with total mortgages. If the peak of subprime was 20% and the usual figure was more like 6%, then how could total outstanding mortgages be almost 50% sub-prime? That was the point I was making.

Yes you are. New mortgages written in 2004-2006 were 20% sub prime. The entire mortgage pool (new mortgages plus existing mortgages) in that time frame (or at least in 2008) consisted of 6% mortgages that were sub prime, 94% that were prime. The percentage of sub prime had to have dropped since so many were foreclosed, but no one has charted it that I can find. Obviously 50% is absurd in any time frame.

bob2356 says

Yes you are. New mortgages written in 2004-2006 were 20% sub prime. The entire mortgage pool (new mortgages plus existing mortgages) in that time frame (or at least in 2008) consisted of 6% mortgages that were sub prime, 94% that were prime. The percentage of sub prime had to have dropped since so many were foreclosed, but no one has charted it that I can find. Obviously 50% is absurd in any time frame.

No, I'm not. The only figure I mentioned was the 20% rate between 2004 and 2006. Where did I say that was the total? I made zero claims about what the actual total was, simply that if the peak sub-prime lending was 20% during those years, then how could 50% be an accurate figure?

Bigsby says

No, I'm not. Look again at what I said. The only figure I mentioned was the 20% rate between 2004 and 2006. Where did I say that was the total?

Where did you, clambo, or cic say it was originations? If that's what you meant then that's what you should have said.

bob2356 says

Bigsby says

No, I'm not. Look again at what I said. The only figure I mentioned was the 20% rate between 2004 and 2006. Where did I say that was the total?

Where did you, clambo, or cic say it was originations? If that's what you meant then that's what you should have said.

I don't get what you are arguing. Clambo said that nearly 50% of TOTAL outstanding mortgages were sub-prime. I simply referenced an article that stated peak sub-prime lending occurred between 2004 and 2006 at a rate of 20%. The obvious conclusion from that is that Clambo's remark is hugely off the mark. I don't see why that needed any further clarification on my part.

Bigsby says

Wikipedia is simply an outlet for individuals to report other people's facts. Check Forbes or any other site you care to research sub-prime rates on. If you want to question that figure, YOU post up something that counters it.

I have read a couple of books about it. The main point you mutts miss is that if there was no bailout there would have been NO PROBLEM.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

Wikipedia is simply an outlet for individuals to report other people's facts. Check Forbes or any other site you care to research sub-prime rates on. If you want to question that figure, YOU post up something that counters it.

I have read a couple of books about it. The main point you mutts miss is that if there was no bailout there would have been NO PROBLEM.

The point YOU are missing is that has nothing to do with what the back and forth was about. The issue was the accuracy of that 50% claim. And the bailout wasn't the source of the problem, was it?

Bigsby says

The point YOU are missing is that has nothing to do with what the back and forth was about. The issue was the accuracy of that 50% claim. And the bailout wasn't the source of the problem, was it?

Ok but you're still a mutt, and the over arching issue is the bailouts

indigenous says

Bigsby says

The point YOU are missing is that has nothing to do with what the back and forth was about. The issue was the accuracy of that 50% claim. And the bailout wasn't the source of the problem, was it?

Ok but you're still a mutt, and the over arching issue is the bailouts

Thanks. And why exactly are the bailouts the over-arching issue? What about the lack of oversight of the financial systems that allowed it all to happen in the first place and that will no doubt allow it to happen again seeing as little has really changed.

Bigsby says

And why exactly are the bailouts the over-arching issue? What about the lack of oversight of the financial systems that allowed it all to happen in the first place and that will no doubt allow it to happen again seeing as little has really changed.

If you understand no explanation is necessary, if you don't no explanation is possible.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

And why exactly are the bailouts the over-arching issue? What about the lack of oversight of the financial systems that allowed it all to happen in the first place and that will no doubt allow it to happen again seeing as little has really changed.

If you understand no explanation is necessary, if you don't no explanation is possible.

I take it then that you don't understand seeing as you appear to be incapable of giving an explanation. Oh, my mistake, you read a couple of books. Congrats.

Bigsby says

I take it then that you don't understand what you are talking about seeing as you appear to be incapable of giving an explanation.

Of course you do

indigenous says

Bigsby says

I take it then that you don't understand what you are talking about seeing as you appear to be incapable of giving an explanation.

Of course you do

You and CiC are perfect for each other.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Clambo said that nearly 50% of TOTAL outstanding mortgages were sub-prime.

See the operative words there: TOTAL outstanding

Bigsby says

I simply referenced an article that stated peak sub-prime lending occurred between 2004 and 2006 at a rate of 20%

But instead, your referencing a 3 year time frame...

Hint: TOTAL doesn't equal a time period 2004 to 2006..

But, if as you claim, there was a rate of 20% over three year, why wouldn't the TOTAL over many years not be larger of the current outstanding loans??? Weren't there sub-prime loans written BEFORE 2004 and after 2006???

What type of loans were written in the 2006 to 2008 time period right before the bubble popped??

Apples and Oranges.....

Is that supposed to be a joke, or are you really that stupid?

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

indigenous says

Bigsby says

I take it then that you don't understand what you are talking about seeing as you appear to be incapable of giving an explanation.

Of course you do

You and CiC are perfect for each other.

Yep, at least WE understand what we write...

You may understand what you write, but you seem to singularly fail to understand that it is invariably total bullshit.

Call it Crazy says

But, if as you claim, there was a rate of 20% over three year, why wouldn't the TOTAL over many years not be larger of the current outstanding loans??? Weren't there sub-prime loans written BEFORE 2004 and after 2006???

Because the peak was 20% and most years have been far, far lower (8% according to the article). How would that then translate to 50% of outstanding loans? If it does, YOU prove it. I've given links to show the rate of sub-prime lending, a figure that raises serious questions about the veracity of Clambo's claims. Feel free to post up actual evidence that counters that.

Call it Crazy says

What's the matter Bigs, Your hero hasn't been here to "protect" for a while and Gary isn't here to argue with, so are you searching for other threads to Troll and start arguments with your useless comments???

Ah yes, another one of your childish digs. I see you are running away from the points at hand as usual. Why not post up some evidence for your argument seeing as that is what you demand from others? Or let me guess, you are just going to continue chucking around your usual insults because you've got nothing else to say.

hrhjuliet says

How is this managed? I don't understand how this is allowed?

A lot depends on how much equity is left in the property. If the average person understood how many bad loans are on the books of the banking industry there would be a revolution by tomorrow.

The new banking regulations, passed as Dodd-Frank, allow banks to ignore the lost value of foreclosed property and report some mild loss, (which I like to call 'mark-to-make-believe') on their books until they take ownership of the property. But once they take ownership they must write down the "real" loss, called mark-to-market. Now, whatever that real loss is must be added as cash to their reserves to make up for the lost equity.

So, it's easy to see why banks would drag their feet taking ownership of all their bad loans since the capital reserves required to square the mark-to-market losses would be impossible to accumulate.

Thus, if a bank takes ownership of a foreclosed property right away after foreclosure, you can bet the property had a great deal of equity left. Pity the poor saps who lost control of something they had built so much equity into.

If you are foreclosed on, my advice is just live there, save your pennies and wait for the bank to come and take it from you (assuming you are not fighting to save it from foreclosure). In states like mine, Florida, so many properties are in foreclosure you can live rent free for years. Banks actually like people to remain in the houses they have foreclosed on because the original owners will usually continue to keep up the property, thus maintaining the value of the home until the bank can afford to write it off through a short sale or some other means of avoiding adding a large deposit to their cash reserves.

The solution is wage increases, of course.

Long overdue given the massive increase in Wealth and Productivity.

thunderlips11 says

The solution is wage increases, of course.

Long overdue given the massive increase in Wealth and Productivity.

Middle class is not seeing that. Rich drives this economy now. :)

Call it Crazy says

thunderlips11 says

The solution is wage increases, of course.

Long overdue given the massive increase in Wealth and Productivity.

Question, if many people received a 5% wage increase, do you think they would save any of it or just spend it??

LOL
They will spend it all even before they earn it, by taking a well deserved vacation in Hawaii.
Then they will complain how hard it is to make ends meet.
Next they will blame the rich and the government because they are broke.
After that whine whine and whine until I get a headache.

Strategist says

Call it Crazy says

thunderlips11 says

The solution is wage increases, of course.

Long overdue given the massive increase in Wealth and Productivity.

Question, if many people received a 5% wage increase, do you think they would save any of it or just spend it??

LOL
They will spend it all even before they earn it, by taking a well deserved vacation in Hawaii.
Then they will complain how hard it is to make ends meet.
Next they will blame the rich and the government because they are broke.
After that whine whine and whine until I get a headache.

If they are renters, half of it will be gone before they even see it via rent increases. Most of the rest will get baked in other necessities. If they are a homeowner with fixed rate mortgage, they will have more leeway - they may very well choose to spend the raise on vacations/discretionary spending but even taking that course of action is superior to not having a chance to make the choice in the first place.

$100K is the new "Middle to Middle lower" middle class.
That used to be CEO, Doctor and Lawyer money just a decade and half ago.
Today that's just the bare minimum for a family of 4 has to make. To be able to save a few hundred a month if they are lucky. And that's assuming they didn't do something stupid, like buy a luxury car, or a McMansion because they were so foolishly under the impression that 100K in 2014 is the same as even 60K in 1999.

250K is the "Middle to Middle Upper" middle class.
90K is definitely squarely in the lower middle class.
less than 60K is abject poverty.

The problem with our economy there's too damn many full time bills for people making part time wages.

CaptainShuddup says

250K is the "Middle to Middle Upper" middle class.
90K is definitely
squarely in the lower middle class.
less than 60K is abject poverty.

Median american household income is $50,054. Are you saying that a median american lives in "abject poverty" regardless of location?

Call it Crazy says

Online home shopping hit new records in March, with Zillow traffic rising by almost 7 million since the start of the year, an article from GeekWire reported.

That would explain their week over week optimism of my neighborhood since the first of the year.
I guess the Zestimates is based on neighborhood hits on their site, and not actual sales data.

Yup! That is especially if they are married with children.
A single person living alone isn't really a household at all.
So that median income really means nothing on the face of it.
If you're single you'll do with out a lot things, or find those resources in your day to day routine when you're away. Like eat at parents house, or be a part of other social activities where you're often fed or other needs that you would normally have to buy at home if you weren't single.

I mean a single guy can time his nightly dinner to coincide with the local bar's happy hour buffet. You can't really show up with wife and kids in tow, especially if you're only making 50K a year.

If you're single you can always manage rides with friends or family, you can't call friends and ask them to pick up your kids from school or give your wife a ride to the store.

Single person household live an entirely different reality than a 4 member family household in America. So much so, you could consider that single person making $50K a year, will have more disposable income, and a higher living standard(in a materialistic way) than a family of 4 making $75K.

No. No. No. You are all wet. This article on 'Main St.' (So you know it is authentic.) says:

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/real-estate/how-healthy-housing-market-one-stat-tells-all?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

1.) Price are up.
2.) Foreclosures are down.
3.) Shadow inventory is reduced.

All in all, 'Pretty Nice Recovery'.

CaptainShuddup says

I mean a single guy can time his nightly dinner to coincide with the local bar's happy hour buffet. You can't really show up with wife and kids in tow, especially if you're only making 50K a year.

A single guy can also live out of a van, if he wanted to.

Plus, he could spend some $250/month for a paid garage parking spot, so that he wouldn't be facing the cops on the streets.

Thus, $50K for a single guy can even translate into $120K for a family of 4.