▲
0
0
▼

Grapevine Realtors haggle over who has the most Foreclosures


               
2007 Nov 2, 8:40am   9,233 views  47 comments

by HARM   follow (0)  

Mountain Enterprise: "Foreclosures May Not Impact Mountain As Badly As Bakersfield"

The Mountain Enterprise. "Kathy Flick's job is to compile all the notices of default that are recorded with Kern County each month when people stop paying their mortgages. Flick predicts the rate of foreclosures in the Mountain Communities is apt to be far lower than that occurring in Bakersfield because there were not ‘overnight subdivisions' being built here.”

"‘Its extremely bad right now,' Flick said. ‘We are running 50 defaults per day. There are 500 defaults a week since last December. It just keeps going on and on and on. Most of it I truly believe were the loan products that asked for nothing down and now they have gigantic payments they have to come up with.'”

"Local realtors may disagree.

‘Our rate may be far lower than Bakersfield, but it is much higher than any of the years I have been selling up here since 1991,' commented Gary Wilson of Mountain Properties. ‘I guess you could say ‘on aggregate' that their pain is more than ours, but we have lots of pain to go around.'”

Realtor 1: "Dude, you're a total noob --I've got 300 foreclosures in my neighborhood this week alone!"

Realtor 2: "Oh, yeah? Well, our foreclosures are sooo many, if you stacked them all end-to-end, they'd reach to the moon and back 10 times!"

I guess txchick57 was right. Broke really IS the "new black".
What a difference a year makes, no?

HARM

#housing

Comments 1 - 4 of 47       Last »     Search these comments

1   Claire   2007 Nov 2, 9:50am  

Does anyone know what the foreclosure count is for San Jose/Santa Clara?

I would be really interested.

2   GammaRaze   2007 Nov 2, 9:58am  

Why is this so easy to find homes for sale for free and all foreclosure listing sites demand payment?

3   HARM   2007 Nov 2, 10:08am  

Sorry Claire --check the newslinks on Patrick's main page, might be something there.

Now, can anyone tell me why this makes sense?
Federal Reserve says super SIV requiress less capital

WASHINGTON, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Banks that back a proposed new multi-billion dollar investment fund that may purchase risky mortgage-related assets will need only one tenth of the capital they would need if they were to take the assets onto their own balance sheets, the Federal Reserve has said.

Hmmm... let me get this straight. The toxic waste the banks are holding in the form of MBSs CDOs & various other NINJA-mortgage derivatives is so radioactive, they have to get it off their own books ASAP and dump it in this wonderful new 'mark-to-myth' creation of financial alchemy, known as a 'Super-SIV' or M-LEC.

So, given that the M-LECs are full of toxic waste by definition (the very reason they were created in the first place is to house non-performing toxic loans/derivatives off bank balance sheets), the Fed figures they're so safe they only need 1/10th of the reserve capital needed if they stayed on the banksters' own books.

Huh??

4   skibum   2007 Nov 2, 10:13am  

HARM,
Don't you realize that the "Superfund" is a big huge, stinking con game?

It's nothing more than a bunch of banks up $hit's creek trying to get rid of these bad, bad instruments on their "off balance sheets". So, they come up with a great idea of putting in some chump change, slapping the "Citi" or whatever label on them, and hoping that suckers, er, investors, buy them becuase these banks have a good reputation. All this with the blessing of Hank Paulson.

Well, seeing how Citi is in deep doo-doo, doesn't seem like their "plan" is going to quite work, is it?

Comments 1 - 4 of 47       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   users   suggestions   gaiste