[jaunespinoza]

Good video. Truthful and accurate, which is more than I can say for the banks books. A lot of crap on their books, at full value, is like me keeping losing sports bet tickets on my books at full value. After all, I never have to sell them. There is a chance that a game could be declared a forfeit, several years down the road, but that would be long, long. I can see them starting to squirm in the condo market. I got a reply in 1 day in Phoenix, yesterday. They've sold 4900 thru 9-30, but have taken back 8200. The condos now eligible for FHA financing could be very small.

[olecapt]

Simply untrue. The Lenders own very few houses. It is easily verified. Mortgages are held by various financial syndicates and Fannie and Freddie. BofA, Wells et al simply service them. And the financial syndicates own virtually nothing other than the securitized loans.

Foreclosure activity peaked in June/July and has dropped off significantly since. I would believe the drop is at least partially driven by the mediation requirement. I would think that is a permanent kink in the hose that will lower foreclosure rates.

Virtually no rentals are bank owned...and such as exist are deals with specific owners to stay in their homes....it is doubtful there are one hundred of these in Las Vegas.

this is simply another version of the mythical bank inventory that has been cited again and again over the past year. The fact that it does not exist never causes any lack of belief in it.

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by olecapt

this is simply another version of the mythical bank inventory that has been cited again and again over the past year. The fact that it does not exist never causes any lack of belief in it.

You are aware that many of the articles citing "bank inventory" are not using the term to describe homes that are actually vacant, have been foreclosed on, and are sole property of the bank/mortgage holder, right?

Rather, when I have seen the term "bank inventory" used in articles on the matter, it is used to describe all homes in various states of foreclosure including those that have only been sent NOD's.

So as its used in those terms, there is indeed a significant amount of "bank inventory".

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

You are aware that many of the articles citing "bank inventory" are not using the term to describe homes that are actually vacant, have been foreclosed on, and are sole property of the bank/mortgage holder, right?

Rather, when I have seen the term "bank inventory" used in articles on the matter, it is used to describe all homes in various states of foreclosure including those that have only been sent NOD's.

So as its used in those terms, there is indeed a significant amount of "bank inventory".

A given level of NOD leads to a flow of actual properties onto the market. The present level leads to something less than 2000 per month actually reaching the market. That is well less than current demand.

There is little indication of an increase in the NOD level in Las Vegas. And the modification program is likely to cut the yield a bit.

So in terms of marketable units there is no large inventory and what is available is gone almost immediately.

That is not a condition conducive to a significant price decrease.

The NOD level does indicate we will have a significant supply of foreclosures through next year at least.

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by olecapt

A given level of NOD leads to a flow of actual properties onto the market. The present level leads to something less than 2000 per month actually reaching the market. That is well less than current demand.

There is little indication of an increase in the NOD level in Las Vegas. And the modification program is likely to cut the yield a bit.

So in terms of marketable units there is no large inventory and what is available is gone almost immediately.

That is not a condition conducive to a significant price decrease.

The NOD level does indicate we will have a significant supply of foreclosures through next year at least.

I'm confused.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

I'm confused.

The foreclosure statistics are loaded with garbage. Tens of thousands of various default notices yield almost ten thousand scheduled trustee sales which yield 2000 or so new foreclosed homes each month at the moment. Been that way all year. Much of it is repetitive...the same homeowner appears in the statistics many times.

In fact even the local doomsayers have now gone to - "it is going to happen in the spring" - as it is reasonably clear the REO supply has dropped significantly.

I have no idea what will happen in the spring...but I am reasonably secure they don't know either. But between now and then the supply of REOs will remain tight.

[jaunespinoza]

More foreclosures in 2009 than 2008, and more in 2010 than 2009. For every modification; there have been two more foreclosures. If what you're saying is true Capt., then why DON'T they mark to market?

How many of the "short tales (er, I mean sales)" get counted over and over in the "pending" numbers.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by jaunespinoza

More foreclosures in 2009 than 2008, and more in 2010 than 2009. For every modification; there have been two more foreclosures. If what you're saying is true Capt., then why DON'T they mark to market?

They don't own anything. They have nothing to mark to market.

How many of the "short tales (er, I mean sales)" get counted over and over in the "pending" numbers.

Uhh what pending numbers? Pending numbers lost all significance with the onslaught of the shorts. I don't know why anyone would track pendings - except perhaps to see how the shorts were yielding.

REOs are easy to keep track off and the inventory is now down to 1700 for SFRs. See my blog pages where I keep a running account.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

They don't own anything. They have nothing to mark to market.

Nonsense. They own plenty of non-performing loans. Anyone that thinks that BAC and WFC are simply loan servicers has never bothered to crack one of their quarterly reports. The both have significant mortgage exposure and they're both huge mortgage originators.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

Nonsense. They own plenty of non-performing loans. Anyone that thinks that BAC and WFC are simply loan servicers has never bothered to crack one of their quarterly reports. The both have significant mortgage exposure and they're both huge mortgage originators.

True but quite misleading. They are primarily loan servicers. They do hold for their own but only a small percentage of what they service...I have yet to come across either servicing a loan they actually owned. (That may be because so much of the local stuff was CW and may be different elsewhere - but WF is much the same)

Initiation has little to do with holdings.