[vegaslocal55]

[quote=olecapt;16498564]Actually no. The lender simply rejects any offer but the first. If no one else bids the first one flies.



Pls, OC, could you answer my previous question, plus this one: what do you mean by "the first"? The first offer received? I really want to understand this because I'm still trying to get a place & I am paying cash.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Actually no. The lender simply rejects any offer but the first. If no one else bids the first one flies.

You're making no sense. You just got done saying the lender bids over market value. If the lender is bidding over market value they are effectively rejecting your offer and the investor's.

Originally Posted by olecapt

In at least some cases you bid over the investor and the lender holding the paper bids the paper value - generally much more than market value.

Which effectives bars owner occupants below 100K. It is very rare for a person looking to owner occupy a 100K house to have a 100K. in cash. Does happen but it is very rare. So more correctly the vast majority of owner occupants are locked out of the market.

If the sub-$100K market is largely cash transactions and you don't have cash, you have not been "barred" from the market. You simply can't compete well in that market. As a buyer you have the same option to pay cash for a home as an investor. I can't pay cash for $1M home. I have not been barred from that market. More accurately, I don't have the necessary liquidity.

[olecapt]

[quote=vegaslocal55;16498730]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Actually no. The lender simply rejects any offer but the first. If no one else bids the first one flies.



Pls, OC, could you answer my previous question, plus this one: what do you mean by "the first"? The first offer received? I really want to understand this because I'm still trying to get a place & I am paying cash.

If youy want to you can play the trustee sale game. You need to be careful though it can be treacherous. What you need to do is track both a set of homes that are on the MLS and going to be foreclosed. You need ones on the MLS because you have to get in and see what kind of shape the house is in. You can't afford to speculate based on a drive by. So get a dozen or two houses you would consider buying and then get the legal news service and watch for any of them to come up for sale.

Go down and watch the process at the trustee sale so you understand how it works. Ask questions. Get to feel comfortable that you can do the process.

Set your price and then bid it. You may lose some but you will hit in time. Nothing magical. Just make sure that you know what the property is like. You may even want to drive past and take a look at any you are going to bid the next day...be cautious.

[cowboyxjon]

[quote=olecapt;16499201]

Originally Posted by vegaslocal55

If youy want to you can play the trustee sale game. You need to be careful though it can be treacherous. What you need to do is track both a set of homes that are on the MLS and going to be foreclosed. You need ones on the MLS because you have to get in and see what kind of shape the house is in. You can't afford to speculate based on a drive by. So get a dozen or two houses you would consider buying and then get the legal news service and watch for any of them to come up for sale.

Go down and watch the process at the trustee sale so you understand how it works. Ask questions. Get to feel comfortable that you can do the process.

Set your price and then bid it. You may lose some but you will hit in time. Nothing magical. Just make sure that you know what the property is like. You may even want to drive past and take a look at any you are going to bid the next day...be cautious.

Also, be careful and make sure that the property doesn't have lines on its title. I just bought a house in Colorado from an investor who bought it at trustee auction. When the investor went to sell the house to me (for $20K more than what he paid in cash at trustee auction..and it's still a good deal for me), we discovered that the title wasn't clear and there three liens on it. The investor basically made no money on this transaction because he had to resolve the liens before he could sell the house to me.

[eventusstultorummagister]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

Most markets allow for a discount for volume buyers - think Costco. And if investors are buying BELOW market value, what exactly is preventing you from buying AT market value? It sounds like you think you should be able to buy a home at the same price as someone buying 10-20 properties at a time. That's not how most markets work. Further, it should be pretty evident that investors buying 10-20 properties at a time are going to clear excess inventory much quicker than single home buyers. The faster excess inventory is cleared the sooner prices bottom. Vegas only has Section 8 tenants?

T, you're a smart fella...

I could bid 5% OVER market value and then after 6 months find that prices have declined an additional 5% which would put me 10% in the hole but what is the point in that?

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

You're making no sense. You just got done saying the lender bids over market value. If the lender is bidding over market value they are effectively rejecting your offer and the investor's.

As I have pointed out before you simply don't understand this stuff...but let me try a simple example.

Case 1..House goes to trustee sale with a 260K first.

Bidder A bids 130K. Bidder A gets house.

Case 2

Bidder A bids 130K. Bidder B bids 150K. Bank bids 260K.

Bank however bids only if Bidder B does.

If the sub-$100K market is largely cash transactions and you don't have cash, you have not been "barred" from the market. You simply can't compete well in that market. As a buyer you have the same option to pay cash for a home as an investor. I can't pay cash for $1M home. I have not been barred from that market. More accurately, I don't have the necessary liquidity.

Yes Tony again your wonderful insight brings full clarity.

The result is that those who would live in those houses cannot buy them. They become rentals which has sociological impact to the neighborhood.

It also says we develop a disenfranchised class which cannot buy a home, even though well qualified, unless they have cash. So basically our lowest social strata is barred from home ownership under terms similar to those available to the higher classes. Given of course that they are the least likely class to accumulate large amounts of cash it says they are actually barred more tightly than a middle or upper class person would be.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

As I have pointed out before you simply don't understand this stuff...but let me try a simple example.

Case 1..House goes to trustee sale with a 260K first.

Bidder A bids 130K. Bidder A gets house.

Case 2

Bidder A bids 130K. Bidder B bids 150K. Bank bids 260K.

Bank however bids only if Bidder B does.

No one can understand it because it's complete nonsense. The lender will accept $130K but if someone else bids $150K they'll overbid and take the home back. Nonsense.

Yes Tony again your wonderful insight brings full clarity.

The result is that those who would live in those houses cannot buy them. They become rentals which has sociological impact to the neighborhood.

It also says we develop a disenfranchised class which cannot buy a home, even though well qualified, unless they have cash. So basically our lowest social strata is barred from home ownership under terms similar to those available to the higher classes. Given of course that they are the least likely class to accumulate large amounts of cash it says they are actually barred more tightly than a middle or upper class person would be.

No, it more accurately says that the disenfranchised class will likely have to pay more than a cash buyer. This should be of little surprise to someone with even such a poor understanding of markets as yourself.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by eventusstultorummagister

T, you're a smart fella...

I could bid 5% OVER market value and then after 6 months find that prices have declined an additional 5% which would put me 10% in the hole but what is the point in that?

You complained of investors buying below market value. If investors are buying below market value what is keeping you from buying at market value? Why would you have to bid 5% over market value if the investors you're complaining about are paying below market value?

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

No one can understand it because it's complete nonsense. The lender will accept $130K but if someone else bids $150K they'll overbid and take the home back. Nonsense.

As I said you would never understand and you again prove me correct.

No, it more accurately says that the disenfranchised class will likely have to pay more than a cash buyer. This should be of little surprise to someone with even such a poor understanding of markets as yourself.

Again you simply lack the mental capability for this stuff.

They generally can't overpay...their financing requires an appraisal which is virtually always less than the investor offer. In some limited cases they may have enough cash to pay over and above their down payment...but again they are being compelled to accept worse terms then their richer counterparts.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

As I said you would never understand and you again prove me correct.

I've always had difficulty understanding gibberish.

Again you simply lack the mental capability for this stuff.

They generally can't overpay...their financing requires an appraisal which is virtually always less than the investor offer. In some limited cases they may have enough cash to pay over and above their down payment...but again they are being compelled to accept worse terms then their richer counterparts.

Worse terms than a cash buyer? Who would have ever guessed??