Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope you are doing it again. Arguing for the sake of arguing and not backing anything up.
Not tweaking stats and figures. I didn't write the articles. How do you get that I tweaked an article. I do know the difference of seized and foreclosure notices which the articles state. But I guess I tweaked the article.
No one said you live in IL. Where did I assume something? I can only write about what I know and that is what I did. I thought you were able to read between the lines and are an are the expert. If you choose to misinterpet what I am communicating and say you know all the facts it is very difficult to come to any type of understanding. Please point to an article that states we as Americans shouldnt be worried about foreclosures. Please point to the article that states that only 1-3% of homes is what will be lost to foreclosures. Please point to this since you have all the facts.
Again, like I said before we can agree to disagree.
Because you continue to post articles that list foreclosure numbers & foreclosure filings and treat the statistics as they are one in the same.
Now you're backtracking from thinking I lived in Illinois? You assumed I lived in Illinois and said as much. Just as you take posted stats that don't tell the full foreclosure story and take that as gospel. Let this be a lesson to you to get the entire history before you make a judgement.
And who the heck said people shouldn't be worried about foreclosures? You are taking a leap right there - the same type of leap you've been taking with facts & figures.
As for proof of the percentage of homes lost to foreclosure - I've posted it. It's quite easy to find census stats on the amount of housing units present in the US as well as the amount of homes lost to foreclosure in 2010. (Not received foreclosure filings - that's two different things.) It amounts to about 1% of homes were lost to foreclosure in 2010. I don't need an article to spoon food me the author's version of their own truth - when the real truth is easy to find on it's own.
You want to add up all the homes lost to foreclosure in the last few years? Have at it ... you can tweak your stats to say pretty much whatever you'd like. Heck, add up all the homes lost to foreclosure since 1950 and I bet you could come up with some kind of statistic that says "1 out of every 2 homes are lost to foreclosure."
That's about as meaningless as saying 100% of everyone born today will eventually die.
You've posted continuously that foreclosure rates are higher than 3% - you've even stated that 7% is low. I've presented you with proof that you're wrong ... and then you decide to move the bar. "Oh, I really didn't mean THAT, I meant the sum total of all homes lost to foreclosure." Give me a break already.
You haven't backed anything up. Never claimed you lived in IL which is very weird. If I said you lived there I'm sure you would have posted it. Haven't seen where you have posted anything to back up your position of which I am loosing site of.
I've posted that I believe foreclosures will be higher than 3%. That is where this started and I still believe that. If it was only 3% than no one would be making a fuss about it in the news. I also stated that 3% seems low because when you compare unemployment to foreclosures in a state it is only obvious that foreclosures will be more in line with the state of the unemployed.
BTW, it only makes sense to add up the number of homes in the last few years that were seized. Just as you would compare how many of them were inflated over the last 10 years (its called historical data). People compare previous recessions and how long they lasted and how it happened etc in order to make assumptions/predictions on the current situation and how to get out of it and or how long it will last.
I've stated that 7% is low in what context? You aren't backing things up. You aren't making sense.
The articles that were posted identify both seized and notice filings. I reported seized properties in my comment. But you claim I don't know the difference but ok. Even notice of defaults are VERY important to post (although not my point). Those homes can't be saved forever. Notices of default gives an idea to the general public of what is at stake and the bigger picture. It is only a matter of time before homes with notices are foreclosed on.
My main problem I have with some of your comments is that you don't believe the problem is that big as many of us believe it to be. I think these are serious times right now and believe the rate of foreclosures will continue to increase year after year until around 2014/2015. I don't believe this is a good time to buy. That is my opinion and I proudly stand by it. I really hope that I am wrong. But in my state home prices are still too high and they will with out a doubt go down (unemployment in the state of CA is 12.5% and I believe the real number is higher).
Who is twisted and tweaking statements? I think you are doing it. Again, we can agree to disagree. I think people are tired of this thread hijack.
Last edited by bayarea-girl; 05-12-2011 at 11:47 AM..
As to plumbers, builders, electricians, etc. being out of work? One sentence: We have an oversupply.
Just because people are employed in an industry, doesn't mean we should take extreme actions to keep them employed regardless of existing demand. We don't maintain Christmas all year just so professional Santas can maintain a paycheck. If demand for housing has gone down, these professionals must seek other careers. Painful, hard, but true..
I can't put it any better. By saying that RE decline brings the economy decline, I think, the consequence was substituted for a reason.
Here's some insight into how greed started us down this painful path of using our housing market to make the elites richer on the backs of everyone else...
I would love to hear a realtor defend the Chicago market, where 46 percent of those with mortgages are underwater, and it is only going to get worse until the banks clear out all their shadow inventory.
I am not a realtor , but we have just bought one in Chicago and I still watch new MLS listings in our area 60618 (there are e-mails I receive automatically).
Nothing nice and interesting shows up. Nothing. Even though a lot of new inventory was supposed to come to the market in spring. Not much. People just do not sell their houses for less. They just keep them.
There are some foreclosures near by, but i cannot say they affect regular sale prices all that much. Foreclosures in our area that I have seen - are something one just do not want to get, no matter how cheap. Most have structural problems, etc. I just have not seen any decent houses on forclosure. I guess there are some, but rather few. NOt enough to affect the overall prices of the area.
So, a lot of people just keeping their houses instead of selling them for very low. Most of nice houses we have seen were estate sales - the kind of situations when people are forced to sell. That does not happen very often, as you understand.
Short sales and foreclosures are not great options for people, even if their investments turned out to be bad. Besides , a lot of them - just want to keep their own houses, for obvious reasons.
Also,
There are not so many nice areas in Chicago to live. There are some areas that are in decline, on the other hand there are areas that are getting better. People just moving around. Some areas are getting worse, some getting better. Foreclosures rate is also not the same for different areas - it is higher for very expensive (=hight taxes) and recently developed areas. It is not really all that bad in stable neighborhoods.
Not exacty the kind of defense that Humbolt1 was looking for...
I think the request for a "defense" was more a "challenge" to those who (mostly in other areas) that are saying things are on the verge of popping higher quickly.
Hanging on to a house (especially a nice one) rarely, by itself moves the market higher (except when the inventory is VERY VERY VERY tight).
There is inventory available, a smattering of which IS NICE, and the crummy inventory will likely be a drag on prices for a long time.
Even nice inventory, in nice areas, that is FAIRLY priced is not easy to sell as their are still delays due to financing including unskilled appraisers not adequately adjusting for property condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dressy
I am not a realtor , but we have just bought one in Chicago and I still watch new MLS listings in our area 60618 (there are e-mails I receive automatically).
Nothing nice and interesting shows up. Nothing. Even though a lot of new inventory was supposed to come to the market in spring. Not much. People just do not sell their houses for less. They just keep them.
There are some foreclosures near by, but i cannot say they affect regular sale prices all that much. Foreclosures in our area that I have seen - are something one just do not want to get, no matter how cheap. Most have structural problems, etc. I just have not seen any decent houses on forclosure. I guess there are some, but rather few. NOt enough to affect the overall prices of the area.
So, a lot of people just keeping their houses instead of selling them for very low. Most of nice houses we have seen were estate sales - the kind of situations when people are forced to sell. That does not happen very often, as you understand.
Short sales and foreclosures are not great options for people, even if their investments turned out to be bad. Besides , a lot of them - just want to keep their own houses, for obvious reasons.
Also,
There are not so many nice areas in Chicago to live. There are some areas that are in decline, on the other hand there are areas that are getting better. People just moving around. Some areas are getting worse, some getting better. Foreclosures rate is also not the same for different areas - it is higher for very expensive (=hight taxes) and recently developed areas. It is not really all that bad in stable neighborhoods.
60618 is avondale for the most part. Not an area I would buy in but there are parts of Irving Park that have some nice housing stock.
I hope you got a great deal on a shortsale/foreclosure. You don't see a lot of foreclosure listings because the banks are holding onto properties and foreclosures are taking literally years to finish. The shadow inventory is out there. You just don't see it on the MLS.
Well, if you want to "dissilusion me" and convince that I made a bad investment, then the best thing to do is just find a nice, preferably brick bungalow, single family and in a move-in condition, preferably with finished attick and basement, for around 260K in 60618 and preferably not much further than Motrose and Pulaski.
If you menage to do so - I will be really really upset.
Well I actually saw one nice deal on Belmont - was gone in a week, so Alas, that one is done.
So go ahead and find those "nice houses" for nothing. Otherwise - those are just words, words, words.
I am not saying that prices are expected to go up, I am saying - if they are not going that much down in that area.
Almost forgot - yes, please do not offer Avondale. Because that is indeed rather a lousy situation there. without much hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
I think the request for a "defense" was more a "challenge" to those who (mostly in other areas) that are saying things are on the verge of popping higher quickly.
Hanging on to a house (especially a nice one) rarely, by itself moves the market higher (except when the inventory is VERY VERY VERY tight).
There is inventory available, a smattering of which IS NICE, and the crummy inventory will likely be a drag on prices for a long time.
Even nice inventory, in nice areas, that is FAIRLY priced is not easy to sell as their are still delays due to financing including unskilled appraisers not adequately adjusting for property condition.
60618 is avondale for the most part. Not an area I would buy in but there are parts of Irving Park that have some nice housing stock.
I hope you got a great deal on a shortsale/foreclosure. You don't see a lot of foreclosure listings because the banks are holding onto properties and foreclosures are taking literally years to finish. The shadow inventory is out there. You just don't see it on the MLS.
no, avondale is a rather small part of it. just go on redfin and put the zip code - it will show you the boundaries. I did not buy foreclosure or short sale. We were fist about to do so, but found out later that the house needs tons of work and we would therefore need a lot of cash and time and just opted out, since - risky and we have our day jobs, so left it for developers. there are two houses on our street that are foreclosures. They both need work. They did not affect the rest of the houses that much, they simply the birds of different color. A lot of people have day jobs, they just do not want to mess around with handy man specials.
Other than that - I do not see any houses unocuppied. So I do not understand this "shadow" thing. who is holding what? why would they hold it back? I do not believe it - it is a fairy tale. For a bank there is not reason to hold back purposefully their foreclosed properties. No reason whatsoever.They pay $$$$ taxes on those properties and other expenses. They may not sell it for cheap, but there is still no reason for the banks not to put the property on sale. It only takes a little while for processing and paper work. but they do not just "hold it".
there may be some condos on foreclosures that I do not know/ care about.
Other than that - I do not see any houses unocuppied. So I do not understand this "shadow" thing. who is holding what? why would they hold it back? I do not believe it - it is a fairy tale. For a bank there is not reason to hold back purposefully their foreclosed properties. No reason whatsoever.They pay $$$$ taxes on those properties and other expenses. They may not sell it for cheap, but there is still no reason for the banks not to put the property on sale. It only takes a little while for processing and paper work. but they do not just "hold it".
there may be some condos on foreclosures that I do not know/ care about.
It's not a fairy tale.
I'll give you a perfect example - one that's duplicated in some fashion over and over across the country.
I had a listing in mid 2009 - potential short sale & owner had stopped making payments. Finally got an offer on the table in early 2010 - around the same time the lender's vendors showed up to "secure" the house. (They'll change one of the exterior locks and winterize the house if it's unoccupied.)
For a mazillion reasons, short sale never went through. I pulled the listing for a mazillion other reasons (one of which being the neighbors wouldn't quit calling me and yelling at me) and the house is still sitting there empty today. Hasn't gone to sheriff sale. It's in limbo - real estate purgatory.
The term "shadow inventory" is really a combination of properties that have already been taken back by the bank and are not on the market yet and the other empty houses, still in limbo.
So no, it doesn't take "a little while" - it can take years. Literally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give me a break already.
Not exacty the kind of defense that Humbolt1 was looking for...
