U.S. Homes Lost to Foreclosure Up 25 Percent

[SnakeBoy]

LOS ANGELES -- Lenders took back more homes in August than in any month since the start of the U.S. mortgage crisis.

The increase in home repossessions came even as the number of properties entering the foreclosure process slowed for the seventh month in a row, foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday.

In all, banks repossessed 95,364 properties last month, up 3 percent from July and an increase of 25 percent from August 2009, RealtyTrac said.

August makes the ninth month in a row that the pace of homes lost to foreclosure has increased on an annual basis. The previous high was in May....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/16/homes-lost-foreclosure-percent/

Weren't Dems really concerned about all the poor innocent people losing their homes last election cycle. They must have stopped caring since they never seem to mention the foreclosure rate anymore.

[boutons_deux]

Blame this on the Dems? GFY

The lenders refuse to help the taxpayers who saved their still-bankrupt asses. Repug policies wouldn't haven't changed that.

[SnakeBoy]

Repug policies wouldn't haven't changed that.

There are no republican policies, only democrat ones.

[boutons_deux]

I didn't say there were. I said Repug policies WOULDN'T have made any difference in the lenders' non-assistance.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't say there were. I said Repug policies WOULDN'T have made any difference in the lenders' non-assistance.Yes, republican policies would make a difference.

They would have never mandated the health care legislation. They wouldn't let the Bush tax cuts expire. They wouldn't scare employers with talk of more and more taxes, fees, and regulations.

As long as the democrats policies keep businesses from hiring people, and continue them to downsize, there is little to no motive to make new loans, or let past due loans continue on.

It boils down to the cost of employing people. Democrat polices hurt this nation. With the added burden of health care legislation and taxes increasing in January, Things will stay as they are or get worse. Very few businesses are in a position to increase their employee base. Many are scared of losing their businesses as it is.

[boutons_deux]

"republican policies would make a difference."

not to the foreclosure/underwater crisis.

In you unbiased opinion, what would the Repugs, God bless 'em, have done about the foreclosure/underwater crisis.

[LnGrrrR]

Hey, I'm all for more foreclosures. It's really the only way to deflate the ridiculously inflated housing market. And it means a Joe Schmoe like me might actually be able to afford a house one day.

[Winehole23]

Hey, I'm all for more foreclosures. It's really the only way to deflate the ridiculously inflated housing market. And it means a Joe Schmoe like me might actually be able to afford a house one day.:tu

[ChumpDumper]

Banks are still trying to prop up housing prices by keeping homes they own off the market.

[SnakeBoy]

Hey, I'm all for more foreclosures. It's really the only way to deflate the ridiculously inflated housing market. And it means a Joe Schmoe like me might actually be able to afford a house one day.

I'll see Wh's :tu and raise you a :toast.

[TeyshaBlue]

Banks are still trying to prop up housing prices by keeping homes they own off the market.

Doesn't seem like a viable exercise for very long.....

[boutons_deux]

house prices are not now so inflated as they were in 2007, esp on the high end.

a huge fraud by the banks is that they are valuing/booking their mortgages as prices they will never receive.

the entire financial sector is one big fraud, a rip-off, predatory.

BaselIII is a joke.

There's no way to fix the financial sector because the govt is owned by it.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, I'm all for more foreclosures. It's really the only way to deflate the ridiculously inflated housing market. And it means a Joe Schmoe like me might actually be able to afford a house one day.
I'm with you there. It's a hard medicine to make people swallow, but housing prices are still way too high. One reason the bubble popped was because it came to a point where people contracted to build nicer houses for less than the market rates shot up to.

[SnakeBoy]

Banks are still trying to prop up housing prices by keeping homes they own off the market.

As well as postponing foreclosures on delinquent borrowers. All of which adds up to Obama is fucked.

[ChumpDumper]

As well as postponing foreclosures on delinquent borrowers. All of which adds up to Obama is fucked.If that's what matters to you, sweet baby.

[boutons_deux]

There's some like nearly 10 YEARS of unsold housing inventory, and that's only if the they start selling at average historical rates,which they aren't and won't, even with mortgage rates at 4%.

[Wild Cobra]

There's some like nearly 10 YEARS of unsold housing inventory, and that's only if the they start selling at average historical rates,which they aren't and won't, even with mortgage rates at 4%.
I don't understand why it's so hard to buy right now. I would think that if a buyer went to the bank that the seller is being in danger of foreclosure with, that this same bank would be happy to chance a loan with a new buyer.

Granted, I'm not one looking to buy, but in a form to put a current loan in the hands of a more likely candidate to pay the money back seems like a win-win for both the bank and the buyer.

[boutons_deux]

The lender has booked mortgage as his asset/cash flow at its original bubbled price, even though the lender will never get that bubble price for it, and the lender doesn't want to devalue his booked value by selling to a new buyer at many percent off.

If the homeowner has one or more home equity loans, then those lenders have to agree to the sale and get their money. VERY complex.

Then the lenders are holding out to get paid off by insurers FHA/Fannie/Freddie.

It's a real mess of a crisis the lenders have plunged the country into.

But keep telling me how wonderful the free market is and how honest and good-faith the conservative-unregulated corps are.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't understand why it's so hard to buy right now. I would think that if a buyer went to the bank that the seller is being in danger of foreclosure with, that this same bank would be happy to chance a loan with a new buyer.

Granted, I'm not one looking to buy, but in a form to put a current loan in the hands of a more likely candidate to pay the money back seems like a win-win for both the bank and the buyer.

I don't think it's necessarily hard to buy right now; just that there's no reason to, with the market prices still dropping. (If I were out of the military and living in a single area, I'd probably buy soon.)

[Winehole23]

Granted, I'm not one looking to buy, but in a form to put a current loan in the hands of a more likely candidate to pay the money back seems like a win-win for both the bank and the buyer.Yes, if the housing market has already bottomed out. That's a big if.

[SnakeBoy]

I don't understand why it's so hard to buy right now. I would think that if a buyer went to the bank that the seller is being in danger of foreclosure with, that this same bank would be happy to chance a loan with a new buyer.


What are banks requiring for down payments now? Could be part of the problem...

http://www.dsnews.com/articles/poll-finds-49-of-consumers-unable-to-afford-downpayment-on-home-2010-06-02

[Wild Cobra]

What are banks requiring for down payments now? Could be part of the problem...

http://www.dsnews.com/articles/poll-finds-49-of-consumers-unable-to-afford-downpayment-on-home-2010-06-02
But a 20% dawn payment is traditional. Maybe not requiring that much was a large part of the disaster we now have.

Screw maybe. I'll say it is.

[TeyshaBlue]

But a 20% dawn payment is traditional. Maybe not requiring that much was a large part of the disaster we now have.

Screw maybe. I'll say it is.

I'd say that was a huge part of it...but the reduction of down payments could've been driven by the increase of housing prices...almost a chicken-egg thing. There were plenty of sketchy mortages written by builders who fudged the hell outta credit apps. I know. I almost built a house a couple of years ago. We didn't even need the help, but the builder was suggesting several questionable tactics. Glad I passed on it now.

[SnakeBoy]

But a 20% dawn payment is traditional. Maybe not requiring that much was a large part of the disaster we now have.

Screw maybe. I'll say it is.

Oh yeah, I agree. I didn't mean requiring a down payment was "a problem". Just that when half of people haven't saved anything it might make it hard for them to buy the house they can't afford, like the good ol days.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd say that was a huge part of it...but the reduction of down payments could've been driven by the increase of housing prices...almost a chicken-egg thing.
The flip side of that argument using supply and demand logic, housing prices wouldn't have ever skyrocketed if they were harder to buy.

There were plenty of sketchy mortages written by builders who fudged the hell outta credit apps. I know. I almost built a house a couple of years ago. We didn't even need the help, but the builder was suggesting several questionable tactics. Glad I passed on it now.
I don't doubt that at all. People like that should be reported.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh yeah, I agree. I didn't mean requiring a down payment was "a problem". Just that when half of people haven't saved anything it might make it hard for them to buy the house they can't afford, like the good ol days.
And in the good 'ol days, any one with a job could save and buy a house.

[boutons_deux]

FHFA: Banks Should Share Fannie, Freddie Bailout Costs

The nation's largest banks have an obligation to pay some of the cost for bailing out mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they sold them bad mortgages,

the banks this summer have refused to take back $11 billion in bad loans sold to the two government-controlled companies,

Fannie and Freddie have a legal right to return bad loans, especially if they later discover fraudulent statements on applications.

Fitch Ratings said in a report last month that the four largest U.S. banks could book losses of up to $42 billion if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac force them to take back troubled mortgages they made. It also estimated that JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. could record $17 billion in losses if they repurchase a quarter of the mortgage giants' seriously delinquent loans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/fha-banks-share-fannie-freddie-bailout-costs_n_718826.html?view=print

[LnGrrrR]

But a 20% dawn payment is traditional. Maybe not requiring that much was a large part of the disaster we now have.

Screw maybe. I'll say it is.

I'll agree there.

[Wild Cobra]

FHFA: Banks Should Share Fannie, Freddie Bailout Costs

The nation's largest banks have an obligation to pay some of the cost for bailing out mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they sold them bad mortgages,

the banks this summer have refused to take back $11 billion in bad loans sold to the two government-controlled companies,

Fannie and Freddie have a legal right to return bad loans, especially if they later discover fraudulent statements on applications.

Fitch Ratings said in a report last month that the four largest U.S. banks could book losses of up to $42 billion if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac force them to take back troubled mortgages they made. It also estimated that JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. could record $17 billion in losses if they repurchase a quarter of the mortgage giants' seriously delinquent loans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/fha-banks-share-fannie-freddie-bailout-costs_n_718826.html?view=print
I would have more faith in this if it didn't come from the huff and puff post.

If what you posted is true, there is more at stake than making banks repay. there should be criminal liability and jail sentences for those involved. Fat chance the democrats will let that happen to their banker friends...

[LnGrrrR]

If what you posted is true, there is more at stake than making banks repay. there should be criminal liability and jail sentences for those involved. Fat chance the democrats will let that happen to their banker friends...

You act as if bankers are only friends with Democrats. I'm pretty sure quite a few bankers are friends with both sides of the house.

After all, if Democrats are out to destroy the economy, you'd think bankers would know better than to side with them.

[Winehole23]

The banks parked their shitty loans at Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie sucked them up dutifully.

From August 2007 all the way through 2008, that was arguably their job. Their subprime holdings increased during that period, as if the GSEs were being used deliberately to soften the blow to the market.

[SnakeBoy]

And in the good 'ol days, any one with a job could save and buy a house.

LOL, no I didn't mean those good 'ol days. I meant the good 'ol days when you didn't even need a job to buy a house.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's just more political smoke screen/cover for Fannie and Freddie. THEY are the ones that relaxed the lending standards and didn't require income verification. I blame all of them, but the banks were just playing by the rules Fannie and Freedie wrote for the game.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL, no I didn't mean those good 'ol days. I meant the good 'ol days when you didn't even need a job to buy a house.

Sorry, missed your sarcasm.

[TeyshaBlue]

I would have more faith in this if it didn't come from the huff and puff post.

If what you posted is true, there is more at stake than making banks repay. there should be criminal liability and jail sentences for those involved. Fat chance the democrats will let that happen to their banker friends...

It's an AP article, WC. C'mon man...just think a little bit.

[TeyshaBlue]

The banks parked their shitty loans at Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie sucked them up dutifully.

From August 2007 all the way through 2008, that was arguably their job. Their subprime holdings increased during that period, as if the GSEs were being used deliberately to soften the blow to the market.

No shit. THe GSE was nothing more than a subprime heat sink.:depressed

[TeyshaBlue]

It's an AP article, WC. C'mon man...just think a little bit.

I share a healthy skepticism of Huff Po too...and I've hung them out to dry more than once. However, like the Fox news issue GGA and I rassled over, it's just a reprint of an AP article.

[Wild Cobra]

It's an AP article, WC. C'mon man...just think a little bit.
Maybe it is, this one I didn't check. The link at the bottom of his posting clearly was from the Huffington post.

In this case, I took the post at face value with my own prejudices.

[boutons_deux]

I would have more faith in this if it didn't come from the huff and puff post.

If what you posted is true, there is more at stake than making banks repay. there should be criminal liability and jail sentences for those involved. Fat chance the democrats will let that happen to their banker friends...

you're right, HuffPo rewrites a progressive bias into copyrighted AP articles. I should have known

[Wild Cobra]

you're right, HuffPo rewrites a progressive bias into copyrighted AP articles. I should have known
At least I acknowledge my own bias. Do you?

[TeyshaBlue]

At least I acknowledge my own bias. Do you?

oh, I don't think it's any secret that bouton's has a bias. He'll tell you 100 times a day. I at least respect him for that, even if I think he's often out of his mind.:lol:toast

[boutons_deux]

The Great Boutons has no bias, no prejudice. He looks at the facts and draws laser-sharp conclusions.

Repugs, conservatives, VRWC are assholes.

[Wild Cobra]

The Great Boutons has no bias, no prejudice. He looks at the facts and draws laser-sharp conclusions.

Repugs, conservatives, VRWC are assholes.

LOL....

See what I mean?

[TeyshaBlue]

The Great Boutons has no bias, no prejudice. He looks at the facts and draws laser-sharp conclusions.

Repugs, conservatives, VRWC are assholes.

You're not mighty, boutons, and I really don't have super-powers. No, just sit down and relax. You're as biased as they come and you revel in it. You've admitted it before. Own it, boutons. It's at least honest.


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161731
I'm not pro-Dem at all, they all suck, but you might have noticed I'm violently anti-Repug.

[Nbadan]

All real estate is regional and some markets were hit by the recession worse than others, for instance, the foreclosure rate in states like Nevada are much higher than in Texas...in San Antonio you can purchase a home for 1/2 to 1/4 the price as on the east or west coast, so prices have less flexibility....I certainly wouldn't go buying a 1/2 to 1 million dollar shack in San Diego when I could purchase a Mansion for the same money in San Antonio...

[boutons_deux]

"but you might have noticed I'm violently anti-Repug"

That's not BIAS. That's a position based on the facts of Repug and conservative strategies that have given us the highest wealth inequality since 1929, increased productivity but flat real incomes, two botched/bogus wars, a slandering, lying VRWC, witch-hunting the Clintons, starving the beast with no benefits, dismantling regulations that would have prevented the housing bubble and financial meltdown, being relentlessly racist, anti-employee, anti-patient, anti-poor/pro-wealthy based on their pro-business BIAS, shutting down the govt, etc, etc ad nauseam, WITH NO OFFSETTING positives.

That's not BIAS. My position is perfectly, justifiably, honestly, openly based on the Repug/conservative record.

And the huge fault everybody here makes is that means I'm equally FOR the Dems and a librul. GFY. The Dems suck, but they aren't anywhere near as outright destructive and bad faith and fundamentally anti-American as Repugs/conservatives.

[TeyshaBlue]

No, that's bias.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ honestly.:lmao

[BlairForceDejuan]

"but you might have noticed I'm violently anti-Repug"

That's not BIAS. That's a position based on the facts of Repug and conservative strategies that have given us the highest wealth inequality since 1929, increased productivity but flat real incomes, two botched/bogus wars, a slandering, lying VRWC, witch-hunting the Clintons, starving the beast with no benefits, dismantling regulations that would have prevented the housing bubble and financial meltdown, being relentlessly racist, anti-employee, anti-patient, anti-poor/pro-wealthy based on their pro-business BIAS, shutting down the govt, etc, etc ad nauseam, WITH NO OFFSETTING positives.

That's not BIAS. My position is perfectly, justifiably, honestly, openly based on the Repug/conservative record.

And the huge fault everybody here makes is that means I'm equally FOR the Dems and a librul. GFY. The Dems suck, but they aren't anywhere near as outright destructive and bad faith and fundamentally anti-American as Repugs/conservatives.

And yet somehow, many hardworking normal people make a great life out of it all.

Cry more. :dramaquee

[TDMVPDPOY]

its amazing what u can buy now in the states with US$250k-350k compared to what u can get down here with that price mainly 22km away from the cbd living in new estates which becomes ghettos in the future....