SoCalGal

Could FICO Scoring Scheme Boost Housing Market?

Thomas Smicklas wrote: I believe that current scores, if followed, are plenty liberal to validate one's propensity to pay back a debt.

Why do you believe this? What is your understanding of how FICO scores work? What is your experience with evaluating FICO scores? Where did you obtain your expertise to enable you to evaluate FICO scores?

Trying to Catch the Falling Knife of Home Prices

Larry Summers on "Meet the Press" this morning flat out lied. (It looks like Larry's on some kind of drug.)

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2...

It's frightening.

SoCal Homeowners Did This to Themselves

Tom Lindmark, I doubt the veracity of the study because (a) it wasn't cited, only quoted; (b) it's only one study, not corroborated by other studies; and (c) it's the author's opinion only as to the conclusions drawn by his "study."

SoCal Homeowners Did This to Themselves

Tom Lindmark, I doubt the veracity of the study because (a) it wasn't cited, only quoted; (b) it's only one study, not corroborated by other studies; and (c) it's the author's opinion only as to the conclusions drawn by his "study."

Mortgages: More Support for Principal Reduction

Me, too!

NAR Keeps Whining About Appraisals

Appraisal influence--subtle and not so subtle--MUST be removed from the process, but HVCC is a ham-handed way to do it. Fer cryin' out loud, the AMCs are often owned by the lender. Guess who's telling the appraisers what to bring the value in at? The lenders! It's the same influence we had before only by a different party.

We already have a good system: the Veterans Administration fee appraiser system. It has worked for decades and no one's complaining about its AMC-style appraiser assignment process.

We already have a panel convened to handle Agency (Fannie/Freddie) loans: The Appraisal Subcommittee at www.asc.gov. From the website: "The ASC's mission is to ensure that real estate appraisers, who perform appraisals in real estate transactions that could expose the United States government to financial loss, are sufficiently trained and tested to assure competency and independent judgment according to uniform high professional standards and ethics."

Since the United States government already owns Fannie/Freddie, why oh why oh why doesn't it simply utilize this panel to assign appraisals to its pre-screened appraisers?

As a real estate industry observer opined: The powers that be are all stuck on stupid [in a prolonged state of being completely clueless or too high to think straight.]

Also, the appraiser should not have to brear the brunt--through reduced compensation--of a market that is restructuring. The consumer ought to be willing to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for a fair and unbiased appraisal.

SoCal Homeowners Did This to Themselves

The key to this article is: If the study is accurate and if its findings hold true across the country then one has to inquire as to why such enormous sums of money are being expended upon a class of people who have suffered no economic loss.

That's a big "if" and I really doubt the veracity of the study.

The Mac vs. PC Debate Was Never Clearer

As someone who moved from The Dark Side (PC) to The Light (Mac), I wholeheartedly agree with this article. It doesn't matter how "powerful" or "feature laden" a computer is--even for half the price--if it doesn't work to begin with.

Banks Not Letting Owners of Foreclosed Homes Walk Away

I think that Don Fishback isn't using all the brains God gave him. If the homeowner stops making the mortgage payment, and the bank won't take the property back, the bank would have to put a gun to the homeowner's head to enforce payment of property taxes. As far as upkeep, if I was the homeowner, I'd pay upkeep all day long to be able to live in the property payment- and property tax-free. The bank gets a property that is properly maintained by the homeowner while the bank deals with its collateral and the homeowner has a relatively cheap place to live.

What a country!

Nationwide Brings Back the Dreaded 125% Mortgage

This is what happens when financially unsophisticated bloggers like Edward Harrison opine about matters they know nothing about.

This product is essentially an unsecured loan at 7%. The consumer is getting a deal! The lender is taking a calculated risk--and pricing that risk accordingly--that the value of its collateral, which at this time is essentially the same as that of a credit card, won't remain compromised for long. This time they're paying attention to the cyclical nature of real estate. Rather than adding to its woes, the lender is re-evaluating its balance sheet and figuring out a way to limit its write-offs. Under some circumstances in particular--such as when a homeowner has done a cash out refi--the homeowner is morally obliged to repay the lender, so this is a way for him to do that without the lender resorting to credit card rates.

What REALLY Caused the Mortgage Crisis - And What to Do Now

Joseph Schaefer wrote: I believe a number of factors contribute to someone continuing to make payments on their current home, rather than flitting from house to house for the $50,000 net credit.

There's so much misinformation in the blog entry and the responses, I hardly know where to begin, so I'll comment on just the statement above.

Mr. Schaefer, do you have any idea whatsoever about credit "seasoning" requirements when applying for a new loan? If a person walks from a property, he won't be getting another loan anytime soon, so how is "flitting from property to property" even possible?

Never mind...rhetorical question. Bleat on.

The Looming McMansion Attack

Eric Rothmann wrote: However, in Southern California for example, inventories of low- and mid-priced homes have declined considerably. While this may be a good sign, the supply for $1+ million houses is still 13 months of inventory.

Eric, do you have a credible citation for this statement? I could use it in my high-end short sale business when negotiating with banks. Thanks.

'Home Staging' Mania Could Signal Housing Bottom

Cold Reality wrote: Staging looks like just another attempt to manipulate, to create an illusion for the purpose of manipulating buyers.

How silly. All that staging is, as Blues Gal pointed out, is presenting the product in the best light possible. Do you think that auto dealerships, by parking only shiny cars in the showroom, also "stage" their product to "manipulate" you? Are you so easily manipulated? How about the grocery store? Maybe they should just throw all the apples in a big bin along with the bananas and call it "fruit." The next time you buy a suit, don't expect them to be arranged according to size. Too "manipulative." Sheesh.

More Reckless Home Lending, Courtesy of Fannie and Freddie

Edward Harrison wrote: That’s not a typo: we’re talking no-money down and 25% cash back. Sign me up.

Please become fully informed. This is not a "purchase money" program. It's for refinances only; that is, for people who already own homes that are under water. No cash back allowed, either. It's designed to lower the interest rate so that the payment is more affordable so that the home is less likely to default.

How the Community Reinvestment Act Helped Lead to the Housing Bubble

Radardoc wrote: It was a manifestation of feel good politics, period.

No, it wasn't. Community Reinvestment Act says, essentially, "Bankers, you must lend in areas where the houses may not be as pretty as yours if you want to also lend in areas where the houses are as pretty as yours." Period.

Areas with not-so-pretty houses are purchased by folks who need the playing field leveled; otherwise, only renters would live in those areas, thereby de-stabilizing those areas.

Since Radardoc ungraciously pointed out my typing error, I shall point out his grammar error: "I probably would have drank the kool-aid."

It's "I probably would have drunk the kool-aid." Remember your grammar rules: drink, drank, drunk. "I drink kool-aid. Yesterday, I drank kool-aid. I would have drunk kool-aid even if I like Coke better."