This was reported Friday. Almost one in ten. Surely some of you are in foreclosure and/or know someone that is. I don't. You?
that many folks gamble with their homes on ARMs. I'm not at all surprised that Nevada leads the way!
...are nothing compared to no down payment, interest only for a few years, even if you don't qualify.
Everyone expected home prices to continue going up as they have for the past many years.
"In Contra Costa, the Bay Area county with the most foreclosures, deputies do 45 evictions a week, up 30 percent from last year...
In eastern Antioch, 4.1 percent of all homes and condos went through foreclosure in 2007, according to DataQuick Information Systems. That's as bad as the hardest-hit neighborhood of Stockton - often cited as the foreclosure capital of California and even the nation.
In eastern Contra Costa, more than 2 percent of all homes in eight ZIP codes were foreclosed on in 2007, a rate that rivals most Stockton neighborhoods."
I live in Contra Costa County.
One of my employees turned his house back over to the bank for a 'short-sale', which is one step above a foreclosure.
Even if foreclosures for 2008 hit only 5%, that's still quite a lot.
Just checked The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal and CNN.com and couldn't find any new foreclosure statistics beyond the ones I described below on 2007 Q4 numbers of between .83% and %2.5% (approximately).
Me too. I was curious of the data too. It was the point of my post. It was all over the news Friday. Very hyped with "the worst since the great depression" and it was posing the possibility of a government aid plan like during the depression. Today as I search print media to validate it and I cannot. All I can find is this: "The delinquency rate was 5.82 percent and foreclosure rate 2.04 percent of all outstanding loans " from the Mortgage Bankers Assoc. re the 4th qtr of 2007. Dag nab it! Oh well...
Phew, it's a relief actually, though of course the problem is very real and, most likely, getting worse.
I can't help you with this specific number but I linked to the Mortgage Banker's Association site which indicates that for the fourth quarter of 2007 nationally almost 6% of mortgages were delinquent and another roughly 2% were in foreclosure. I would expect that in some of the worst hit areas the numbers are substantially worse and I also would anticipate rising numbers for the next two quarters as more ARMs reset.
There is an interesting N Y Times article here:
They are bad, but a far cry from a 9% foreclosure rate. I think perhaps the 9% is a combination of foreclosure and delinquent payments, which may or may not lead to foreclosure.
I agree - it's bad and going to get worse. But we have to be careful with the facts we post here. 9% of mortgages are not in foreclosure.
The attached shows the worst hit areas by zipcode in raw numbers as of last December. It looks like California, Nevada, Florida and Michigan are really bearing the brunt of this.
thanks very much
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
I've seen quite a few in my area. There are 400K houses in my wife's co-worker's neighborhoods that have been empty since they were built two years ago! Not too mention all of the foreclosures in between.
Unlike San Francisco, you get a REAL home for 400K and much less around here. Watching the show "flip that house" I'm amazed at what people are paying for hole in the wall homes...just plain crazy!
I've come to a conclusion. The people that can't see what is happening.Are the ones that refuse to see what is happening.
'Twas ever thus....
According to the Los Angeles Times, foreclosures are just over 2% and delinquent mortgages 6%. See the link below.
I don't know anyone personally, but I have friends who do. It's a really problem here in Massachusetts.
..... Foreclosures are usually referred to as mortgagee in possession or repossession
Our official figures are less than .5% of dwellings are repossessed. However, it is a trend here for the mortgagee to prefer the borrower to jump rather than be pushed into a forced sale. If we took the total number of people selling their home because of financial stress then I suspect our rate would be several percent.
We have a strong economy here but we have just had our 12th official interest rate rise since early 2002. The official rate is now 7.25% Banks add their margins to this rate. So typically a variable rate home loan is about 9% over 20 to 30 year term.
Anecdotally I have not seen an increase in the number of forced sales but our official figures say otherwise (they are increasing)
What's the government's rationale for keeping interest rates so high? Are you experiencing inflation?
You guys are net exporters of raw materials, right? How does a strong Aussie dollar help on that front?
What's you energy situation? I could see a strong currency helping to keep energy imports down.
...Monetary policy is set by the reserve Bank of Australia independent of the Federal Government. The Federal Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank have set a target rate of inflation to be between 2% & 3%.
Australia has pretty much had that rate of inflation for many many years.
The Federal Government has no debt & runs surplus budgets. (17 out of the last 25 I think)
The interest rate rises are proactive measures to keep inflation under control. Given the unprecedented resources boom it is any wonder we have some inflationary pressures here.
I like the Aussie dollar being strong but many exporters disagree.
The price of fuel has gone up markedly over the last few years but I dont get on the band-wagon and whinge about it. I dont look at the price at the pump I just pull in a put in as much fuel as the tank will hold. Life is too short to worry about such tedious issues.
... or some reason the government runs the banks... oh of course, we have healthcare system!!!
That explains it.
I too just fill the tank and get on with it, but we are lucky not to be spending every last cent every week.
I know people who are beginning to feel the pinch.
who'd knew the bottom would fall out when 600 sq ft 1 bed room homes riddled with mold and with little to no upkeep since the 70's would sell for over $400k...?
"Live life as if you'll die tomorrow...-Gandhi
Learn life as if you'll live forever..."
I don't know anyone personally but I do know that there are three houses on my route that normally rent out to military familes( major to lt. col) that have been sitting vacant for months with for sale signs posted.
In the past week, the KC Star had a post-it type note attached to the front page of a week day edition that advertised over 165 houses in foreclosure that were available for sale in the area. The KC real estate market is much more affordable than either the NE or West Coast markets. As a bonus, the barbecue resturants are much better.
I don't know what source you got this from but, it strikes me as just another example of trying to dumb down America by hoping the readers will take these attention grabbing stories at face value - and keep coming back for more misinformation.
"... it is their right and their duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." T. Jefferson
shows up. Take a drive in your town. See what is happening. What's that? You can't afford to? Why not?
I don't know the poster who you are responding to, and maybe you do, but a little authority to back up the OP's statistic would be helpful.
I just did a search for "foreclosure rate" in Google News and found several recent articles from around the country that reported foreclosure rates of .83% to 2.4%. Now those statistics were as of the end of the fourth quarter of 2007, so maybe the OP has more recent data, but the articles were all just published over the past 2 days, so I wonder from whence he got his data.
Please do not infer that I do not view this problem as catastrophic. I am NOT a fan of W. There are very real stories reported every day here in MA, and I have friends who know a lot of people in trouble.
But 2.4% is a far cry from 9%, and facts matter.
Edit: Also, I have to join halfnote in asking how this is a W problem. I think that's a fair question. I blam him for a lot of problems, but that one has me scratching my head.
the head of the republican party for the time being. The republican party led the charge to reducing banking regulations, which caused some of the problems, and fueled fiscal practices that artificially propped up housing prices to keep consumer confidence high and maintain the appearance of a robust economy. We have borrowed out butts off to fund our adventures in Iraq, and now I fear that we are devaluing the dollar to make it less costly to repay that debt -- or even to just make the interest payments. And guess who takes it in the butt when we do that?
So yeah, W gets some of the credit.
I posted this last week, but perhaps you didn't catch it. The article explains the unintended consequences of such "progressive" law-making.
The crisis has its roots in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 [passed by a Democratic Congress, note], a Carter-era law that purported to prevent "redlining" - denying mortgages to black borrowers - by pressuring banks to make home loans in "low- and moderate-income neighborhoods." Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the "credit needs" of "predominantly minority neighborhoods." The higher a bank's rating, the more likely that regulators would say yes when the bank sought to open a new branch or undertake a merger or acquisition.
But to earn high ratings, banks were forced to make increasingly risky loans to borrowers who wouldn't qualify for a mortgage under normal standards of creditworthiness. The Community Reinvestment Act, made even more stringent during the Clinton administration, trapped lenders in a Catch-22.
"If they comply," wrote Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo, "they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties . . . which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars."
Banks nationwide thus ended up making more and more subprime loans and agreeing to dangerously lax underwriting standards - no down payment, no verification of income, interest-only payment plans, weak credit history. If they tried to compensate for the higher risks they were taking by charging higher interest rates, they were accused of unfairly steering borrowers into "predatory" loans they couldn't afford.
Trapped in a no-win situation entirely of the government's making, lenders could only hope that home prices would continue to rise, staving off the inevitable collapse. But once the housing bubble burst, there was no escape. Mortgage lenders have been bankrupted, thousands of subprime homeowners have been foreclosed on, and countless would-be borrowers can no longer get credit. The financial fallout has hurt investors around the world. And all of it thanks to the government, which was sure it understood the credit industry better than the free market did, and confidently created the conditions that made disaster unavoidable.
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe," warned Mark Twain, "while Congress is in session." Mark Twain was a humorist, but that was no joke.
- http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/09/how_government_makes_things_worse/ (Open in New Window)
Why single out one party?
That is just to buy into the big lie that one side represents something significantly different to the other.
Over and over even in the forum we are shown examples of how the difference, even the traditional difference between the parties has been done away with as the USA lurches to the right and the corporations take over the reins.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to agree or disagree in this case (though I certainly agree with you on the Iraq mess), but appreciate your thoughts.
My main point, of course, was that the originally posted statistics were inaccurate (though I now know they were posted in good faith). No one else seemed all that curious about them.
Can you please explain what the housing market has to do with "W"?
Or the war... or the other war... or anything.
But, maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead, dave c. Please explain exactly what "W" had to do the precipitate the housing crisis.
Is that too hard?
I'll make it easy for you: Explain what Bubba had to do with the 90's economic boom in the US.
Oh, never mind. Just post some pictures and some zany captions, instead.
I do know this varies widely from city to city.
Ironically, the ad on this page is for finding foreclosures. When I checked my cities, I found about twenty homes shown. The highest costing home was $199000.
and saw way too many houses for sale. There were obvious signs of lousy behavior and stress, e.g., some homes had notices of intent to sieze (abandoned) animals, some homes look like everyone split in the middle of the night leaving all but the necessities behind. Very sad.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: