Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Why Postpone? – 80 Via Candelaria

80 Via Candelaria

Through the Gate

Are ya starting to get that the banks are postponing foreclosure because they are insolvent and can not recognize the loss and not because there is some compelling reason from the borrower?  The first scheduled auction for 80 Via Candelaria was scheduled for 9/7/10 and was postponed until 9/21/10 with the reason showing as ‘unknown’.  The 2nd photograph above was shot through the front gate and shows that the landscaping of this home is not being maintained and the home is most likely vacant.  So, really, …, why postpone the auction?  A family that can afford the payments and maintain the yard and home could be living in this home already.  C’mon, Bank of America.

The AIG Bailout Scandal

The AiG Bailout Scandal

by William Greider

The government’s $182 billion bailout of insurance giant AIG should be seen as the Rosetta Stone for understanding the financial crisis and its costly aftermath. The story of American International Group explains the larger catastrophe not because this was the biggest corporate bailout in history but because AIG’s collapse and subsequent rescue involved nearly all the critical elements, including delusion and deception. These financial dealings are monstrously complicated, but this account focuses on something mere mortals can understand—moral confusion in high places, and the failure of governing institutions to fulfill their obligations to the public.

Three governmental investigative bodies have now pored through the AIG wreckage and turned up disturbing facts—the House Committee on Oversight and Reform; the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which will make its report at year’s end; and the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), which issued its report on AIG in June.

The five-member COP, chaired by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, has produced the most devastating and comprehensive account so far. Unanimously adopted by its bipartisan members, it provides alarming insights that should be fodder for the larger debate many citizens long to hear—why Washington rushed to forgive the very interests that produced this mess, while innocent others were made to suffer the consequences. The Congressional panel’s critique helps explain why bankers and their Washington allies do not want Elizabeth Warren to chair the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The report concludes that the Federal Reserve Board’s intimate relations with the leading powers of Wall Street—the same banks that benefited most from the government’s massive bailout—influenced its strategic decisions on AIG. The panel accuses the Fed and the Treasury Department of brushing aside alternative approaches that would have saved tens of billions in public funds by making these same banks “share the pain.”

Bailing out AIG effectively meant rescuing Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch (as well as a dozens of European banks) from huge losses. Those financial institutions played the derivatives game with AIG, the esoteric practice of placing financial bets on future events. AIG lost its bets, which led to its collapse. But other gamblers—the counterparties in AIG’s derivative deals—were made whole on their bets, paid off 100 cents on the dollar. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill.

“The AIG rescue demonstrated that Treasury and the Federal Reserve would commit taxpayers to pay any price and bear any burden to prevent the collapse of America’s largest financial institutions,” the COP report said. This could have been avoided, the report argues, if the Fed had listened to disinterested advisers with a less parochial understanding of the public interest.

Fed and Treasury officials dismiss this critique as second-guessing of tough decisions they had to make in the fall of 2008, amid the fast-moving global crisis. Yet two years later, those controversial decisions remain highly relevant. Public anger has not abated. It fuels the election turmoil that this year threatens to bring down incumbents in both parties who voted for bank bailouts.

Although the AIG bailout was carried out in the waning days of George W. Bush’s presidency, the popular sense of injustice has deeply scarred Barack Obama, since he too adopted a forgiving approach toward culpable financial interests. Obama came to office intent on restoring public trust in government. His indulgence of the mega-banks led to the opposite result.

More to the point, the AIG story raises real doubts and suspicions about how the government will respond next time. Or whether the new financial reform legislation actually corrects government’s deference to the pinnacles of private financial power. Massive federal intervention was certainly necessary, the Warren panel agrees, including quick action to forestall AIG’s bankruptcy. But government declined to demand anything in return.

The AIG rescue was done in ways that had “poisonous effects” on the financial marketplace and public opinion, the report concluded. Cynical expectations were confirmed, both for citizens and financial players. Some financial firms are simply “too big to fail,” it seems; Washington will not let them collapse, no matter what the president claims.

The most troubling revelation in this story is the astonishing weakness of the Federal Reserve and its incompetence as a faithful defender of the public interest. In the lore of central banking, the Fed is awesomely powerful and intimidating. As regulator of the banking system, it has life-and-death influence over banks. As manager of the economy, it has open-ended authority to intervene in the financial system to restore stability, as the central bank did massively during the crisis.

Yet the Fed was strangely passive and compliant when it came to demanding cooperation and sacrifice from the largest financial institutions. Timothy Geithner was then president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the lead regulator of Wall Street’s largest banks. He briefly insisted they must accept the burden of rescuing AIG. But the bankers called his bluff and blew him off—and Geithner deferred to their wishes. The taxpayer bailout followed. The episode is relevant to the future, because Geithner is now Obama’s Treasury Secretary and in charge of preventing the next taxpayer bailout.

In the early autumn of 2008, mayhem swept through global financial markets. It engulfed AIG on Monday morning, September 15. Lehman Brothers had just failed. Panicky credit markets were seizing up. American International Group, largest insurance company in the world, was hemorrhaging capital, rapidly sinking toward bankruptcy. At the New York Fed, Geithner had the problem covered, or so he thought.

Geithner informed top executives of Wall Street’s most important financial houses—Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs—that the banking industry, not the Federal Reserve, must step up and do the rescue. Geithner told them it was “inconceivable that the Federal Reserve could or should play any role in preventing AIG’s collapse.”

That Monday morning, Geithner summoned representatives from Goldman and the JPMorgan bank to Fed offices and told them to organize a private-sector consortium of major lenders to provide the emergency liquidity loans that would keep AIG afloat until things settled down. It was presumed JPMorgan would be the lead lender; Goldman, as an investment bank, could help AIG sell off assets to raise capital. Given the Fed’s blessing, other banks were expected to cooperate.

The New York Fed president did not need to threaten anyone. This was the gentlemanly way in which the central bank can invoke its informal authority, with numerous precedents in the past. Prodded by the Fed and Treasury, major banks had done something similar back in 1998 to save the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, whose collapse threatened a chain reaction on Wall Street. During the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s, the Fed had used its overbearing influence to make leading US banks grant concessions and write down outstanding loans—a grudging “workout” that saved Mexico, Brazil and Argentina from default but also saved some famous New York banks from imploding.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Coastal Coto

I couldn’t call it Update to Update to Peakage Buying, because we already have a post today with that name. Guess we need to be more creative. When we last heard from 10 Coastal Oak it had just gone back to the bank with an opening bid of $680k.  At the time it was a short sale listed at $549k with an accepted offer.

Well its back.  MLS listed as an REO at $675k ($241/sqft).  Thats about 2.5 months from May 28th when it went back to the bank.

That’s three REO listings this week that I’m aware of.  Happy shopping.

Chase vs Auction

Today cdcrez had an article about chasing the price down on a house.   Other agents have tried the “price low and get multiple bids to run the price up” , aka an auction.   There is a subtle difference in these two strategies and their results.  I thought I would walk people through.

Let’s say in both cases we’ve got a house whose FMV is $1,000,000.  Let’s see we’ve got 2 bidders… cdcrez is willing to pay $800k.  Stuck is willing to pay $1.1mil.

We’ll start with the chase scenario.  We list the house at $1.25mil and decide we will drop it $50k very two weeks

  • Week 1: list at $1.25mil, no buyers
  • Week 3: reduce to $1.20mil, no buyers
  • Week 5: reduce to $1.15mil… Stuck thinks its time to bid
    • He’s noticed the 2 reductions, so he bids ~10% under at $1.05mil
    • They split the difference and the house sells at $1.1mil

Note:  in this sort of scenario cdcrez’s bid never came into play.  The highest bidder determines the price.

Now we try an auction.  We’ll take 25% off asking to give us a good teaser

  • Week 1: list at $750k
    • cdcrez bids at $725k
    • stuck bids at $720k
    • Round 1:  any bidders at $750K?  Both stay in
    • Round 2: any bidders at $775k?  both stay in
    • Round 3: any bidders at $800k?  cdcrez things a bit, but stays in, as does stuck
    • Round 4: any bidders at $825k? cdcrez decides enough is enough, and Stuck takes the home at $825k

Notice in this case, Stuck’s willingness to offer $1.1mil never comes into play, only that he is willing to offer more than cdcrez.  It is actually the second bidder (or the seller’s reserve) who sets the final price.  Now, a smart seller could bluff a bit more if they feel the buyer will go up more, but in general its the second bidder who determines the final price.  Of course, the one thing to point out in the auction is while the end price is lower, the theoretical sell date is much quicker.

For a property of general interest where you’ve got multiple bidders, hopefully the spread between the buyers is not much and doesn’t come into play, it will sell more quickly at an auction and you might actually do better because of getting emotions involved in a bidding war.  For more expensive homes where there are fewer bidders and comps are not as obvious, the spread might be larger.  This would seem to imply for more expensive or “unique” homes, you might be better off chasing the market down.

Now, the gotcha on the chase strategy is deciding your price reductions… how often and how much.  Once a pattern is established, a buyer might wait it out a bit and risk losing the property rather than jumping on an acceptable price immediately.  Likewise, they could put a lower offer in, knowing the seller will reject it, but that if another bid comes in, the seller may contact them to try to run up the price.  (“hey, you offered $1mil a month ago, we just got a bid today at $1.1mil, would you be interested in countering?”)  There is, of course, some risk to this strategy.  Likewise, now you are “in” with 2 bidders and the “chase” scenario becomes an auction and might run up some.

An example of “playing the chase”.  Again, the same $1mil property,  cdcrez will pay $900k, Stuck will pay $1mil.

  • List at $1.2mil.  no takers
  • Reduce to $1.15mil.  no takers
  • Reduce to $1.1mil.  Stuck bids at $900k and is rejected.
  • Reduce to $1.05mil.  no takers
  • Reduce to $1mil.  no takers.
  • Reduce to $950k.  no takers
  • Reduce to $900k.  cdcrez bids.  Stuck is called up.
    • Stuck bids $925k
    • cdcrez lets his emotions take hold because he knows just a week ago nobody wanted it at $950k… so he bids $950k
    • Stuck bids $975k
    • cdcrez again, knows he’s got stuck and thinks stuck is stretching because again, just a week ago he wouldn’t take $950k, and he doesn’t want $25k to cause him to lose the property.  He bids $1mil.
    • Stuck bids $1.05mil
    • cdcrez folds, he’s had enough.

Notice… anyone whose bid on Ebay realizes once you get into a price war anything can happen.  People don’t always think rationally, or are forced to think about losing an item over a very small incremental bid.  In the above case, Stuck took a shot bidding low, and in the end it cost him, because had he bid $1mil or rebid at $1mil, the owner would have taken it.

Thats a bit of an over simplification, but hopefully explains the difference in the two.

What’s Selling?

Curious how your tract is holding up this summer?  (or thinking of moving?)

Here’s a snapshot of sales/price for tracts this selling season (starting in March) which have had more than a single sale:

Tract Sales Average
Weatherly 3 $2,725,833.33
Pinnacle 2 $1,800,000.00
Oak Knoll 5 $1,691,000.00
Oak View 2 $1,367,500.00
Glen Eagles 2 $1,229,500.00
Spring Hill 3 $1,175,000.00
Terra Vida 2 $1,092,500.00
Southern Hills Encore 4 $1,066,625.00
Valle Vista 3 $1,018,000.00
Rosewood 2 $980,000.00
Crooked Oak 2 $977,500.00
Glenmere 2 $966,666.67
Tanglewood 3 $896,666.67
Tapestry 2 $870,000.00
Classics 3 $869,333.33
Village 8 $863,812.50
Hillsboro 2 $790,750.00
Stonehedge 2 $700,322.00
Oakmont 4 $681,700.00
Chantemar 2 $677,750.00
Montecito 3 $638,666.67

Not surprisingly, The Village has the most sales. What’s a bit surprising to me is we’ve got Oak Knoll next with 5 closed sales in the past few months, coming in at #2. If the banks can process some short sales, Oak Knoll’s number will go up further.

From a price side, only 3 tracts with multiple sales are averaging over $1.5mil… Oak Knoll, Pinnacle and Weatherly. Weatherly holds a commanding lead as the highest priced tract with multiple sales, but expect that average price to come down, with the latest comp at $2.3mil and 2 listings at $2.4mil… still it will stay comfortably ahead.  Oak Knoll’s next few sales will probably be short sales, which will also probably hurt their average sale price.

Thoughts/comments?

Noise outside the gates

Anyone know what all the fire trucks were for over by Thomas Riley Park?  Saw them on my way out, but no signs of fire.

Update to “This Week, (7/04/10), in Foreclosure Auctions

Ya gotta love a happy ending - 16 Fair Valley

The ‘This Week in Foreclosure Auction’ series is changing up a bit.  Delroy is helping me get up to speed here, but bear with me.

Address SaleDate Postponements previous sell date Redefault Disposition amount
114 Vela Court 7/20/10 4 7/6/10 yes
9 Marquette Way 8/5/10 5 7/6/10 no
42 Vela Court 7/26/20 4 7/6/10 no
1 Laurelgate 7/6/10 1 5/3/10 yes REO $839,392
24262 FAIRWAY LN 7/22/10 2 7/6/10 yes
31861 Via Oso 7/26/10 multiple 7/6/10 no
24311 FAIRWAY LN 8/27/10 1 7/6/10 no
8 Taiga 8/6/10 2 7/6/10 yes
12 Northampton Place 7/29/10 7 7/6/10 no
31 Summerside 8/9/10 5 7/7/10 yes
16 Fair Valley 7/7/10 0 none no Sold $1,063,000
31932 Via Coyote 8/9/10 3 7/8/10 yes
78 Via Candelaria 7/22/10 5 7/8/10 no
4 Douglass Drive 7/8/10 0 3/17/10 yes Cancelled Again
31 BRASSIE LN 8/9/10 2 7/9/10 no
23102 Maravilla 7/23/10 3 7/9/10 no
35 Via Candelaria 7/23/10 17 7/9/10 no
27 PALMA VLY 7/9/10 1 7/2/10 no REO $671,261

Please make suggestions on the new format.  I promise no accommodation, mostly because I probably will not know how to achieve the requested result and also because I am so technologically inept that I will probably not even know what you are talking about.  I did not say technologically challenged.  I said inept; this is way beyond challenged.  My phone is only for phone calls and my daughter has to program in the telephone numbers.  Get the picture?

6 Aquila Way was postponed until 8/23/10.  There have been 11 postponements.

The trustee sale for 7 Sharon Lane was cancelled.

The Correlation of Housing Prices with Mortgage Rates

From Economy Politics: “Correlation of mortgage rates with real housing prices: how increasing inflation could affect housing prices

Excerpt:

I asked him, “What happens to housing prices if there is inflation and rates go up?”

“Housing prices should go up with inflation as they do for all goods. Housing is a natural hedge for inflation”

Did my friend have a point? Yes and no.

Yes, he was right that in a high inflationary environment, housing prices should rise with all other assets. Rents will go up, as will the price of all the inputs into housing such as lumber and labor costs.

Obviously, housing prices will go up to reflect this reality.

But no, when inflation and thus nominal interest rates increase, housing prices tumble. When rates fall, housing prices tend to increase.

The simplest explanation for this correlation comes down to payment. Most people have to finance their homes. As such, they make housing decision based upon monthly payment, i.e. what they can afford. If a borrower with 2,000.00 available per month for a mortgage, they could afford to finance about $372,500 over 30 years with a 5% rate. If that rate were to increase to 10%, the amount they could afford to finance would drop by almost 40% to $273,000.

 

Opening Bid

10 Tucson

The trustee sale for 10 Tucson scheduled for today has posted an opening bid of $1,440,000.  The sale location is 700 CIVIC CENTER DR W,  SANTA ANA.  The sale time is listed as 3:00 pm on Foreclosure Radar, but we have no idea how accurate the listed sale times are.  Happy bidding.

Edit:  We have been watching for quite awhile now trying to figure out if there were any signs that a property was going to auction instead of being postponed.  There are some generalities, but nothing absolute and many exceptions.  This is the first time we have seen a property get an opening bid and not go to auction, but it probably will not be the last time.

Class War and the Decline of the West

The following is reprinted by permission.  It is an article entitled,  “Class War and the Decline of the West

from Jesse’s Café Américain, one of my favorite blogs.

Before he discovered his own self interest, ignoring the outrageous financial frauds perpetrated by his own ratings agency, Warren Buffett famously said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

I find it remarkable that there is so little meaningful discussion of this in mainstream circles. Well perhaps not, considering that most of them are now owned by a few corporations.

The key to stopping this theft of your freedom is a purging of the political system of the corruption of campaign contributions by non-persons like corporations and unions, the breaking up of the media conglomerates that seek to control the news, and the implementation of a system of sound money for international trade at least, using a standard that resists the manipulation of the financial system as outlined in Hugo Salinas-Price’s quietly brilliant and insightful essay, Gold Standard, Protector and Generator of Jobs.

The powers that be will fight reform every step of the way, using propaganda and your prejudices and emotions against you. The best way to conquer a people is to persuade them to enslave themselves using slogans and simplistic views of the world that play on their fears and hatreds. The neo-liberal economic fraud that was scripted by the monied interests are played to vast audiences using actors and actresses masquerading as politicians, analysts, and commentators.

I receive at least ten emails per day from the self-enslaving, sadly to say mostly older men like myself, that repeat the slogans and urban myths like faithful party members, seasoned with hateful prejudice and mindless propaganda, so I know that they are doing a good job of it, subverting the middle class. It is a little remembered fact that the greatest boost in support for the rise of the National Socialist party came not from the underclasses which was always a minority, but from the more influential professional class, the petit-bourgeois: doctors, dentists, accountants, shop owners, and small business owners. They added their force to the earlest supporters , the industrialists and the monied interests.

This is how the National Socialists were able to so easily co-opt the medical profession and educated classes into the early horrors of euthanasia, sterilization, and then finally extermination of whole categories of ‘undesirables.’ The middle class thought they could ride the wave, the will to power, in their greed and hate and revenge, but they soon learned that madness has no master, consuming all in its flames.

This is how your freedom, your wealth, will be taken from you and your children, their futures devastated. So it is something with which you might wish to be familiar, so you can at least explain it to them.

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12

Here is a recent essay by Professor Ismael Hossein-zadeh that is worth reading.

“Never before has so much debt been imposed on so many people by so few financial operatives–operatives who work from Wall Street, the largest casino in history, and a handful of its junior counterparts around the world, especially Europe.

External sovereign debt, as well as occasional default on such debt, is not unprecedented [1]. What is rather unique in the case of the current global sovereign debt is that it is largely private debt billed as public debt; that is, debt that was accumulated by financial speculators and, then, offloaded onto governments to be paid by taxpayers as national debt. Having thus bailed out the insolvent banksters, many governments have now become insolvent or nearly insolvent themselves, and are asking the public to skimp on their bread and butter in order to service the debt that is not their responsibility.

After transferring trillions of dollars of bad debt or toxic assets from the books of financial speculators to those of governments, global financial moguls, their representatives in the State apparatus and corporate media are now blaming social spending (in effect, the people) as responsible for debt and deficit!

President Obama’s recent motto of “fiscal responsibility” and his frequent grumbles about “out of control government spending” are reflections of this insidious strategy of blaming victims for the crimes of perpetrators. They also reflect the fact that the powerful financial interests that received trillions of taxpayers’ dollars, which saved them from bankruptcy, are now dictating debt-collecting strategies through which governments can recoup those dollars from taxpayers. In effect, governments and multilateral institutions such as the IMF are acting as bailiffs or tax collectors on behalf of banksters and other financial wizards.

Not only is this unfair (it is, indeed, tantamount to robbery, and therefore criminal), it is also recessionary as it can increase unemployment and undermine economic growth. It is reminiscent of President Herbert Hoover’s notorious economic policy of cutting spending during a recession, a contractionary fiscal policy that is bound to worsen the recession. It is, indeed, a recipe for a vicious circle of debt and depression: as spending is cut to pay debt, the economy and (therefore) tax revenues will shrink, which would then increase debt and deficit, and call for more spending cuts.

Spending on national infrastructure, both physical (such as roads and schools) and social infrastructure (such as health and education) is key to the long-term socioeconomic developments. Cutting public spending to pay for the sins of Wall Street gamblers is bound to undermine the long-term health of a society in terms of productivity enhancement and sustained growth.

But the powerful financial interests and their debt collectors seem to be more interested in collecting debt claims than investing in economic recovery, job creation or long-term socioeconomic development. Like most debt-collecting agencies, the IMF and the states serving as banksters’ bailiffs through their austerity programs may shed a few crocodile tears in sympathy with the victims’ of their belt-tightening policies; but, again like any other debt-collecting agents, they seem to be saying: “sorry for the loss of your job or your house, but debt must be collected–regardless.”

A most outrageous aspect of the debt burden that is placed on the taxpayers’ shoulders since 2008 is that most of the underlying debt claims are fictitious and illegitimate: they are largely due to manipulated asset price bubbles, dubious or illegal financial speculations, and scandalous conversion of financial gamblers’ losses into public liability.

As noted earlier, onerous austerity measures to force the public to pay the largely fraudulent external debt is not new. Benignly calling such oppressive measures “Structural Adjustment Programs,” the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have for decades imposed them on many less developed countries to collect debt on behalf of international financial titans.

To “help” the indebted nations craft debt-servicing arrangements with external creditors, the IMF imposed severe conditions on the way they managed their economies–just as it is now imposing (in collaboration with the European and American bankers) those austerity policies on the debtor nations in Europe. The primary purpose of such restrictive conditions is to divert or transfer national resources from domestic use to external creditors. These include not only belt-tightening measures to cut social spending and/or raise taxes, but also selling-off public enterprises, national industries, and future tax revenues.

Calling such fire-sale privatization deals “briberization,” the ex-World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz revealed (in an interview with the renowned investigative reporter Greg Palast) how finance ministers and other bureaucratic authorities in the debtor countries often carried out the Bank’s demand to sell off their electricity, water, transportation and communication companies in return for some apparently irresistible sweetener. “You could see their eyes widen” at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billions off the sale price of national assets…”

Ismael Hossein-zadeh, The Vicious Circle of Debt and Depression: It Is a Class War

Here is a lengthier history of the undermining of the US political system using financial fraud from Renaissance 2.0.

The bailout of AIG is near the core of the great fraud. Crack that nut, and we may learn something about financial fascism and the Fed. That is why they may dance around it, but they will never take down the principals and bring the truth out into the light of day.

Le monde est sourd. The world is deaf; the truth has no place to lay its head in their hearts.