Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Homes lost to foreclosure on track for 1M in 2010

Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:17 AM EDT
us-news, business, us, foreclosure-rates
Alex Veiga, AP Business Writer

In this photo taken May 24, 2010, a man walks in front of a bank owned foreclosed home in Palo Alto, Calif. RealtyTrac Inc. will report half-year foreclosure rates Thursday, July 15, 2010. Nearly 528,000 homes were taken over by lenders in the first six months of the year, a rate that is on track to eclipse the more than 900,000 homes repossessed in 2009, according to data released Thursday by RealtyTrac Inc., a foreclosure listing service. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

Advertise | AdChoices

LOS ANGELES — More than 1 million American households are likely to lose their homes to foreclosure this year, as lenders work their way through a huge backlog of borrowers who have fallen behind on their loans.

Nearly 528,000 homes were taken over by lenders in the first six months of the year, a rate that is on track to eclipse the more than 900,000 homes repossessed in 2009, according to data released Thursday by RealtyTrac Inc., a foreclosure listing service.

"That would be unprecedented," said Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac.

By comparison, lenders have historically taken over about 100,000 homes a year, Sharga said.

The surge in home repossessions reflects the dynamic of a foreclosure crisis that has shown signs of leveling off in recent months, but remains a crippling drag on the housing market.

The pace at which new homes falling behind in payments and entering the foreclosure process has slowed as banks continue to let delinquent borrowers stay longer in their homes rather than adding to the glut of foreclosed properties on the market. At the same time, lenders have stepped up repossessions in an effort to clear out the backlog of distressed inventory on their books.

The number of households facing foreclosure in the first half of the year climbed 8 percent versus the same period last year, but dropped 5 percent from the last six months of 2009, according to RealtyTrac, which tracks notices for defaults, scheduled home auctions and home repossessions.

In all, about 1.7 million homeowners received a foreclosure-related warning between January and June. That translates to one in 78 U.S. homes.

Foreclosure notices posted monthly declines in April, May and June, but Sharga said one shouldn't read too much into that.

"The banks are really sort of controlling or managing the dial on how fast these things get processed so they can ultimately manage the inventory of distressed assets on the market," he said.

On average, it takes about 15 months for a home loan to go from being 30 days late to the property being foreclosed and sold, according to Lender Processing Services Inc., which tracks mortgages.

Assuming the U.S. economy doesn't worsen, aggravating the foreclosure crisis, Sharga projects it will take lenders through 2013 to resolve the backlog of distressed properties that have on their books right now.

And a new wave of foreclosures could be coming in the second half of the year, especially if the unemployment rate remains high, mortgage-assistance programs fail, and the economy doesn't improve fast enough to lift home sales.

The prospect of lenders taking over more than a million homes this year is likely to push housing values down, experts say.

Foreclosed homes are typically sold at steep discounts, lowering the value of surrounding properties.

"The downward pressure from foreclosures will persist and prices will be very weak well into 2012," said Celia Chen, senior director of Moody's Economy.com.

She projects home prices will fall as much as 6 percent over the next 12 months from where they were in the first-quarter.

Economic woes, such as unemployment or reduced income, continue to be the main catalysts for foreclosures this year. Initially, lax lending standards were the culprit. Now, homeowners with good credit who took out conventional, fixed-rate loans are the fastest growing group of foreclosures.

There are more than 7.3 million home loans in some stage of delinquency, according to Lender Processing Services.

Lenders are offering to help some homeowners modify their loans. But many borrowers can't qualify or they are falling back into default. The Obama administration's $75 billion foreclosure prevention effort has made only a small dent in the problem.

More than a third of the 1.2 million borrowers who have enrolled in the mortgage modification program have dropped out. That compares with about 27 percent who have received permanent loan modifications and are making payments on time.

Among states, Nevada posted the highest foreclosure rate in the first half of the year. One in every 17 households there received a foreclosure notice. However, foreclosures there are down 6 percent from a year earlier.

Arizona, Florida, California and Utah were next among states with the highest foreclosure rates. Rounding out the top 10 were Georgia, Michigan, Idaho, Illinois and Colorado.

___

AP Real Estate Writer Alan Zibel in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Alex Veiga's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: EconVine
  • Regions: United States , Los Angeles
  • Public Discussion (60)
The Mad Hedge Fund TraderDeleted
KyEngineer

We will soon be joining these ranks. We are not delinquent yet, but soon will be when my UI runs out next month. We actually plan on walking away from our home though. As an engineer, I have to go where the job is..and there are no jobs at all where we currently live. In our situation, our house is actually the noose around our necks keeping me from finding employment. Wonder how many out there find themselves in the same situation?

  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:42 AM EDT
Hartvig Lein

Yours is exactly the kind of situation the Federal bailout money SHOULD apply to. Sell the house for current market value & use the federal funds to cover most or all of the difference.

It should not be applied to people who wildly overspent and had a balloon payment of 10 times their annual income due in 2 years...

  • 3 votes
#2.1 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:42 AM EDT
logdump

Sad to say but many are like yourself. There are some bright sides to this though as the market seems to be getting more affordable for buyers. Dow a road close to me they opened a strip and posted a sign for new homes back about 18 months ago. Posted a sign the houses would be in the 220's. Did not see much activity there Now the sign says they start in the 140's. House i bought for 75k and sold for 115k peaked at 330 ask but did not sell and is on the market by the bank for 180.

  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:51 AM EDT
Jason Burnham

It was always affordable. You just need to know where to look. First home I bought was 4k and it was on a foreclosure sale. Sold that one and bought the next for 30k. Now, I have this one and will be selling it for 120k this year.

Make a suggestion Ky... Tax Lien sales. Always some dumb ass not paying their taxes and you can always get a house at half market or less.

  • 1 vote
#2.3 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:38 AM EDT
Real World Engineer

As an engineer, I have to go where the job is..and there are no jobs at all where we currently live.

Not being able to put down long term roots for a family is just one of the facts of life to most fields of modern engineering.

After a job cycle ends you have to be able to sell and uproot everyone to move cross country to the next place for another about 5yr +/- a few yrs, rinse and repeat. ( Something they don't really make so clear to students when starting at university.)

Though this housing market is complicating the matter for alot engineers.

    #2.4 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:54 PM EDT
    Reply
    The Grim Creeper

    Welcome to the Obama recovery.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#3 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:46 AM EDT
    logdump

    Oh dry up with that hate Obama crap this is a condition created by your side that Obama walked into the recovery is working but not as fast as in the past. Economists all say the same thing.

    • 9 votes
    #3.1 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:59 AM EDT
    Smokie-788412

    Sorry but Congress can lay claim to these effects. Fannie and Freddie are both holding close to a trillion in bad and/or guaranteed loans. This new figure of a million homes being lost by families isn't new these figures have come out before. Many of these loans will be stuck in Fanny and Freddie for safe keeping and to keep the banks from heading South again.

    That Financial Reform Bill needed to deal with Fannie and Freddie but Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have too many side deals that they do not want to make public. So now "We the People" will have to deal with down the road.

    • 2 votes
    #3.2 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:38 AM EDT
    Rob-510663

    Smokie

    Right on no one in congress has the guts to deal with Fannie and Freddie, they put too much money into everyone's pockets. Look at the main contributors to Dodd and Frank. Fannie and Freddie are right there along with AIG. Its sad when we have a congress on the take, but that is what we have.

    • 1 vote
    #3.3 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:01 AM EDT
    jlclDeleted
    1standlastword

    Welcome to the Obama recovery.

    What a pathetic thing to say Grim!!!!!!

    Where was Obama when the bottom started falling out?

    Who told us all was well with the state of the union. I'd like you to retract that statement.

    It's like blaming the road for an accident caused by a habit of wreckless driving...insane

    • 3 votes
    #3.5 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:00 AM EDT
    mountainmike-1199289

    Grim Creeper:

    Bad weather today? It's Obama's fault. Don't like the TV options today? Its Obama's fault. How about a simple summary of the farther than far right wing Republican viewpoint. Obama is to blame for everything, and until we can elect Sarah Palin and Glen Beck into the white house in 2012, we are going to throw a tantrum.

    Who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999? Who passed commodities legislation in 2000 that serves as a gigantic loophole for the derivatives and mortgage white collar crimes that crashed our economy in 2008? Who failed to intervene to prevent the housing bubble from bursting in 2007? The deregulation Republican majority of 1998 to 2006. That is why Republican Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm and Fed director Allan Greenspan are in the top 5 over everyones list of the people most responsible for the recession.

    It is really like a dot to dot kiddies puzzle. Got a crayon?

    • 4 votes
    #3.6 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:11 AM EDT
    vol fan in chatt, tn

    yet, the financial reformn that Obama and the Dems pushed through Congress does NOTHING to address Fannie and Freddie who just said they need even more money...get a clue, people, Congress does what's best for themselves, not you nor I...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20100712/bs_bw/1029b4187029965599

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-13/fannie-freddie-fix-expands-to-160-billion-with-worst-case-at-1-trillion.html

    • 2 votes
    #3.7 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:34 AM EDT
    vol fan in chatt, tn

    logdump:

    Did you miss this part:

    Nearly 528,000 homes were taken over by lenders in the first six months of the year, a rate that is on track to eclipse the more than 900,000 homes repossessed in 2009, according to data released Thursday by RealtyTrac Inc., a foreclosure listing service.

    "That would be unprecedented," said Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac.

    That's under Obama's plan, in 2010 with the "summer of recovery" according to Biden, who said "we are headed in the right direction"....

    • 2 votes
    #3.8 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:39 AM EDT
    mountainmike-1199289

    Grim:

    Not adding a thing to discussion. You seem to be in these discussions for the sameoldsameold one liner Obama put downs.

    Why is it only Obama's issue. The housing bubble burst in 2007 and the recession started in 2008. Bush was president. Experts blame the Bush years for the housing bubble bursting and mortgage default crisis.

    • 3 votes
    #3.9 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:43 AM EDT
    Smokie-788412

    If the country keeps losing home mortgages to this economy we are not getting out of this hole. Same thing goes, all of this will be pushed into Fannie and Freddie and the American People will still have to pay for it. Financial reform is just a bunch of crap. Chris Dodd stated something similar to Nancy Pelosi's words of wisdom about health insurance. That is pass the bill and then we will see what is in it. One helluva way to run a government, especially the financial system that we all have to use. This scares the hell out of me. With the million foreclosures estimated for this year along, how many have we lost so far? Where are all of these people going to go?

    No jobs, no money, no home but you will have to pay for that health insurance. Well most will need it because living on the streets will definitely have an effect on your health.

    • 1 vote
    #3.10 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:24 PM EDT
    Rob-510663

    Smokie

    your right we pay every quarter in bailing out Fannie and Freddie, and as long as they are a business we will contunie to bail them out. The great congress already raised the bailout limit to unlimited, that is due to the plain simple fact that these companies have negative equity. That means they have more liabilities than assets. Oh wait our government has been in that same boat now for a while so maybe that is why this is going on.

      #3.11 - Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:05 PM EDT
      Reply
      oneforall

      The real estate market will lag for years because of all the foreclosures. People who are able to afford a home will be reluctant to buy, for fear of depreciating values and difficulty in selling. Millions will simply lack the credit or will refuse to enter into another bad financial investment. Home values may continue to fall, leaving the entire industry depressed or stagnant. It has become just one more market that people don't trust and will avoid unless they have a lot of cash to lay down up front, and we may be running out of those types fairly soon. Many recent buyers believe they got a bargain, but a lot of those homes have now gone underwater as well, so no one can predict, with any certainty, when the downward spiral will end. If unemployment continues to creep upward, home foreclosures will follow.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#4 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:03 AM EDT
      Ellen Karman

      Questioning the Confusion

      I am wondering if the banks are foreclosing much sooner than they used to - say like three years ago, were they so eager to foreclose after 30 or 60 days? Are there major deciding factors such as: will they foreclose on home owners who are alomost done with paying off their homes or have paid off their original mortgage of say $600,000.00 and are late just one month on a $75,000.00 Home Equity Loan? Wouldn't they have more incentive to go after a home owner with that much equity than say what so many Americans have found themselves in, top heavy in their home loans and maybe even with a loss of total house hold income thrown in for good measure?

      What ever happened to the Government bailing out the banks to help home owners instead of loaning the banks to buy out other banks.

      And, to make matters worse, in this age of instant checking and debit cards you wouldn't think this an issue but my state of Ohio no longer cashes pay checks on Fridays because they hold pay checks for twenty-four hours and then they don't consider Saturday to be a regular banking day;so for those living pay check to pay check, I'm sure many Ohioans haven't had any weekend travel plans. Which just snow balls into making the local economy suffer, causing layoffs from places like six flags or the winery's along the shores of Lake Erie or anything that has to do with tourism in Ohio.

      As if it wasn't bad enough already but it seems nothing is being done to help situations like this or mayb it's that the ones in charge are too wealthy to even realize that this may be a problem for a family of four in the first place.

      Ellen Karman

      • 2 votes
      Reply#5 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:24 AM EDT
      Tony Wlliams

      The banks got their bailout and they got the funds for the reform. They also got greedy. Most didn't reduce the loan to current market value they just stretched the payment out without lowering the interest rate. They shoot themselves in the foot and the hop hop continues. Then add on the canceling of credit cards which meant they made even less. Sorry but nobody in their right mind is going to pay $75,000 in interest on home that cost $125,000.

      • 3 votes
      Reply#6 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:17 AM EDT
      Smokie-788412

      I don't know about that. I believe that home owners will do all that they can to stay in their homes. The interest at this time doesn't really matter you can always re-finance in hopes of a better deal. Right now I think people are just trying to stay right where they are. These families have no real options to make just as long as they can manage the monthly note. Rather be in your home or in a family members home?

      • 3 votes
      #6.1 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:46 AM EDT
      Tony Wlliams

      Smokie

      I agree to a point. I agree most want to stay in their home. I just think that most of those who find themselves having to pay 75,000 or more over the value are also looking to get out of a losing deal.

      • 2 votes
      #6.2 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:01 AM EDT
      1standlastword

      Sorry but nobody in their right mind is going to pay $75,000 in interest on home that cost $125,000.

      And this is the new pattern of how the United States of Corporate America is going to deal with us in every way they can.

      Brought to us by the GOP and their band of satanic lobbist

      • 3 votes
      #6.3 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:04 AM EDT
      Reply
      ingenjon

      I've been hearing its bottomed out since it started tanking a year ago. I guess the recession isnt over either eh.

      • 3 votes
      Reply#7 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:28 AM EDT
      ssmike

      Logdump   please prove that greedy realtors and greedy people caused this mess!

      • 1 vote
      Reply#8 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:52 AM EDT
      Wizeguy

      There was a combination of ills that went on. The Realtors saw gold when the Government backed the loans. The banks didn't care they weren't taking the risk. The Mortage Brokers were overstating income to give people more bank for the buck. Advising people to take out adjustable rate mortgages that swelled the payment beyond the means of tons of homeowners.

      Your big 3 are Realtors, Bankers, Mortgage Brokers.

      • 1 vote
      #8.1 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:21 AM EDT
      Rob-510663

      Wizeguy you forgot the people who signed the papers themselves, I love it when most out here forget personal responsibility. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you cannot afford a $300K house on $8/hr. Until we look oursleves in the mirror and say I am responsible for me, we will continue to play the blame game.

        #8.2 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:46 AM EDT
        Wizeguy

        It doesn't take a genius to figure out you cannot afford a $300K house on $8/hr

        Interesting statement, smoke on this for while. Even the smart rich guy got caught with up in the feeding frenzy.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/business/economy/09rich.html?_r=4&hp

        • 1 vote
        #8.3 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:55 AM EDT
        jlclDeleted
        jlclDeleted
        Wizeguy

        YOU have no idea what you are talking about

        and YOU can take it on down the road. I got caught up in the frenzy in 1993. The mortgage broker advised I do an adjustable rate mortgage to get more bank for my buck. Fortunately for me I was making enough to keep up with the ballooning payments. I've since learned my lesson and have a fixed rate mortgage with a reasonalble payment.

        • 1 vote
        #8.6 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:07 AM EDT
        mountainmike-1199289

        Here is the poster boy for the housing bubble bursting in 2007 and the recession of 2008, Angelo Mozilo. He is listed as number one on the Time Magazine "25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis.

        "The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them. In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress. Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America. A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general."

        Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877339,00.html#ixzz0tlESW57Y

        • 2 votes
        #8.7 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:23 AM EDT
        jlclDeleted
        1standlastword

        It doesn't take a genius to figure out you cannot afford a $300K house on $8/hr.

        Hyperbole!!!!

        I don't believe anybody who makes $8/hr would buy a $300k house. Anybody that stupid most likely can't write!

        Go ahead...blame the victim. I do mean this class of person ($8/hr) is a victim in more ways than one.

        In the first place why are people paid so poorly....Corporate greed!!!

        Second place how did they buy a house they couldn't afford....Corporate greed again!!!

        Somebody had to make it legal to fleece the poor...right???

        • 3 votes
        #8.9 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:48 AM EDT
        Rob-510663

        Wizeguy

        I do not disagree with your statment about the rich guy too. You seem to only look at one part of my statement, I stated its personal responsibility no one even in your case held a gun to your head and made you sign these papers you made the decision, you have to live with the consequences. Its called being a grown up we all live with the decisions we make. So while your blaming take a look in the mirror that is where part of the blame should lie.

          #8.10 - Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:07 PM EDT
          Reply
          Pamela Drew

          In all, about 1.7 million homeowners received a foreclosure-related warning between January and June. That translates to one in 78 U.S. homes...The surge in home repossessions reflects the dynamic of a foreclosure crisis that has shown signs of leveling off in recent months, but remains a crippling drag on the housing market.

          What a terrible situation. It makes you wonder if new homes need to be built or if we'd do better as a country to see the existing homes occupied before creating more vacant properties.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#9 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:18 AM EDT
          Matti Viikate

          People should not take a loans that they cant pay back. Situation like this is also bad for the people, who now get to be homeless.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#10 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:20 AM EDT
          Tony Wlliams

          Most people didn't. The problem came about when those who could afford them where talked into getting variable rate loans. Most where promised their rates would drop and have more of their payment going to principle. Then the credit crunch hit and peoples available credit lines where lowered (most without notice and some had their interest rates go up without notice). The brain child that made that decision screwed a ton of people in the name of greed. When they lowered someones credit line it also lowered their credit score and the same for raising their rate on the card. Now the bank who owns the loan gets the new score which has been lowered and used it to raise the home owners rates. That cycled hit it's breaking point when they raised the payments beyond the owners ability to pay.

          • 1 vote
          #10.1 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:07 AM EDT
          mountainmike-1199289

          There was a recent article on MSNBC about most people defaulting on mortgages being wealthy and using housing as an investment.

          • 3 votes
          #10.2 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:38 AM EDT
          1standlastword

          People should not take a loans that they cant pay back. Situation like this is also bad for the people, who now get to be homeless.

          Here we go again....

          People have been foreclosed ever since we stopped living in caves and grass huts!

          If all of the people who bought home they could afford lost those homes...if that was all that happened--we wouldn't have a Great Recession going on the worldwide!!

          So what happened that F..ed up the world economy....Corporate greed.

          Truth is most people lost their Just Over Broke partnership with company X that got smashed by the gangsters on Wallstreet before they lost the home they got bamboozelled into buying at @!$%#rywide

          • 3 votes
          #10.3 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:58 AM EDT
          SeattleBobb

          Most where promised their rates would drop and have more of their payment going to principle.

          I get spam e-mails promising me that they have guaranteed stocks picks that are going to go up like crazy and pay huge dividends. If I follow their advice and buy a bunch of stocks and they do down and I lose money can I blame them instead of myself for purchase and loss?

            #10.4 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:06 PM EDT
            Minan59

            People should not take a loans that they cant pay back.

            Many people in this part of the country took out mortgages 10 years ago or more. They had no problem making their mortgage payments until their place of employment closed down. Not many people I know have a crystal ball that can help them predict something like that. There are plenty of empty houses for sale around here, but very few are selling.

            • 1 vote
            #10.5 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:50 PM EDT
            Reply
            dfggdfgdfDeleted
            O_reallynow

            Lax lending standards were the culprit ? BULLSH*T The Feds are getting a great piece of the pie all along ETC. Bail out funds for large corp.

              Reply#12 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:17 AM EDT
              mountainmike-1199289

              The lax lending standards is a Republican talking point. No one twisted the arms of predatory lenders to engage in reckless speculation. They are vampires that get to suck their first customer dry and go into foreclosure, then sell the home a second time and suck their second customer dry.

              The bottom line is that economists were discussing the housing bubble bursting in 2002-2005. Alan Greenspan and the Fed could have intervened, but he kept to his "the market takes care of itself" dogma. It didn't, as predicted.

              Canada has a similar problem but intervened to restruction loans instead of allowing so many foreclosures. That's where the market gets its arm twisted to stop the greedy and wild speculation.

              • 3 votes
              #12.1 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:28 AM EDT
              Reply
              bradybastian

              everyone who is underwater should walk on their homes immediately. we need to reset the economy or well never get out of this precariousness.

              it will be harsh the first year or so, but the only people winning right now are the banks. Its not fair. EIther that or the banks need to refinance to current market values.

                Reply#13 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:29 AM EDT
                SeattleBobb

                everyone who is underwater should walk on their homes immediately. we need to reset the economy or well never get out of this precariousness.

                Sorry, I disagree with that theory. So all the people that made smart financial decisions and lived within their spending means should be negatively effected by the people who signed something they didn't understand, spent beyond their means, and failed to have a safety net, i.e. savings in place? No way!!

                It's no different than the person who never reviewed their 410K investment option and kept it in the high risk option and then cried that it lost value because the stock market went down.

                Are some banks to blame, yes. Are some gov't agencies and policies to blame, yes. But no one was ever forced to buy anything or spend money they didn't have, so ignorance is a poor excuse.

                • 2 votes
                Reply#14 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:06 AM EDT
                Tony Wlliams

                If memory serves you work in the Banking Industry. You showed a serious bias then towards blaming the owner even when it could be proven that the owner had money in savings but the bank bleed them dry using their credit score and a variable rate.

                If I'm wrong I'm sorry but if I'm right then your not worth my time because you'll just defend the Banks who still have control over effecting the persons credit score. You know already if they drop a customers credit line even if they never missed a payment it will lower their credit score but will defend raising their payments while blaming the owner for not understanding what they signed even though the average home owner isn't a lawyer and relies on their lender to explain it. Problem being the lender is the one who screwed them.

                Hope I'm wrong and have the wrong person because the one I'm thinking about showed themself to be a corporate sleaze bag.

                • 1 vote
                #14.1 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:43 AM EDT
                SeattleBobb

                First of all, not all corporate people are sleaze bags. This countries economy, livelyhood, and tax dollars depend on businesses big and small.

                Second, I am a small business owner that does not and has never worked in the banking industry. So, yes you have the wrong person.

                That being said, people have more control over their own credit score than they want to admit. My credit card limit was dropped because they said I never carry a balance, so it seemed that instead of a needing a 20K limit, they would drop it to 15K. It did not effect my credit score more than a couple points at the most. That will not make a difference in my ability to be approved. Please don't try to over exaggerate and say they come in and do things completely out of ones power that will drastically drop their credit score enough to prevent them from being able to utilize credit. That is simply not true. If one uses credit wisely and spends within their means, they will be fine.

                I am not defending the banks or credit card companies and saying they are void of blame, but people put too make blame on them instead of admitting that they did not manage their finances as well as they could have. Our legal process does not let ignorance hold up in court as a defense, so I don't think it can be used as a full defense in this arena either.

                • 2 votes
                #14.2 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:56 PM EDT
                Tony Wlliams

                It doesn't have to be a huge drop to affect the score and a persons standing. Sometimes just 2 points can make the difference between paying an interest rate of say 9% and 15%. Lets say the cutoff for the 9% rate is 670 and you where rated at 671. The bank cuts your credit line down and your new score drops to 669 which now places you in the 15% rating. For some that 6% is the difference between affordable with still being able to save and affordable without savings. They lost the cushion they had and if anything happens they have to use the previous savings to make up for it.

                Another part of the problem comes from the fact that their home loan isn't the only place that new score could affect their ability to pay. Insurance payments being just one of the main ones. Car, Health, and home rates can be increased because of the drop they had no control over. Lets say that 6% was $60.00 a month they saved for emergencies. It's now gone and the total monthly payments have increased on all areas affected by credit score. That same person could easily now be going $60.00 in the hole each month.

                Just keeping the number small because a small amount in either direction has a larger effect on smaller incomes. A person making $50,000 a year can be hurt harder by having to spend an extra $200.00 a month to cover expenses than a person making $100,000 a year.

                By the way I'm glad your not that person I remembered. That was the biggest jerk I have ever run into when it came to economics. The (assuming it was a guy) guy was rude. I think Tyler suspendend him when we got into it and that was the only person I ever placed on ignore. At some point the ignore was removed but I didn't do it so I suppose they where banned or closed the account out because my ignore box is empty.

                Anyway I agree people have control but it's the decisions which blindside them that concern me. Like your said you had a 20k and they dropped it to 15k. The effect was a small one but it was one that dropped your score when you where not at fault. A persons score should not take a negative hit unless it is their fault. When the bank makes a decision that decision should not be used in the calculation of a persons score. It gives the banks to much control when it comes to the scoring system. If a bank has 100,000 customers at say the 671 score and each of them has a credit card then the banker knows they can increase their profits by cutting those peoples credit limits just 2 points for an instant 6% gain.

                  #14.3 - Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:16 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  Dart-1315945

                  For many people just a few extra dollars a month would have help them prevent this from happening. I have been there before when the expenses surpass the income by many times. I trust we are able to find a fair solution to this massive problem!

                    Reply#15 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:10 PM EDT
                    bradybastian

                    Seattle Bobb: Why should people who are underwater in their mortgages continue to make payments on a losing investment?

                    Its not fair to those people. is it partly their fault? of course. But its economically sound and financially smart to give the house back to the bank, lower all the prices, and force the banks to sell the houses back to the people at the present market value. They wont do this of course, because in America, Banks have more rights than individuals.

                    If I was underwater on my house, Id drop it immediatly and move into a cheaper place. IF enough people do this, the actual prices of houses will drop, instead of just interest rates on mortgages which is what is dropping now.

                    another option is that the banks could refinance to the people with the house repriced at the present market value. Fat chance on that one too, though. because the only people who can afford to refinance are the wealthy.

                    It seems that the middle class loses again...

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#16 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:33 PM EDT
                    thriller1

                    It is great news to hear these numbers are not what they were in 07-09.

                    1 million homes is devestating,imagine being under the conservative regime right now where the number would fall well into 2 million plus under their financial relief program to the wealthy.

                    The economy is turning around and most die hard conservatives see it,but to admit this would be forcing themselves to say that black guy is doing a good job.

                    That is something you will never hear their majority proclaiming even when it benefits them.

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#17 - Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:53 PM EDT
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    FUN STUFF:
                    • Leaderboard |
                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                    • Top of the Vine |
                    • Newsvine Live |
                    • Newsvine Archives |
                    • The Greenhouse
                    COMPANY STUFF:
                    • Code of Honor |
                    • Company Info |
                    • Contact Us |
                    • Jobs |
                    • User Agreement |
                    • Privacy Policy |
                    • About our ads
                    LEGAL STUFF:
                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com