Jun292015
Loan modification entitlement curtailed as prices rise
Lenders tighten the terms of loan modifications as prices near the peak and lenders have less risk of loss in foreclosure.
When a borrower secures a loan to purchase a house, they negotiate with lenders over the cost of borrowing (interest rate). In the wake of the new mortgage regulations, loan terms are generally uniform among lenders, and the cornerstone of residential real estate lending is the mortgage agreement, the document that the borrower signs that pledges the house as collateral if they stop making payments according to the Promissory Note.
Ostensibly, when the promissory note was signed, loanowners and lenders agreed to the price of money (interest rate and payment) and terms. Unfortunately, during the housing bubble, the terms of Promissory Notes were onerous, and many borrowers faced excessive and escalating monthly housing costs while simultaneously facing declining house prices and the elimination of their equity. This prompted many borrowers to strategically default, and lenders worried that more would follow.
If borrowers default while the collateral is worth less than the outstanding balance on the Promissory Note, the lender is in a difficult situation. If they foreclose, they will not be able to resell the collateral for enough to recover their capital, and if a large number of borrowers default, the resulting foreclosures depress resale values and causes lenders to lose even more, perhaps even leading to lender bankruptcy.
The reasonable solution is for lenders to avoid foreclosure to prevent the downward spiral of declining home values leading to more defaults and even greater losses; however, if lenders refuse to foreclose, then borrowers strategically default for a different reason: they know they can get free housing. Borrowers become delinquent mortgage squatters.
The solution lenders finally came up with was to offer borrowers terms of repayment that enticed them to pay something rather than simply squat and pay nothing. Remember though, lenders don’t want to make loan modifications. If the borrowers had equity, they would simply foreclose on them and get their money back. Since so many are so far underwater, the banks can’t foreclose on them and get all of their money back, so it’s in their best interest to cut deals, amend loan terms, 
kick the can, and pray these borrowers will make payments until prices come back.
As prices near the peak, circumstances change back in favor of the banks, and their motivation to be accommodating and make loan modifications vanishes. Many people view loan modifications as a new housing entitlement: It’s not. The moment borrowers are no longer underwater, the lenders rescind the entitlement because they would rather foreclose and get their money back, money they can loan to someone who will make payments based on the original contract terms.
Here’s why mortgage modifications have changed dramatically in last year
Ruth Mantell, June 22, 2015
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — There’s been a dramatic change in the assistance offered to struggling homeowners.
In February, 49% of borrowers with a loan backed by federally controlled housing-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received modifications that only extended the length of their mortgage. That share was up 20 percentage points from a year earlier, according to a report from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the government sponsored enterprises. Over that same time period, the share of borrowers receiving a modification that combined an extended term with other actions, such as a rate reduction and principal forbearance, fell by 19 percentage points.
This should come as no surprise to regular readers here. Back in 2011 I noted that Loan modifications are not an entitlement, banks don’t want to make them one. Then in 2013 I predicted the Loan modification entitlement will be rescinded as prices near the peak, evidence of this above.
The next phase of the process is outlined in a post from 2014, The final resolution of loan modifications will push people out of their homes. The result will be Mortgage and foreclosure crisis 2.0. We will see more on those developments later as they occur. My analysis is intended to provide a view of things to come.
Similar trends are seen in quarterly data from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which publishes a snapshot of the U.S. mortgage market. According to the OCC, the chance that a modification included a term extension rose by 10% in 2014. Meanwhile, the likelihood dropped 15% for a rate reduction and 66% for a principal deferral.
The reason? The big rise in home prices since 2012.
“As the market improves, the number of borrowers who are in deep distress goes down, so the average modification tends to get lighter because they don’t need to provide as much relief,” said Jim Parrott, a former housing-policy adviser for the White House’s National Economic Council and a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.
It has nothing to do with how much relief borrowers require: the change in terms on loan modifications has everything to do with lender exposure. As prices near the peak, lenders have less risk of loss, and once the collateral value is worth more than the loan, they have no motivation at all to modify terms.
“The practice of providing a modification to somebody with significant equity is fairly new,” said Julia Gordon, senior director for housing and consumer finance at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank in Washington. “The assumption in the past, pre-crisis, was if you get into terrible trouble with your mortgage, your solution was to downsize.”Borrowers with enough equity can sell their home without taking a loss. For those who aren’t underwater, yet struggling with monthly payments, Gordon questioned whether they should take a modified loan.
“When a borrower who has equity is seeking a modification, I think it is much more important for that borrower to get really good advice about whether staying in the home makes sense or whether moving might make sense,” Gordon said.
There is no practice of modifying a loan when a borrower has equity. Why would a bank do this?
What the statements above really point to is the situation I described in The final resolution of loan modifications will push people out of their homes. Lenders are in the business of loaning money and maximizing the return on their capital; they aren’t a charity providing lifelong subsidies to borrowers who want to remain in houses they can’t afford. Borrowers need to prepare for their exit because petitioning for continued subsidies will fall on deaf ears.
It’s almost an understatement to describe the U.S. housing market’s recovery as “uneven.” There are still pools of deeply troubled borrowers in hard-hit markets, weighed down by weak local economies and a large overhang of distressed properties, even as homes elsewhere sell at record highs. Just five states — Nevada, Florida, Illinois, Arizona and Rhode Island — account for almost one-third of negative equity in the U.S., according to CoreLogic. …
The negative equity situation in Nevada and Florida is the main reason these two states remain good candidates for cashflow property investment. Lender can-kicking is going to keep supply off the MLS for a very long time in these states because prices have a long way to go up before the deeply underwater borrowers can sell without a loss.
Servicers use principal reduction to modify loans held in their own portfolios and those serviced for private investors, according to the OCC. However, Fannie and Freddie don’t allow principal reduction, a position so irksome to some that a campaign was launched calling for President Obama to fire Ed DeMarco, the former head of the GSE regulator.
DeMarco eventually left FHFA, to be replaced by Mel Watt, a former representative for North Carolina. While in Congress, Watt had supported legislation that would allow certain principal forgiveness. But since he’s been at FHFA, the regulator hasn’t announced any far-reaching programs to allow principal reduction for troubled loans, disappointing some of his one-time supporters.
However, the FHFA is considering a targeted plan for forgiveness, and is getting closer to a public announcement, according to people familiar with the regulator’s plans. Earlier this year, Watt told U.S. lawmakers that the FHFA was studying the issue of allowing principal reductions.
“What we’re trying to do on principal reduction is find a place where it is beneficial to borrowers and…not negative to Fannie and Freddie,” Watt said. “And when we find that, that niche, that’s when we’re going to make a decision about this.”
The decision has already been made, but Watt can’t publicly give the bad news because the hope of principal reduction is the only thing making many deeply underwater borrowers hold on. The dangling carrot they will never obtain buys time while prices recover.
Personally, I think Mel Watt’s decision not to forgive principal was the right one. 
Besides encouraging moral hazard, widespread principal forgiveness either would cost the US taxpayer trillions of dollars (that’s trillions not billions), or it would have wiped out many investors in GSE loans, many of which are held by large pension funds that would trigger another massive bailout. I give him credit for not screwing things up at the FHFA.
The time when principal reductions were possible is long since past. The time when loan modifications became the norm is waning, and in a few years, this pseudo-entitlement will be rescinded completely, and lenders will finally embark on the final resolution of loan modifications that will push people out of their homes. It’s all playing out in a predictable pattern.
[dfads params=’groups=3&limit=1&orderby=random’]
[dfads params=’groups=23&limit=1&orderby=random’]
[listing mls=”LG15135049″]
Existing-Home Sales Turnovers Fall Short of ‘Normal’ Rates
The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) recently released a chart that highlights the existing-home sales in a historical context. The graph reveals that the rate of housing turnovers, while improving, are not up to ‘normal’ rates.
The MBA graph shows that housing markets are recovering, but are still weak. The turnover rate rests slightly above 7 percent currently in the second quarter, an amount that falls short of a ‘normal’ rate of 7.5 percent.
“Solid sales gains were seen throughout the country in May as more homeowners listed their home for sale and therefore provided greater choices for buyers,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist. “However, overall supply still remains tight, homes are selling fast and price growth in many markets continues to teeter at or near double-digit appreciation. Without solid gains in new home construction, prices will likely stay elevated—even with higher mortgage rates above 4 percent.”
https://www.mba.org/Images/Research/COTW/COTW%2006262015.jpg
Existing-Home Sales Spin in the Financial Media
Housing has ‘turned a corner’ as sales fastest in eight years
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The housing market has “turned a corner,” an economist said Tuesday after reports this week showed that total home sales are running at the fastest pace in eight years.
New-homes sales so far in 2015 are outpacing deals made a year ago, with recent purchases reaching the fastest rate in more than seven years.
“What we are left with is a convincing accumulation of evidence that new-home sales have broken out to a higher level,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities. “Builders’ efforts are barely keeping up with burgeoning demand for new homes.”
Meanwhile, sales of used homes just hit a 5.5-year high. Combining the two types of home sales shows that May’s total was the largest monthly tally since June 2007.
“The latest data indicate that housing demand is slowly picking up steam,” said Gregory Daco, head of U.S. macroeconomics at Oxford Economics.
http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2015/06/23/Photos/ZH/MW-DO624_Homes0_20150623120104_ZH.jpg?uuid=148e40d8-19c1-11e5-bec8-1d77262aa8b9
“Housing has turned a corner,” Stanley said. “The corner might have been turned last year if not for the awful winter weather that prevented home builders from getting foundations dug until well into the spring in half of the country.”
LOL! Yeah, it was the weather…
With $21 Trillion, China’s Savers Are Set to Change the World
Will Chinese money inflate California house prices even more?
Few events will be as significant for the world in the next 15 years as China opening its capital borders, a shift that economists and regulators across the world are now starting to grapple with.
With China’s leadership aiming to scale back the role of investment in the domestic economy, the nation’s surfeit of savings — deposits currently stand at $21 trillion — will increasingly need to be deployed overseas. That’s also becoming easier, as Premier Li Keqiang relaxes capital-flow regulations.
Other shifts are tougher to gauge. International investors including pension funds, which have had limited entry to China to date, will pour in, clouding how big a net money exporter China will be. Deutsche Bank AG is among those foreseeing mass net outflows, which could go to fund large-scale infrastructure, or stoke asset prices by depressing long-term borrowing costs.
“The integration of China –- the world’s second-largest economy with the highest saving rate but still a low per capita income -– into the global capital markets is an unprecedented event,” China International Capital Corp. economists led by Beijing-based Liang Hong wrote in a note this month.
There are already signs of that potential. Chinese buyers topped Canadians to rank as the biggest foreign purchasers of U.S. homes by sales and dollar volume in the year through March, accounting for more than a quarter of all international spending.
“If they’re going to be gradually opening up to be like the U.S., then vast amounts of money are going to flow overseas,” said David Dollar, who served as U.S. Treasury attache in China and is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “I would speculate that it favors the U.S. over everything else.”
SoCal realtors pump the market with wishful thinking
2015 home prices: Second half looks even better
As the first half of 2015 winds down, it’s been a motherlode of riches for home sellers.
Register columnist Jonathan Lansner reported CoreLogic’s report on June 17 that the Orange County median home price hit $610,000 last month, the highest level in seven years.
Can this real estate revival come to an end anytime soon? That’s the current hot topic for those that have not yet made the decision to home shop. After all, there is plenty of recent boom and bust history for you to ponder.
So, when is Orange County going to hit a wall in terms of sales growth and price appreciation? What is our top-out price point? Or, what is the interest rate level that will stop us in our tracks?
What do the numbers say?
There were exactly 5,000 O.C. active listings on Jan. 1 and today there are 6,651 according to Steve Thomas of ReportsOnHousing. Today, there are 2,959 properties in the pending sales status. On Jan. 1, there were less than half the current number, 1,478 pending.
Although listing inventory is growing at an increase of 250 per month, we still have only a 2.25 month supply of inventory based upon the current sales pace according to Thomas.
Thomas thinks once mortgage rates hit 5.25 percent, appreciation ends. “How many people are going to want to move (up) with those (existing) low rates versus higher rates?” Thomas asked.
Fannie Mae’s senior vice president and chief economist Doug Duncan has a different idea about what might cause Orange County to hit a price wall. Duncan said, “The home price issue is a classic supply and demand issue. Regulation related to development is difficult (in Orange County). If there is no housing supply expansion, it just keeps going.”
Duncan thinks employers will be the home price game changer. “Organic demand not being satisfied creates an outflow of businesses when labor costs rise beyond sustainable levels,” he said. So, employers go elsewhere and the incomes will no longer be there to support our lofty prices.
Assuming Thomas is on to something we still have a long way to go. I do not foresee interest rates at 5.25 percent for a very long time – like three to five years.
Regarding Duncan’s thinking, This symbiotic relationship between rising housing costs and wage increases will not trigger a large enough number of O.C. employers to leave for other parts. Look no further than the Silicon Valley. Their wages and housing costs are through the roof and most employers have stayed anchored to California’s highly desirable climate.
Slow and steady economic growth is an awesome incubator for home price appreciation. No national or global whipsaw events are happening. No real crazy gyrations to the stock market are at hand. Interest rates are stable. Job growth and wage increases continue to gradually firm up.
Confident, undistracted consumers always carry on.
Dual agency in California may come to end
The National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the plaintiff in a case currently before the California Supreme Court.
In the suit Horiike v. Coldwell Banker, plaintiff Hiroshi Horiike contends that even though the listing agent was originally contracted by the seller, because the listing agent was an agent of the same broker and in the same brokerage as his buyer agent, the listing agent also owed him, the buyer, representation as well.
The California Second District Court of Appeal agreed stating, “When a broker is the dual agent of both the buyer and the seller in a real property transaction, the salespersons acting under the broker have the same fiduciary duty to the buyer and the seller as the broker.”
According to NAEBA President Chris Whitehead, “The seller had a contract with the broker through one agent. The buyer had a contract with the same broker through another agent creating a dual agency situation. In reading California law, it would appear that because the broker represented both the buyer and the seller, the agents working under that broker also represented both the buyer and the seller, which means that the seller’s agent should have protected both the seller’s interests and the buyer’s, which is an impossible situation.
“That is why NAEBA has long spoken out against dual agency. It’s not good for buyers or sellers, but only for the real estate licensees who will be able to collect both sides of the commission,” Whitehead said.
NAEBA says it chose to submit a brief because the organization sees potential ramifications for the real estate industry not only in California, but throughout the United States.
One sign of a poor economist is someone who makes predictions with a very low threshold for success then claims brilliance because the prediction came true. In the article below, the economist for realtor.com predicted homebuyer participation among Millennials would increase, something which was obvious since the group is entering their prime homebuying years, and he tries to establish credibility as a forecaster based on this prediction.
Nobody questioned whether or not Millennials as a group would increase their participation in the housing market. The real question is a matter of degree. Will Millennials buy homes at similar rates to previous generations? Realistically, the answer is no, but this guy reframed the question as to whether or not Millennials will increase their buying at all, and to nobody’s surprise, they have — andthis makes him some kind of prophetic genius.
Realtor.com’s top economist welcomes Millennial homebuyers
Long thought to be a generation lost to homeownership – or at least, not near as enthused or enamored of homeownership – Millennial generation is starting to warm to the idea of a place of their own.
Realtor.com Chief Economist Jonathan Smoke, who was saying a year ago that it is foolish to think Millennials are any different than other generations, has written an open letter welcoming them aboard, because they are doing exactly as he predicted.
Realtor.com Chief Economist Jonathan Smoke is the Nostradamus of housing, right?
Problem is, the dam is crumbling, but there is no water behind it.
Also, the last name brings to mind an idiom…
where there’s smoke, there’s fire
The irony of his name seems to escape realtors, but it’s the first thing that comes to mind when anyone else reads his commentary.
In the case of a realtor, where there’s smoke there’s usually just smoke. If there were any chance of actual substance to what they’re saying, then I’d be worried.
Did anyone else catch the fact that Millenials can have higher aggregate demand than Gen-X, just based on their sheer numbers, even if the percentage is lower? Why is no one talking about this? Is the percentage so low that the size of the Millenial generation is no longer a factor?
The Millennial generation is larger than the Baby Boomers and much larger than Generation X. I’m hopeful they will pay my social security when the time comes.
If Millennials can get into the market, sales should start to rise as they reach the stage in their lifecycle where they buy homes; however, since we reflated the housing bubble and elevated home prices so much that little entry-level housing is available, Millennials may not get into the housing market, and they may to to rent for life instead.
It also depends on what life expectancies do over the next 50 years. With life expectancies rising 2yrs for every 10, we can reasonably expect retirement ages to rise similarly. The bubble may very well result in a phase shift instead of a fall in amplitude, or maybe both.
Also depends on health expectancy, and effects on lifetime healthcare costs. Total income pie will grow larger with more working years, and healthcare slice may be relatively smaller as overall health improves as we age.
Aging demographics are kind of a double-whammy hitting both supply and demand.
I suspect the retirement age will rise significantly for Millenials, but it won’t kick in for Gen Xers because there are so few of us to support relative to the size of the Millennial generation. This is one instance where drifting in the wake of the Baby Boomers isn’t all bad.
HouseCanary: Shifting demographics reshaping housing, mortgage finance
A new study from HouseCanary shows how demographics shifts are reshaping demand for residential real estate.
“The vast imbalances in wealth and homeownership among Baby Boomers (age 55+) and Millennials (ages <35) are resulting in wide disparities in the demand for home buying versus renting,” according to J.P. Ackerman, President at HouseCanary. “Our analysis indicates that rising interest rates and home prices will exacerbate the situation as the Millennials’ ability to purchase homes will be severely jeopardized as monthly payments get further out of reach.” ?
Boomers have historically fueled the housing market as they entered each stage of life. They drove growth in the entry-level market during the 1970s and 1980s, the move-up market in the 1990s and 2000s, and will fuel household growth over the next 20 years due significant wealth and high homeownership rates.
Over the past year, Boomers accounted for a disproportionate amount of growth – 244% of new households nationally. ?
In contrast, household formation among Millennials was anemic, driven solely by renter households, which are entirely offset by the persisting decrease of Millennial homeowners due to limited savings, high debt and slow career growth. Probable interest rate increases will exacerbate the challenge young buyers face due to the large percentage of income dedicated to housing – a factor stimulating increased demand for rental units.
The study demonstrated that more than 1 in 3 Millennials could no longer afford to buy a home at current prices if interest rates hit 6%. There are material differences in these trends across markets that are critical to understand in the investment process to serve the changing housing needs of Americans.
For example, in Washington, D.C., Millennial renter households grew by more than 4,000 households or 21% of the household growth creating demand for single family and multifamily rental units. In contrast, Boomer homebuyers in Miami accounted for 600% of all new households. ?
“Demographic shifts are causing significant change and new opportunities for real estate investors,” says HouseCanary CEO & Co-founder Jeremy Sicklick. “Addressing these shifts is critical for investors and developers to thrive in the future residential market given that the past is not prologue for the future. Our research indicates greater opportunity for development of for-sale residential to the aging population and for-rent residential to serve the younger generation.” ?
Wealthier baby boomers shun homeownership
The U.S. home ownership rate is at the lowest level in 25 years and is widely expected to go even lower. That’s not just the result of younger Americans struggling to make ends meet to save for a down payment on a home. It is increasingly the result of middle-aged, higher income Americans choosing to rent.
Renter growth is now at the highest level in 30 years, and families or married couples ages 45–64 accounted for about twice the share of renter growth as households under age 35, according to a new study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. In addition, households in the top half of the income distribution, although generally more likely to own, contributed 43 percent of the growth in renters.
“We do think we’re in the later stages of a rebalancing between owning and renting,” Fannie Mae chief economist Doug Duncansaid in an interview Wednesday on CNBC.
Duncan pointed to demographics. Baby boomers are now moving out of their homeownership years, while Generation X, a smaller group by 6 million to 7 million, also has a growing preference to rent after being hit hard during the recession, losing income, credit and even their homes.
The homeownership rate is now 63.7 percent, according to the U.S. Census, down from the over 69 percent peak in 2004.
Because of that, rental apartment occupancy is now at an all-time high, and rents are rising at twice the pace of inflation. In turn, that is putting pressure on renters young and old, but not necessarily pushing them to homeownership. Higher rents mean it is more difficult to save for a down payment. More than half of U.S. residents report having had to make at least one sacrifice or tradeoff in the past three years to cover their rent or mortgage, and the highest segment of those sacrificing is renters (73 percent), according to a report by the MacArthur Foundation.
The Sydney and Melbourne property bubble is real
Stephanie Brennan, full of youthful hope and hubris, proves it.
Every bubble has its naysayers and disbelievers. Usually, no one pays them much attention, at least not until the bubble bursts and the media are casting around for someone to explain what the hell just happened.
This time though, people calling ‘time’ on the stupendous increase in property prices in Sydney and Melbourne are being handed media megaphones with a brief to be as alarmist as they like.
Take Treasury Secretary John Fraser, who last month said Sydney was ‘unequivocally’ in a bubble. Unless they’re close to retirement and have a bonnet full of bees, econocrats don’t use language like that.
Is this bubble of so much concern to policymakers that they have to abandon their usual tempered, cautious, language so no property buyer has the excuse that they weren’t warned?
The oddness was turned up to 11 last week when buyers’ advocate David Morrell was quoted in the Financial Review: ‘Are we in a bubble? Of course we are. It just depends who is caught with the parcel.’
Morrell has just broken the first rule of his profession: if you work in real estate, talk prices up, not down. In fact, so common is the idea of an Australian property bubble it even has its own Wikipedia page.
All of this makes me wonder; if one of the preconditions of a bubble is the widespread acceptance of its “unbubbleness”, then this time really is different. Maybe Sydney and Melbourne property isn’t in a bubble after all?
Maybe all those arguments about land shortages and growing population do explain everything.
Then up pops 24-year old Stephanie Brennan, one of Australia’s youngest property tycoons according to news.com.au
Stephanie owns six properties worth more than $2.3m. Aiming to retire by 30, Ms Brennan is a uni dropout who’s been investing for three years, proving that it is “still possible to buy property in Sydney.”
Well, of course it’s still possible but that doesn’t make it sensible. Wasn’t it this attitude that made the GFC possible? Easy money and a false premise built on the notion that prices always, always go up (which is true if you’re 24)?
But it gets better. Stephanie thinks ‘there should be a lot more guidance’ in property investing, which is why she’s launched her own business ‘to help others do what she’s done, offering everything from financial planning to accounting and mortgages.’
Surely this is it, the final ringing of the warning bell?
If, after three short years of ‘success’, a 24-year old is in a position to advise retirees on where to invest their money and the mainstream media is breathlessly labeling them a ‘tycoon’, talking up their new business, this has to be the top.
The Sydney and Melbourne property bubble is real. And Stephanie Brennan, full of youthful hope and hubris, proves it.
When it all goes pear-shaped don’t worry about Stephanie, she’ll be fine.
Having attended Pymble Ladies’ College and won a position as a former advisor to Bronwyn Bishop at the age of 20, her well-to-do parents are a great insurance policy.
But for stretched property buyers without those advantages, the best thing to do is take David Morrell’s advice and make sure you’re not left holding the parcel.
[Does anyone remember Casey Serin?]
[Does anyone remember Casey Serin?]
I thought this was a joke when I first read it:
Serin borrowed $16,000 to purchase a week-long real estate seminar course purporting to teach “creative financing” at Nouveau Riche University (NRU) in Phoenix.
I remember reading iamfacingforeclosure.com back in the day. He was the poster child for everything wrong with housing bubble finance. The posts and the comments were hilarious.
Casey believed real estate was a fountain of cashflow through Ponzi loans and serial refinancing. All someone needed to do was get their name on title with 100% financing using liar loans, then serial refinance the appreciation out of the properties to live the good life. He steadfastly refused to do any real work.
How is Casey Serin not in jail….oh ya he would probably implicate a bunch of people in the finance and real estate industry as well.
1% Listing Fee, 2% selling fee?
Just curious. Does this level of discount really spur sales and get sellers moving?
http://activerain.com/blogsview/4681959/list-your-home-for-1-commissions-orange-county-discount-realtors
“Example of Savings: Sales price $800,000
Listing fee 1% = $8,000 Selling fee 2% = $16,000
Total paid $24,000
Other Brokers charge 6% which equals $48,000
You save $24,000 listing with us!
We only have a few spots remaining for this special listing promotion.”
What a deal. :/
Real estate sales is far more relationship driven than price sensitive. Since sellers pay the bills, most buyers don’t worry about the commissions. Sellers will most often go with the agent they know best, irrespective of the cost. This is why farming agents do far better than discount agents.
The fact of the matter is that the BANKSTERS continue to commit fraud upon hardworking people and fraud upon the courts. The biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen , where the Banksters created credit out of thin air, not for their borrowers, but for the banksters themselves via the Federal Reserve’s magic check book, with no bank account behind it. The Bankster then loaned that imaginary money to people on the security of overvalued real property with the deliberate aim of reducing the artificially raised property prices and putting people out of work.People without income cannot pay their bills, so they were guaranteed they they could steal all that real property from their rightful owners. Of course you would say to yourself, that makes no sense because the Banksters would lose money when foreclosing on the security , but you’d be wrong because the banksters insured the debt with an insurance company, but just forgot to tell the borrowers that. SO they knew they could not lose. Its what you might call having your cake and eating it too. You see, just secretly insuring the debt was the way they ensured that they lost no money. First they sold investors in Wall Street on the idea of using pensions and other fund moneys to invest in the profitable housing market. Then they sold homeowners on the idea of borrowing money against their rising property values, secure in knowing that they had artificially raised those prices and knew they could reverse that trend rapidly, when the time was right. Then they found another group of investors and sold them on insuring against the unlikely risk of those secure mortgages defaulting. But, as you know, they had already insured the downside risk. So they devised a new name that no one understood called the credit default swap. These were not insurance policies regulated by the states, but were unregulated securities sold on wall street to investors. So, once they got the business of insurance outside of the regulatory realm, it was no holds barred and they sold the same investment to up to 20 different groups in respect of every mortgage pool they pretended to create in the securitized mortgage scam.But people need to lose the mindset of someone who has been brainwashed by the garbage put out by government at state and federal level and echoed in the corporate owned media
SO therefore, The banksters were and still are continuing to submit fraudulent documents to the courts in order to steal homes from homeowners. They and their substitute trustee lawyers (ie Samuel I White PC) are submitting FRAUDULENT papers to the courts in order to FRAUDULENTLY foreclose on homeowners across the nation. Mortgage notes with Forged Owners signatures and ta-da endorsements are being submitted to the courts in order to steal homes. Bank of america(or as they like to refer to themselves…fka countrywide) made a deal with the attorney generals to modify loans that they really had no right to modify as they were illegally acquired to begin with. They committed notary fraud, forgery, added fake endorsements and as their crimes began to come to light…………they made a deal and instead of modifications (which they LED the homeowners to believe what was happening)….they handed the fraudulent documents over to Green Tree among others, to foreclose. Meanwhile, homeowners are the ones who are paying the price by having their homes taken because of felonies that are being committed . Fraud upon the courts, racketeering, forgery, wire fraud, notary fraud…pathetic, nauseating, and just all around disgusting. Wake up America. Wake Up.