Is it Possbile to Get 3-Bedrooms for Under $400K in River North? 510 W. Erie
This 3-bedroom unit in Erie on the Park, at 510 W. Erie, in River North has been on and off the market since February 2009.
It is priced just under $400,000- but if you include the parking the list price jumps to $434,000.
Still, that is $28,500 under the 2003 purchase price.
The corner unit has south and east views.
While at 1330 square feet it isn’t one of the larger 3-bedrooms in the building, for many people, 3 bedrooms is still more desirable than a 2-bedroom with the same square footage.
The kitchen has stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops. The bathrooms are marble.
Is this a deal?
James Faircloth at Prudential Rubloff has the listing. See the pictures here.
- Sold in January 2003 for $462,500
- Originally listed in February 2009
- Withdrawn
- Was listed in February 2010 for $484,500
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $399,000 (plus $35,000 for a single space or $50,000 for a tandem)
- Assessments of $789 a month (includes heat, a/c, gas, doorman, cable)
- Taxes of $5722
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 13×12
- Bedroom #2: 13×12
- Bedroom #3: 12×10
- Living room: 20×16
- Kitchen: 12×7
Good price if you need an oddly small 3 bedroom in a decent building/location
1330 sq.ft for a 3 bedroom?!!! I have 1800 sq ft for a 2 bedroom and I think that the bedrooms are too small in my unit!!!
I don’t think a 3 bedroom adds much at all if the bedrooms are that small. The only time that would make sense is that if it is a rental near a college or where very young people hang out (not this area) or if it is in a family oriented neighborhood with a lot of school aged kids (also not this area). This makes absolutely no sense to me at all – it really is a 2/2 – although it gives me a great idea. I could just put up some walls in my condo and make it a 4-5 bedroom!!!
There are lots of families with small kids in that area. Just go Erie park on a weekend…it’s packed with families.
I would review the condo records. There were some issues with leaks in the beginning so one would want to make sure that is resolved. Otherwise, it is a great deal.
I realize it has been on the market since February (winter) but why wouldn’t you update the outdoor pictures over the spring/summer to show green grass? I think it would look much more appealing.
I don’t think that the problem with a 3 bedroom crammed into 1130 square feet is that the bedrooms are too small. We’ve seen houses with far smaller bedrooms… The third bedroom here is still 12×10 with the others at 12×13. I’d be more concerned with the small living space that you get when you have a 3 bedroom in a place without the square footage.
This building is odd. I’d be careful about the view – if you’re not looking at the park/skyline (south) you’re looking at a yet-to-be-rehabbed loft and other peoples’ bedrooms.
Also, the lobby smells and wasn’t terribly impressive.
Great area, though.
Similar vein – anyone familiar with 500 W. Superior? Looked a few units there last week. I really liked that building. Fantastic lobby and amenities and an architectural pedigree. The units weren’t huge but the one bed and den would fit my wife and I just fine. Anyone have any particular input?
I meant 1330 SF, not 1130.
I’m surprised people are griping about the SF – (especially if any of you own newer construction condos) how is this any different than having your 1150 SF 2BR/2BA combo living/dining room with an extra 12×10 bedroom? Doesn’t seem like they’ve compromised SF space in any other area. Many times I see ‘1650-1800 SF’ 3BR and the SF is really much closer to 1300-1400SF. This building is in a great location if you like the residential portion of RN.
I would be wary of the assessments though – personally I’m not a fan of having heat included (so if Joe Smith likes it at 80 we all have to pay for it?).
As we all know, units’ values go down with assessments rising (fixed cost) and if you are going the condo route, buying into the right building is equally as important (especially if you plan on exiting in the next 10 years). Just because the price is attractive for the unit (you can buy a $450K 3BR in the Gold Coast as well) doesn’t mean your annual cost is any different than owning a $550K condo in a similar location.
JN – know the building well, I use the cleaners inside (she’s expensive, but very convenient for me) as well as I’m very familiar with the developer and condo converter. The location is great – the area is incredible and you can get to anything very quickly.
Even in the winter the fountain gives you a very clean, fresh feeling everytime you walk in. Pricing seems to be generally in the $300/SF range – haven’t seen too many foreclosures in the building (maybe 1 or 2). It’s easy, but not cheap living. I find that many on this board think that a home has to be an ‘investment’ – and sure, you don’t want to lose money (and I doubt you will here) – but you’re probably not going to ‘make’ money either. Seems like most owners I talk to in the building enjoy it.
http://cribchatter.com/?p=2269
The link is for JN for a few more opinions.
“As we all know, units’ values go down with assessments rising (fixed cost) and if you are going the condo route, ”
This was not true and not reflected in pricing during the boom and something I frequently pointed out.
Just because it should be true economically speaking does not make it true during an asset bubble is the only takeaway I could gather from that.
“I don’t think a 3 bedroom adds much at all if the bedrooms are that small.” I’m buying a 2/2.5. The master is huge, the second bedroom is medium size (certainly not big, but it’s an actual bedroom, with windows and a real closet). I’d happily reduce the master in order to get a third bedroom measuring at least 10 by 10 ft.
I would haved loved this unit and floor plan in my single days. I work from home and need an extra room for an office, ok if it’s on the small side. In this unit I could have my office and still have a guest room. This place would work well for a single professional or couple with no kids.
This was first listed on Feb 17, 2009 (unknown asking price) and delisted on Nov 2, 2009; then relisted on Feb 17, 2010 at $484,500 and has been languishing for 252 days. The owner’s original mortgage was $377k for about 20% down.
It’s cases like this that sort of freak me out. Somebody signs a contract in Nov-Dec 2002 and buys in 2003; and now nearly 8 years after first signing the contract, its crazy to think that they’re not going to make any money on the sale, and, they may even have to bring money to the table to sell. I bet this idea never, ever even crossed their mind in 2002. I’m not going to say that I knew that in December 2002 they would be in this situation in 2011; I was too busy studying for finals at the time.
But regardless, at this rate, we’re getting pretty close to ’99 nominal pricing, at least for this unit, in River North.
“But regardless, at this rate, we’re getting pretty close to ‘99 nominal pricing, at least for this unit, in River North.”
Maybe just for price paid but it makes it tough to compare net housing costs vs. 1999 because I’d be willing to bet the taxes and possibly assessments were much lower back then.
So are you implicitly suggesting that in order to compensate for increased taxes/assessments the nominal selling price will be reduced even further than an approximate ’99 price (this building was new construction when it was purchased IIRC).
“Bob on October 27th, 2010 at 9:46 am
“But regardless, at this rate, we’re getting pretty close to ‘99 nominal pricing, at least for this unit, in River North.”
Maybe just for price paid but it makes it tough to compare net housing costs vs. 1999 because I’d be willing to bet the taxes and possibly assessments were much lower back then.”
“Maybe just for price paid but it makes it tough to compare net housing costs vs. 1999 because I’d be willing to bet the taxes and possibly assessments were much lower back then.”
But interest rates are much lower.
Wait a minute, I thought interest rates had little if any effect on pricing?
“#anon (tfo) on October 27th, 2010 at 9:55 am
“Maybe just for price paid but it makes it tough to compare net housing costs vs. 1999 because I’d be willing to bet the taxes and possibly assessments were much lower back then.”
But interest rates are much lower.”
“Wait a minute, I thought interest rates had little if any effect on pricing? ”
I’ve consistently been in the “of course it does, tho only with larger changes (ie, 25 bips doesn’t drive prices)” camp.
And, Bob mentioned “net housing costs” which, of course, are driven by both price and interest rates–even if you pay cash!
“25 bips doesn’t drive prices”
Not even a little bit? Hard to estimate, sure, but no effect?
““25 bips doesn’t drive prices”
Not even a little bit? Hard to estimate, sure, but no effect?”
Even if it does, I doubt you could prove it with that little swing. Doubt you could even prove a volume effect, but that’s much more plausible.
“Wait a minute, I thought interest rates had little if any effect on pricing? ”
It’s really the availability of credit, not the cost of it.
howmuchamonth?
hd: “howmuchamonth?”
That’s what Bob was proposing. Comparing howmuchamonth.
rv: “It’s really the availability of credit, not the cost of it.”
If–today–you were willing to pay 12.5%, with a 300 bip loan fee, and another 300 bip exit/early refi fee, there’d be a lot more credit available. Separating cost and availability is basically impossible.
Loans at those terms are called subprime loans and those lenders learned – the hard way – that deadbeats are called deadbeats because they don’t pay their bills, so, I don’t really know if there would be more credit available if fees were higher. Investors are still recovering from those losses and I don’t know if they’d be willing to lend like that again.
“If–today–you were willing to pay 12.5%, with a 300 bip loan fee, and another 300 bip exit/early refi fee, there’d be a lot more credit available. Separating cost and availability is basically impossible.”
“It’s really the availability of credit, not the cost of it.”
Yeah only if you consider the last decade’s loan standards anything close to normal.
Oh no now you actually are expected to be able to _repay_ your loan? This is consumer injustice roscoevillager! Its our right as consumers in America to have boundless and nonsenical access to credit! Isn’t it?
“Loans at those terms are called subprime loans and those lenders learned – the hard way – that deadbeats are called deadbeats because they don’t pay their bills, so, I don’t really know if there would be more credit available if fees were higher. Investors are still recovering from those losses and I don’t know if they’d be willing to lend like that again. ”
They’re also lender of last (or only) resort loans. You see stuff like that in commercial lending–hell, I’ve seen, in the past decade, libor + 12 on a loan secured by real estate, and higher than that with more tenuous security.
There is money to lend, it *IS* a question of what the profitability profile is for the lender. And the banks would be correct in questioning anyone who came in off the street offering to pay hugely non-market rates and fees.
“They’re also lender of last (or only) resort loans. ”
Not true.
Minorities depend on subprime loans: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2005-03-16-subprime-usat_x.htm
Subprime mortgage brokers/companies targeted minorities and women and poor people because they got higher fees and rates. Other studies have showed that prime borrowers were often given subprime loans by brokers because of higher fees.
““They’re also lender of last (or only) resort loans. ”
Not true. ”
I’m talking about pricing, and how higher pricing makes more loans available. I am not talking about “sub prime”; I’m talking about “prime” borrowers paying above-minimum rates.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Wow, am I being deliberately obtuse? No, you said if people paid higher rates there would be more credit available. I said that higher rates than prime is ‘subprime’ and that doesn’t work because deadbeats don’t pay their bills. you said that paying higher rates, which I took as subprime, is only of last resort. I said no, higher rate loans is actually predatory lending, targeting poor/women/minorities because of higher rates and fees.
Then you retort that you didn’t mean subprime, but you mean prime borrowers paying higher rates. Which by definition, prime borrowers are supposed to pay the prime rate.
So what this really comes down to is you are arguing that the prime rate is too to make credit freely available. Which is opposite of what the FED thinks with its ZIRP policy – cheap credit means that credit flows freely.
nevertheless, I happen to agree with you.
“#anon (tfo) on October 27th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
““They’re also lender of last (or only) resort loans. ”
Not true. ”
I’m talking about pricing, and how higher pricing makes more loans available. I am not talking about “sub prime”; I’m talking about “prime” borrowers paying above-minimum rates.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?”
typo: So what this really comes down to is you are arguing that the prime rate is too LOW to make credit freely available
“So what this really comes down to is you are arguing that the prime rate is too LOW to make credit freely available”
Yes. Which is why I said, in my first post on teh topis, which you quoted, “Separating cost and availability is basically impossible.”.
“Which by definition, prime borrowers are supposed to pay the prime rate.”
I think you might want to reconsider that sentence, too. “prime rate” has a specific meaning which is not the one you ascribe to it in that sentence.
“Other studies have showed that prime borrowers were often given subprime loans by brokers because of higher fees.”
There may be 10% of truth in this but it is more likely 90% fictitious sociological crap to generate headlines.
They flocked to these loans not because of “predatory lending” but rather because these were the loans available to them.
The news headlines you see about predatory lending exaggerate the 10% of the time this happened and diminish the fact that the other 90% of the time these loans were legitimate on a risk-adjusted basis and were their only option.
This is why the new “consumer commission” is such a joke. The problem was consumers not being well informed of what they were getting into, at least not on any large scale. The problem is consumers not really caring and wanting their house now and any means to get it possible.
err…The problem was NOT consumers not being well informed..
“Which is opposite of what the FED thinks with its ZIRP policy – cheap credit means that credit flows freely. ”
Don’t confuse quantity with price of credit. The quantity of credit is now lower vs a few years ago as it was artificially high during the boom days with “financial innovations” such as Option-ARMs, Alt-A & subprime loans.
The price of credit has never been lower than today, however.
The only thing the Fed can indirectly attempt to impact these days is the price of credit trickling down to the consumers.
The lending institutions are not going to transfer their availability of credit back to those who are repayment risks now that they have been burned before and there’s little the Fed can do to change that.
Increasing the availability of credit to those who should have never had access to it is probably the #1 thing which almost brought the financial system to it’s knees. The loans were never properly priced to reflect the default risks and had they been people would’ve been screaming about violations of usury laws.
“The loans were never properly priced to reflect the default risks and had they been people would’ve been screaming about violations of usury laws.”
Right. And “consumer protection” is the primary reason why pricing sufficient to entice new lenders to enter the market–which would increase loan availability–won’t/can’t happen.
HD:
Those “studies” are patently false.
1) Subprime paid less than any other mortgage loans of comparable rates. The only exception to this was Option ARMs which did in fact pay hefty commissions. The loan product that pays the most is consistently FHA which pays about 2-3x what a comparable conventional Fannie/Freddie loan pays. Many banks are making up to 4.5% on FHA loans.
2) Minorities were targeted for subprime because minorities typically have bad credit or other issues that prevent them from qualifying for prime loans. Duh… There is a reason there aren’t subprime branch offices in the Gold Coast but they were all over the southside and west sides of town. Put another way, you don’t try to sell Kia’s in Wilmette.
3) These studies also overlook the fact that mortgage lending is a relationship business. Most of the subprime brokers/lenders targeting minorities were minorities themselves.
Speaking of the Consumer Commission, Elizabeth Warren wrote an Op Ed piece in the Boston Globe a couple of years ago that so patently false and untrue that she got her ass handed to her on http://www.creditslips.org by lenders rebutting her article where she used to blog before she got famous.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/02/mortgage_brokers_sleight_of_hand/
What has scared me more than anything is how so many people who have ZERO clue to how our mortgage system works are making rules and regulations that affect us all… by the way, the premium she is blasting in that article is what most of us in the real world call a profit margin. This chick really does think banks do loans for free.
“the premium she is blasting in that article is what most of us in the real world call a profit margin.”
Oh no it must’ve been big bad businesses fault because remember people are blameless for their own flawed decisions in life. People cannot make flawed decisions it must’ve been businesses using deceptive practices to trick them!
Central tenet of the D party is people aren’t responsible for their own decisions or consequences thereof–instead blame businesses. Its not my fault I’m obese from eating McDonald’s every day it must be McDonald’s fault! I want some free healthcare! Its not my fault I got lung cancer from smoking cigarettes my whole life it’s the fault of the evil tobacco companies! We should raise taxes on cigarettes to generate more revenue for government and vilify them.
“Central tenet of the D party is people aren’t responsible for their own decisions or consequences thereof–instead blame businesses.”
No, the central tenet is that the R party are fascists.
Russ,
Don’t be so naive Elizabeth Warren probably knows a lot about the mortgage market. Maybe not as much as a broker but she definitely knows more than she lets on.
The thing is she can’t advance her political career if she discusses reality as it is. If you believe her op-ed was meant to be anything near sincere I have a bridge to sell you. She’s just talking to the D party line that it wasn’t these poor people’s fault they got a subprime loan and are getting foreclosed on. Remember no individuals, or especially those who are reliably D votes, are ever responsible for their own decisions instead there must be a scapegoat to blame. And that scapegoat is businesses.
Too bad for Obama you can’t at the same time demonize and overtax businesses and expect them to create jobs. Hahaha his administration is so F’d its hilarious.
“No, the central tenet is that the R party are fascists.”
Well then after next tuesday I suggest you brush up on your german.
“Remember no individuals, or especially those who are reliably D votes, are ever responsible for their own decisions instead there must be a scapegoat to blame. And that scapegoat is businesses.”
pretty much
Bob:
I really doubt it. Seriously, I have talked to a few politicians about mortgage related issues and most were utterly clueless. All they really knew was what the lobbyist were telling them.
They really couldn’t get beyond the sound bites, no matter how many facts you present. I had one politician who shall remain nameless outright tell me that he couldn’t vote no on a proposed law even though he knew the law was screwed up because of the “politics”.
“Increasing the availability of credit to those who should have never had access to it is probably the #1 thing which almost brought the financial system to it’s knees. The loans were never properly priced to reflect the default risks and had they been people would’ve been screaming about violations of usury laws”
IMO your analysis is simplistic in that I think you are targeting the wrong “bad guy”. The subprime borrower was just a pawn. Chris Whalen today wrote:
“While politicians such as Barney Frank (D-MA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) waxed eloquent about the role of the GSEs in helping marginal borrowers achieve the American dream of homeownership, the GSEs were using their origination rules and mortgage insurance to effectively make lower income borrowers pay much higher rates than market benchmarks would suggest. And this preference on the part of the GSEs for high FICO, high LTV borrowers in less attractive part of town was deliberate. Fannie and Freddie were cherry picking these mortgages they thought were less likely to prepay. We note in this regard that Assured Guarantee Limited just sued Deutsche Bank AG over mortgage-backed securities that the bond insurer guaranteed and says were “plagued by rampant fraud and misrepresentations.” The zombie dance party it starting to rock.”
Read the full article and educate yourself.
Triple Down: Fannie, Freddie, and the Triumph of the Corporate State, by Chris Whalen (Institutional Risk Analytics)
http://us1.institutionalriskanalytics.com/pub/IRAMain.asp
“Bob:
I really doubt it.”
Well she used to be a prof at Harvard so I wouldn’t assume she is as clueless as most politicians. She likely knows what she was saying is BS but knows that cushy head of commission job BHO gave her is a springboard to further political ambitions.
“Well she used to be a prof at Harvard”
Still is, but on leave:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=82
“I wouldn’t assume she is as clueless as most politicians.”
Perhaps differently clueless, but also smarter than most politicians. She’s got a POV about contemporary consumer finance that differs from yours (and mine), but unlike most politicians, her primary concern in doing her current job is about doing a (in her view) good job, not in getting to keep the job in 2/4/6 years, b/c she gets to go back to one of the best jobs in the world–$250k+ to hear yourself talk, for about 5 hours per week, 32 weeks a year, with *no* risk of losing that job, even if you suddenly become irredeemably awful at it.
Elizabeth Warren has integrity, something that has become quite rare these days. I don’t see her walking any party line.
“with *no* risk of losing that job”
I take it you’re not familiar with the education bubble? But yeah, she almost certainly understands what she is discussing, people may disagree.
I really am very free market, libertarian etc. There’s still a part of me that thinks disclosure (even smart disclosure) isn’t enough sometimes.
“Elizabeth Warren has integrity, something that has become quite rare these days. ”
She gets questioned (indirectly) on this all the time, about cooking stats and trying to fit stats to her storyline. Some of the “medical bankruptcy” stuff has consistency issues that can raise legitimate questions–not that most of the chattering-class questioning is legitimate, but there are some questionable decisions included in some of the analysis. The specific articles I’m thinking of have Liz as a co-author, rather than lead author, so there’s reason to question whether she juked the stats or it’s her co-authors’ faults.
“I take it you’re not familiar with the education bubble? ”
Trust me the big 3 will be immune from the education bubble popping if it ever happens. The big 3 are the developing grounds for the American Aristocracy.
You need need sheepskin with certain stamps on it to enter certain circles. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, especially after the Wall Street bailout basically solidified the ensconced banking class as explicit de facto leaders at the top of the food chain and pulling the strings.
Those firms would sooner hire a liberal arts grad from Princeton than a financial engineer from CalTech. (CalTech grads rarely wind up in the Hamptons like Ivy grads do, and it has little to do with geographic distance).
“I take it you’re not familiar with the education bubble? ”
I know you’re joking, but “Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court” is a more tenuous position than “Tenured and Chaired Professor of Law at Harvard Law School”. Not that anyone would trade the former for the latter, but purely on a job and income security basis, HLS is a much more sure thing.
“They really couldn’t get beyond the sound bites, no matter how many facts you present. I had one politician who shall remain nameless outright tell me that he couldn’t vote no on a proposed law even though he knew the law was screwed up because of the “politics”.”
haha was it Luiz Guiterrez who was “powerless to resist their lobbying” when it came to the payday loan industry lobbyists?
http://boingboing.net/2009/04/05/congressman-whos-giv.html
If Rep. Guiterrez is helping these companies give out usurious loans to F over the poor he’s an okay guy in my book!
yeah f-ing over the poor is cool and funny, until they need YOUR wallet
“haha was it Luiz Guiterrez who was “powerless to resist their lobbying” when it came to the payday loan industry lobbyists?”
I’m sure he’s also powerless to resist bribes, sexual advances, illegal drugs and Vegamite. Pretty much making him the Jesse Jackson Jr. of the NW/SW side.
“Pretty much making him the Jesse Jackson Jr. of the NW/SW side.”
or just an “average” Chicago politician
Also Vegamite is nasty
“Trust me the big 3 will be immune from the education bubble popping if it ever happens.”
As anon notes, I was joking. HD was trying to tell me the other day that tenured U of C law profs were at risk.
““Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court” is a more tenuous position than “Tenured and Chaired Professor of Law at Harvard Law School””
Yup, b/c plagiarism certainly won’t get you tossed at HLS. We’ll see if anything happens with Hauser (I don’t have an informed view on him).
“there’s reason to question whether she juked the stats”
I can’t believe this hasn’t drawn groove out of seclusion yet.
“Also Vegamite is nasty”
And yet, Luis Gutierrez is *powerless* to resist it! Explains how he could support a bill he apparently knew was contrary to his constituents best interests.
how does vegamite come into play? i am missing that part
“how does vegamite come into play? i am missing that part”
Ensures that it is (correctly) seen as parody rather than potential libel.
Also, because everyone knows that JJ, Jr. was actually in that relationship for the vegamite, not the “companionship”.
Stats are made to be juked and always need to be looked at with a jaded eye. That being said, has anybody other than Megan McArdle weighed in on Elizabeth Warren’s misuse of them? I never trust main stream media. Here is one defender’s POV:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/megan-mcardles-hack-post-on-elizabeth-warrens-scholarship/
“The specific articles I’m thinking of have Liz as a co-author, rather than lead author, so there’s reason to question whether she juked the stats or it’s her co-authors’ faults.”
I’ve yet to encounter vegamite outside of a Men at Work song.
what is a “vegamite”?
“Stats are made to be juked and always need to be looked at with a jaded eye. That being said, has anybody other than Megan McArdle weighed in on Elizabeth Warren’s misuse of them? I never trust main stream media. Here is one defender’s POV:”
I disagree with much of the criticism, as I stated, but there are some kernels of nonsense in the analysis–as in the contention that anyone with $X (whatever it was–not looking now) of unpaid medical bills who filed BK was a “medical bankruptcy”. That’s just a horsesh… unsupportable on real world facts conclusion dressed up as “data”. And then everything that relies on that “data” for a conclusion is suspect–and it one or more articles, there is a *LOT* that relies in significant part on the “data”.
So, it’s another instance of the insufficiently-damned use of not-quite-facts in support of your argument that allows for the picking apart of the not-quite-facts rather than the real point. And it’s to Liz’s discredit (which still leaves her with plenty of positive credit, in my view).
“what is a “vegamite”?”
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vegamite
Being a Professor does not necessarily mean one has common sense. I have seen plenty of “geniuses” who can’t tie their own shoes. I actually traded a few emails with her about her opinions on mortgages. What really got me was how steadfast she is on her opinions despite facts showing the contrary.
When she was pilloried by the mortgage community for her article in the Boston Globe, she never once addressed the points that mortgage professionals brought to her attention that nullified her position. Her only response was “I got hate mail…”
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2007/10/hate-mail.html
“What really got me was how steadfast she is on her opinions despite facts showing the contrary.”
This–the last paragraph of your linked post–doesn’t seem very steadfast to me, but maybe I’m misreading it:
“I don’t have any data, but I’m willing to believe that the practices I described are not the norm and that most brokers are ethical agents. But shouldn’t the ethical brokers want regulations that shut down the unethical brokers? Why be forced to compete with someone who cheats? And why not work to build a good reputation for mortgage brokers everywhere?”
Anon(tfo):
She only said that after she spent 3/4s of the post saying the brokers that responded to her article essentially disgruntled.
Secondly, she is basically saying “she didn’t have any data” which is just another way of her admitting she really didn’t know what the hell she was talking about when she wrote the article in the first place.
Third, the regs that she refers to essentially wound up being Barney Frank and his ilk trying to legislate brokers out of business to pay back their to big to fail banker buddies. Of course, all this stuff sounds harmless on the surface until it is actually done… just like Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the legislation so we can find out whats in it…”
Awwwwwww…anon(tfo) has a bit of a crush on uber-geek Warren.
anon(Tfo), you just wait until the education bubble POPS! and then tell me how safe and secure tenured positions are at major universities and colleges. I don’t know when the bubble will pop but it will pop soon enough. we’ve managed to saddle our younger generation with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans and they’re not paying them. I came across someone today with a masters from Loyola with $85,000 in debt and earns $1,600 a month take home.
Debt that cannot be repaid, won’t be.
“Debt that cannot be repaid, won’t be.”
Yeah but past-due student loan debt is almost as past due child support.
Sure you won’t goto jail like with child support, but they can and will make your life miserable and there’s no way to make it go away aside from faking your own death or actually dying.
Believe me, past due support is way more difficult to collect than current support. Debt that cannot be repaid, wont be, regardless of its ability to be discharged.
SF is SF is SF. You can slice a pizza any way you want . . .
Used to live here. It’s an architectual showpiece, especially the lobby, for those with modern sensibilities. Comments to the contrary . . . well, taste is taste. Left years ago, as soon as the city approved the view-stealing rental box across the street (Thank you Natarus; you *@#%*%#)
One thing continues to puzzle. Except for the doorman, this building has ZERO amenities (no gym; no pool; no party room; no deck; no nothin’) and yet it commands extraordinary assessments!! Why? Who’s pockets are being lined??
“anon(Tfo), you just wait until the education bubble POPS! and then tell me how safe and secure tenured positions are at major universities and colleges. ”
I’m not talking in general, I’m talking about *specifically* HLS and, to a lesser extent, Harvard. Not Yale, or Princeton, or Stanford even, and certainly not any school most people would call a “college” (and yes, I understand that H ug alums generally refer to Harvard *College* rather than U, but that’s not “most people”, even when you include everyone who understands that distinction).
If you don’t understand why and how that is different from “major universities and colleges” there really is no point in discussing the eduction bubble with you. Seriously.
“She only said that after she spent 3/4s of the post saying the brokers that responded to her article essentially disgruntled.”
Which is contrary to your assertions that:
1. she is [very steadfast] on her opinions despite facts showing the contrary.
2. Her only response was “I got hate mail…”
Which is what I was pointing out, as it didn’t fit with the linked post.
anon(tfo): that article was written three years ago. She is still spouting the same nonsense three years later. Just google it. She didn’t change her opinion one bit despite having more than enough data available (a large study from the FTC pretty much blew her opinion out of the water) to show without a doubt her position is ill informed. Of course, it is too late since there has been regulation passed which essentially is killing off the small mortgage brokers.
Ultimately, it is the consumers who are paying for it. Bankers are laughing all the way to the bank… literally (I can say this as a banker). But hey, if her feel good opinions makes everyone feel better, I guess it is no big deal despite it harming consumers.
“anon(tfo): that article was written three years ago. She is still spouting the same nonsense three years later. Just google it.”
You picked the link, Russ. If that wasn’t a fair representation of what you were complaining about, fine. But I was responding to what you directing me to as an example, which I didn’t think fit with your complaint. I don’t care enough to look around to prove *your* point to me, and, no matter what, it’s a viewpoint issue rather than an easily found fact.
I agree with you that some/much/most of the consumer protection stuff is misguided, at best, and certainly some of it will have unintended consequences that are a net negative. The mortgage broker stuff may well be in that category. And I’m not generally a “something must be done!” alarmist, and the approach is sort of closing the barn doors after the barn burned down, but the regulatory regime in place as of 2006 was broken, and there was a lot of (by incident count, if not percentage-wise) bad stuff going on in the mortgage brokerage biz, along with many, many other parts of the resi RE market.
The whole country is on a multi-decade disintermediation kick, which is one thing that’s exacerbating the concentration of wealth–fewer middle men usually means slightly lower prices for buyers and somewhat larger profits for sellers, with a whole cadre of formerly reasonably well-paid folks out of jobs.
@eriehome:
I live here. The assessments are on the high side because the building is all glass. In the summer the units get extremely warm from the sun and in the winter the all glass walls don’t hold heat as well as other materials. Also, it does have a small exercise room but its nothing special.
To the other commenter who mentioned leaks – I think you are talking about 653 N Kingsbury – the “sister” building to this one. They have had major problems with leaks.
While the rental building on NE corner of Kingsbury and Erie will block the Hancock views the south and west views are protected (park is south and building owns air rights west – there is even a roof deck on one of the west buildings that is accessed from 510 w erie).
My take on this unit – assessments are on the high side but this is a good price for a 3br in a modern RN high rise. If anyone is interested in doing the rent vs. own math the rental building next door is charging 2500-2900 / month for small 2brs.
Well, if the sub-prime lenders didn’t DEMAND direct-deposit of the PITI payments on the first of the month (as opposed to paper checks), they were really dumb on a grand scale. I know that I have to have “x” amount of dollars in the bank on a certain day or I will face big trouble with one of my creditors. The people who take out ANY kind of mortgage should be put in the same position, what with the kind of technology we have nowadays.