Market Conditions: Foreclosure Filings Soared in Chicagoland in 2010
There’s been no slowdown in the foreclosure wave that has swept the entire Chicagoland area in the last few years.
“According to RealtyTrac, the online marketplace for foreclosure properties, 45,555 homes became bank-owned last year in the area between the Wisconsin border and northwest Indiana.
Also during the year, mortgage servicers filed 83,429 initial notices of default, the first step in the foreclosure process.
In the Chicago area last year, foreclosure filings totaled 80,618 in Cook County; 10,646 in DuPage; 9,041 in Kane; 2,612 in Kendall; 11,026 in Lake; 5,385 in McHenry; and 11,027 in Will.”
Chicago-area foreclosures soar 20% in 2010 [Chicago Tribune, Mary Ellen Podmolik, January 13, 2011]
The Tribune is also reporting that the Woodstock Institute has identified 1,896 “red flag” homes in Chicago- those that simply have been abandoned by the mortgage servicer in the middle of the foreclosure.
Aka- the house (and apparently the land) are worthless so even the bank doesn’t want it.
One report listed Chicago as having the second largest servicer abandoned houses in the nation, second only to Detroit.
The city is even demolishing some of these properties.
In 2010, the city demolished 535 homes, the most annually in more than a decade and far more than the 283 residences torn down in 2009, according to Monocchio. The city also doubled, to 891 residences, the number of buildings it secured, sometimes more than once, he said.
Are we reaching a critical period in the housing bust?
More banks walking away from homes, adding to the housing crisis [Chicago Tribune, Mary Ellen Podmolik, January 13, 2011]
WOW – and yet I can’t find a decent foreclosure in Oak Brook, Hinsdale, 60611, 60610, 60654, 60614. I look EVERY FRICKIN’ day and can’t find a single one. Why is that? Well of course, banks are holding on to some properties, but more likely it is because the VAST MAJORITY are not in areas that the VAST MAJORITY of people are looking. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF FORECLOSURES IN A PARTICULAR AREA TO MAKE ANY SENSE OF THIS. You would have to be a complete moron and idiot to take the number of foreclosures in Chicago as a whole and make any useful conclusions about it. WHAT IS SO FRICKIN’ HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?
– oh, and also you guys have to realize that if many of these foreclosures are uninhabitable, they are pretty much useless to 90% of the buyers out there. These foreclosures will not have any impact on the typical buyers looking in the GZ.
Again, I wish it weren’t true. I actually wish there were tons and tons of cheap foreclosures all around me because I would buy them and hold on to them for 20 years – sure I would lose paper value on my current properties but I would also be able to hold on to them until the market improved (even if it took 20 years). I am telling you guys this so you realize that my opinions are NOT based on the fact that I am wishing for a better market – my opinions ARE based on logic and reality.
I agree with you Clio. It took my clients and I about 6 months to find a suitable foreclosure in Park Ridge in the best area. It was uninhabitable and required a complete gut but they are happy now!
Damon Silvers, Vice-chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee for TARP, said on cspan that a major remaining systemic risk to the financial system is:
“Two hundred thousand plus foreclosures every month . . . as far as the eye can see.
Why is that a systemic risk?
A) Because it will eventually force the writedown of assets that are currently being carried … by banks on assumptions that housing prices are going to rise. Housing prices are not gonna rise until those extraordinary levels of foreclosures stop.” [my bold]
Silvers statement is at the 1 hour, 3 min, 38 second mark:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/MortgageMark
I agree with Clio that most foreclosures are not in desirable areas and the ones that are “uninhabitable”, which makes them ineligible for conventional or FHA financing.
I meant to say that most of the foreclosures I’ve toured in desirable areas are actually overpriced or considered “uninhabitable”, which makes them ineligible for conventional or FHA financing.
Borrowing costs may also soon rise, if Wells Fargo gets their way:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703889204576078371120293698.html
“Wells Fargo & Co., the nation’s largest mortgage lender, has asked U.S. regulators to set a down-payment standard of 30% on mortgages that wouldn’t have to meet a new requirement that banks retain 5% of a loan if it is securitized. The so-called risk-retention requirement is aimed at preventing future housing meltdowns because lenders could face steeper losses if their loans go bad.
“If regulators go along with [WF’s] proposal, mortgage lenders still could make loans with down payments lower than 30%. But those loans would be more costly for the banks because of the risk-retention requirement. Lenders likely would pass those costs along to borrowers in the form of higher interest rates.
“. . . research [indicates] mortgage rates could rise by as much as three percentage points for loans that are subject to risk-retention.
“Wells Fargo originated nearly one in four U.S. mortgages during the first nine months of 2010…”
wojo – do you not realize or think that there would be a huge opportunity created by wells fargo’s inability to provide mortgages to the masses? I tell you that there are private banks preparing to reap the benefits of the mess created by these mortgage companies incompetence. If Wells and the other big banks don’t get their acts together fast, they are going to lose out big time. Again, mortgage companies make money by lending. Wells Fargo has gotten so mired in the rules and regulations that it is cutting off it’s own blood supply and may find itself in big financial trouble in 2-3 years.
“I tell you that there are private banks preparing to reap the benefits of the mess created by these mortgage companies incompetence.
They will, as soon as the new normal price level settles in. What else is stopping them from lending now?
“What else is stopping them from lending now?”
uhh – they ARE lending right now. Currently, they are targeting low-risk, high net worth, high income people but, down the road, hope to attract more borrowers. They are organizing and setting up right now (it takes a little time) – but I’m telling you – these big mortgage companies and banks better watch out – these guys are ready to take their place (and these banks won’t have the ridiculous government restrictions).
“uhh – they ARE lending right now.”
Less than 5% of the market.
“but, down the road, hope to attract more borrowers”
That’s not the trend. Still, what’s stopping them? Surely, if they advertised their lack of requirements they would get as much business as they could dream of.
Just another false promise of the coming of a market savior.
“I meant to say that most of the foreclosures I’ve toured in desirable areas are actually overpriced”
Overpriced because you expected a fantastic deal on a foreclosure or actually overpriced?
From what I have wittnessed, most foreclosures are accurately priced (banks put a lot of time into this). It’s just that people expect a fantastic deal because its a foreclosure…
G- stick to providing data and leave the analysis to the grown-ups/more experienced people.
“Again, I wish it weren’t true. I actually wish there were tons and tons of cheap foreclosures all around me because I would buy them and hold on to them for 20 years.’
Current statistics from RealtyTrac for zipcode 60610 (includes the Near North Side- so “prime” GZ):
Defaults (pre-foreclosures): 1925 properties
Sheriff sales: 402 properties
Live auctions: 21 properties
Currently bank owned: 1809 properties
Bank owned and for sale: 1777 properties
That is just in ONE zip code in the GZ.
I didn’t even run the south loop zip codes.
And stop poking you in your cognitive dissonance, clio?
“oh, and also you guys have to realize that if many of these foreclosures are uninhabitable, they are pretty much useless to 90% of the buyers out there. These foreclosures will not have any impact on the typical buyers looking in the GZ.”
Are you sure they don’t impact pricing in any way?
“From what I have wittnessed, most foreclosures are accurately priced (banks put a lot of time into this.)”
As someone who has been involved in this, let me tell you, most of that time is spent asking “what should we do?”
“That is just in ONE zip code in the GZ.”
Sabrina,
look at the actual properties (even in that zip code) that have been foreclosed upon or sold. Many are crappy crappy condos in crappy crappy buildings. Seriously, how many units at 10 e ontario are included in that number? My point is that there are no GOOD foreclosed properties at all in any of the good areas.
To make an analogy – it is like going to a bar with 1000 ugly people. Yes, there are 1000 potential mates – but none of them may be to your liking or “up to your standard” – so you might as well be alone…
”
As someone who has been involved in this, let me tell you, most of that time is spent asking “what should we do?””
Surprise, surprise (no, not that you G are involved with it ) but rather the fact that the banks don’t know wtf they are doing. How could anyone expect anything different? These are middle manager, ‘C’ students from mediocre colleges that are expected to make these types of decision (oh, and with no direction?!!) Come on – our expectations were too high.
Clio, my wonderful studio in a doorman building in the Gold Coast is in the foreclosure process.
ever wonder if Clio is one of the new purposed tenants at RD655? and Homedelete is his bipolar alter-ego?
“WOW – and yet I can’t find a decent foreclosure in Oak Brook, Hinsdale, 60611, 60610, 60654, 60614. I look EVERY FRICKIN’ day and can’t find a single one. Why is that?”
just becuase i close my eyes tight and cover my ears doesnt mean the boogie man is not under my bed anymore
“look at the actual properties (even in that zip code) that have been foreclosed upon or sold. Many are crappy crappy condos in crappy crappy buildings.”
just because you tap morris code on a can attached to a string doesnt mean you can call it text messaging.
We agree a little on something, clio. But they are also A students from Harvard/Stanford/UofC. But they still need consultants for direction.
Sorry to hear that, dollface. The lead-up and decision are always tougher than the outcome.
“oh, and also you guys have to realize that if many of these foreclosures are uninhabitable, they are pretty much useless to 90% of the buyers out there. These foreclosures will not have any impact on the typical buyers looking in the GZ.”
clio, are you sure they don’t impact pricing in any way?
“clio, are you sure they don’t impact pricing in any way?”
well, they should lead to HIGHER prices anmd demand of places that are habitable and nicer.
haha thats a good way of spinning it
clio: “WOW – and yet I can’t find a decent foreclosure in Oak Brook, Hinsdale, 60611, 60610, 60654, 60614. I look EVERY FRICKIN’ day and can’t find a single one. Why is that? Well of course, banks are holding on to some properties, but more likely it is because the VAST MAJORITY are not in areas that the VAST MAJORITY of people are looking. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF FORECLOSURES IN A PARTICULAR AREA TO MAKE ANY SENSE OF THIS. You would have to be a complete moron and idiot to take the number of foreclosures in Chicago as a whole and make any useful conclusions about it. WHAT IS SO FRICKIN’ HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?”
and: “G- stick to providing data and leave the analysis to the grown-ups/more experienced people.”
You aren’t more right because you act like an egotistical jerk on the interwebs. WHAT IS SO FRICKIN’ HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?
Seriously, can we just get these posted to the top of every thread? A constant reminder to posters of what exactly clio’s opinions are and why they shouldn’t try to engage him with opinions counter to his own, lest they be talked to like a 5 year old. And a constant reminder to clio that, yes, you are being heard.
OMG,
clio seriously run for office, your uncanny raw ability to spin is simply amazing. Clio 2014 yes we can!
“YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF FORECLOSURES IN A PARTICULAR AREA TO MAKE ANY SENSE OF THIS.”
clio, you got hysterical the last post about foreclosures, too. I’ll repost this and maybe you will understand it better than last time:
51,900 = 2010 Cook County Foreclosure Suits (I assume they mean all prop types)
46,752 = 2010 Cook County Sales (all prop types)
Lincoln Park
195 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (25%)
772 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Lakeview
223 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (19%)
1,153 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Near North
515 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (33%)
1,543 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Hyde Park
53 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (42%)
126 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Lincoln Square
166 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (53%)
313 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
North Center
91 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (21%)
434 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Logan Square
362 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (71%)
508 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
West Town
299 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (35%)
855 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Jefferson Park
158 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (111%)
142 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Englewood
282 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (104%)
271 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Park Ridge
170 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (55%)
309 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Arlington Heights
360 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (66%)
545 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Schaumburg
488 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (95%)
512 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Oak Park
221 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (52%)
423 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Berwyn
577 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (155%)
371 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Calumet City
454 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (155%)
293 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Harvey
285 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (164%)
174 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Homewood
160 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (100%)
160 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Orland Park
100 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (23%)
435 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Evanston
278 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (40%)
690 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Wilmette
58 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (21%)
279 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Highland Park
113 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (39%)
293 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Deerfield
56 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (32%)
174 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Northbrook
165 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (44%)
371 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Glenview
194 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (44%)
440 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Lake Forest
56 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (25%)
228 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Libertyville
47 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (21%)
224 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Vernon Hills
167 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (88%)
190 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Hinsdale
42 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (19%)
225 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Downers Grove
158 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (41%)
381 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Naperville
427 = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (34%)
1,274 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Sorry about the jumbled order, I pulled them from a report but they should be by general area. I included the % for comparison purposes of the coming impact.
No doubt foreclosures are still moving up the property ladder. One outlier appears to be Highland Park, which seems to be more in step in the correction to its next door neighbors to the west than to the other upscale areas listed. In Chicago, the hardest hit areas are now showing flat to declining foreclosure filings and the growth is in the middle to upper class areas.
Note that these are the 2010 thru Q3 numbers. There was a rise in foreclosure filings in Q4 (to ~30% of 2010 total,) as well as a decline in sales. I expect the 2010 YE % of foreclosure filings to sales to be higher.
It’s safe to say that none of these areas will avoid further downward pricing pressure from foreclosures.
NOTE: The above numbers are for unique properties with foreclosure filings. The RealtyTrac numbers include multiple actions for some properties (notice that the intial NOD total does not equal the filings total in the article quote.)
G- again, the numbers don’t matter if you don’t put them in propert context. In order to properly analyze/interpret this data, you need to know the number of foreclosures relative to the number of housing units out there.
For example, let’s say Town A has 4 foreclosures and Town B has 10,000 foreclosures. Someone might think that Town B is doing really badly. However, if you also disclose that Town A only has 8 houses and Town B has 1,000,000 houses, you will see that the PERCENTAGE of foreclousures for Town A is MUCH higher.
Also, you have to look at the units that have actually been foreclosed upon. Many are uninhabitable or extremely disgusting and not even anywhere near the radar of most buyers. I know the foreclosures in Hinsdale are absolutely disgusting tear down tiny houses.
IF YOU CAN’T INCLUDE THIS OTHER INFORMATION THEN A PROPER ANALYSIS CANNOT BE MADE
I posted these, too:
Irving Park
345 (+41% YOY) = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (107%)
323 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Des Plaines
432 (+47% YOY) = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (74%)
587 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
Near South Side
216 (+42% YOY) = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (45%)
481 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
And missed the request for this one:
Portage Park
416 (+5% YOY) = 2010 thru Q3 Foreclosure Suits (122%)
340 = 2010 thru Q3 Sales
G- again, the numbers don’t matter if you don’t put them in propert context. In order to properly analyze/interpret this data, you need to know the number of foreclosures relative to the number of housing units out there.
For example, let’s say Town A has 4 foreclosures and Town B has 10,000 foreclosures. Someone might think that Town B is doing really badly. However, if you also disclose that Town A only has 8 houses and Town B has 1,000,000 houses, you will see that the PERCENTAGE of foreclousures for Town A is MUCH higher.
Also, you have to look at the units that have actually been foreclosed upon. Many are uninhabitable or extremely disgusting and not even anywhere near the radar of most buyers. I know the foreclosures in Hinsdale are absolutely disgusting tear down tiny houses.
IF YOU CAN’T INCLUDE THIS OTHER INFORMATION THEN A PROPER ANALYSIS CANNOT BE MADE
Current statistics from RealtyTrac for zipcode 60610
Defaults (pre-foreclosures): 1925 properties
Sheriff sales: 402 properties
Live auctions: 21 properties
Currently bank owned: 1809 properties
Bank owned and for sale: 1777 properties
They are still hard to obtain at below market prices. My building, in 60610, which is not one of those American Invesco or foreclosure mills have had a few foreclosures. (I image even great buildings have had a few — even the Bristol on Delaware has.) They are not in the greatest shape but have kitchens and baths in tact. The banks are pricing them at market or slightly below. They are only slightly below b/c there are back assessments owed. Thus, the price and assessments put it back at market.
I coulda told you that portage and irving park were being body slammed. In the last 3 months there has been one sfh sale over $500,000; there is currently one home over $500,000 under contract; and there are 19 homes for sale over $500,000.
All that’s been selling are foreclosures, foreclosures foreclosures.
Here’s another insider deal foreclosure. Went under K in just a day or two at a fairly decent price. I looked up the prior mortgages and they were over $500,000 and now it’s listed (and under K) for $119,000.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4055-N-Kenneth-Ave-60641/home/13481787
Do you really think that the $500k and over houses are just going to sell out of nowhere? Will demand suddenly materialize and all 19 sfh over $500k just gonna sell during the spring bounce? not likely if you ask me.
“IF YOU CAN’T INCLUDE THIS OTHER INFORMATION THEN A PROPER ANALYSIS CANNOT BE MADE”
clio, I’m very generous presenting what I do. I admit it is only a miniscule fraction of what I have. The simple fact is, I don’t have to post much to provide you with sufficient rope.
G, I think alot of what clio is getting at is that alot of banks are just sitting on foreclosed properties. Banks aren’t always as eager as one may imagine to just rid themselves of properties. Many are just holding onto them and sometimes have them for sale for more other listings.
There is a distressed building on the northside were units originally sold for 360k, there was definitely some mortgage fraud going on. Most of the units are for sale 60-80, guess what Fannie Mae has their unit listed for 150. According to the listing agent they are just waiting it out on that unit and arent planning on dropping the price.
above: re just old irving park not portage park
hd – not in fringe areas
clio – areas with homes like this are not fringe areas
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4107-N-Kilbourn-Ave-60641/home/13480712
Clio–he put them in context: foreclosures relative to total sales. G, these numbers are stunning. I feel a little sick.
“Overpriced because you expected a fantastic deal on a foreclosure or actually overpriced?”
The quote was “most of the foreclosures I’ve toured in desirable areas are actually overpriced or considered ‘uninhabitable'”. Really, most are simply ineligible for financing, unless you’re willing to go the 203(k) route. However, some are eligible for financing but are simply overpriced…why else would are they just sitting on the market?
There are really only a handful of areas that can support neighborhoods of homes priced in excess of the conforming limit.
“Clio–he put them in context: foreclosures relative to total sales”
No – that is not the proper context because we all know that people are not buying right now. The proper context is foreclosures relative to housing units in existence. Anything else is deceptive.
HD: Your link to the Kilbourn house is awesome. The house comes with Night Vision!
“G, I think alot of what clio is getting at is that alot of banks are just sitting on foreclosed properties. Banks aren’t always as eager as one may imagine to just rid themselves of properties. Many are just holding onto them and sometimes have them for sale for more other listings. ”
You mean that part of the shadow inventory I have been warning about for 3 years here? Hardly a novel point today. Of course they aren’t eager to sell and book the loss when the govt isn’t requiring it. Of course they are no better at setting prices than they were lending against them.
The difference is, clio (and to some extent, apparently, you) believes that they will get that higher price. I laugh at that. They are stalling the market to get more bagholders to step up and relieve some of their inevitable pain. The govt is helping them immensely, too. But even that omnipotent pairing cannot keep the house of cards standing forever.
clio, you are way out of your league. It’s kind of like if you caroused in LA or NYC, instead of Chicago.
night vision rocks. There’s a tremendous amount of nice homes in the area. It’s just that there are too many million dollar homes and not enough financing. Moreover, most people did not buy them as million dolalr homes. They bought crapshacks and fixed them up over the last 10 years and now they want a million or so for their investment. Sorry that plan didn’t work out.
“clio, you are way out of your league. It’s kind of like if you caroused in LA or NYC, instead of Chicago.”
I don’t understand what this means. How am I out of my league? Seriously, how?! You think YOU know more because what, you are a real estate broker/mortgage guy? Are you kidding me? Do you not think I don’t have numersous connections and conversations with people in the industry and in “the know”? My posts are really the summary of the collective observations and interactions I have had with people in very high positions in all aspects of real estate. Seriously, tell us who you are and what you do – it may add credibility to what you say/post. If you want to talk the talk, then walk the walk.
Oh, and by the way, I probably know a hell of a lot more about LA than you (considering the fact that I own property and my kids life there). New York – I don’t know much about.
hey kind of on topic,
i cant find the crains interactive foreclosure map thingy, is it gone or was it not crains?
“G, these numbers are stunning. I feel a little sick.”
Just wait…they are still increasing.
It’s on Crains.
Real Estate Daily section.
Closer link.
here:
http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/section/cred9205#axzz1B1fg6Qzv
I find it’s a bit late or things fall off of it, but it gives you a good current snapshot.
Wait – am I the only one that thinks the VAST MAJORITY of foreclosures are unacceptablie to the VAST MAJORITY of home buyers? Isn’t it logical, then, that these foreclosures will not/should not negatively affect the price of more desireable units?
If you don’t understand, maybe an example would help: If McDonalds is giving away free hamburgers – how does that affect Gibsons down the street? My guess is that it wouldn’t have any impact at all because you are dealing with two different products and clientele.
“Seriously, tell us who you are and what you do – it may add credibility to what you say/post.”
My record here adds all I care to my credibility. Take it or leave it. I’m pretty sure most have found my opinions to be credible. Yours?
““G, these numbers are stunning. I feel a little sick.”
Just wait…they are still increasing.”
G- do you take some kind of sick, perverse pleasure in scaring people and making them miserable? I am not saying that you need to make up things – but you really seem to take pleaures in spouting your doom and gloom nonsense. Everyone will see, in a couple of years that this was just fear mongering.
thanks for the like Logan, but i keep getting an error when searching?
maybe there are too many foreclosures that it crashed the matrix!
oh shye we are all doomed!
“No – that is not the proper context because we all know that people are not buying right now. The proper context is foreclosures relative to housing units in existence. Anything else is deceptive.”
The proper context is that all those foreclosures will have to be sold at some point. They aren’t just going to magically disappear, they will at some point make up the market similar to the figures posted by G.
Personally I know of some pretty nice foreclosures, places that have been foreclosed years ago and have yet to hit the market. If foreclosures are all crap right now it’s because the banks don’t want to take the huge hit on the nicer places yet.
“Personally I know of some pretty nice foreclosures, places that have been foreclosed years ago and have yet to hit the market.”
Please share…
“I find it’s a bit late or things fall off of it, but it gives you a good current snapshot.”
yep i see many that “fell” off there is a house i am “following” that was on the map months back and now is gone?
is there another way to find out is the foreclosure is still working its way through?
Providing people with cold hard data isn’t really fear mongering I don’t think.
“but you really seem to take pleaures in spouting your doom and gloom nonsense.”
G’s view: The RE bubble created unsustainable prices and is the cause of current problems. The correction is necessary and indicates a healthy market will be established at a lower pricing level. This is good because it will allow people to spend less on housing and more on something that is productive. Hence, lower prices are good.
clio’s view: The correction is only a problem due to fear mongering by negative nellies. Americans are going to have to get used to spending more of their income on housing because landlords and investors say so. This will leave the people with little but they will spend all their money on medical care when they are old and demented anyway. Hence, higher prices are inevitable so you should just lay back, relax and enjoy.
Which one is filled with more doom and gloom nonsense?
You guys DO realize that although the foreclosures are coming that they are likely NOT going to meet your real estate needs/requirements. I am saying this simply because even if all foreclosures were immediately put on the market, the number still will only constitues a very small percentage of homes for sale. If you guys are looking for a place and find something you like and can afford, buy it – and don’t feel stupid or bad about it. Life is too short and shouldn’t be spent worrying about real estate and wheter or not you got a deal, etc.
“I am saying this simply because even if all foreclosures were immediately put on the market, the number still will only constitues a very small percentage of homes for sale.”
Now, that takes real cognitive dissonance based on the data in this thread.
G, what do you have to gain by lower RE prices?
We know what Clio has to lose.
“G, what do you have to gain by lower RE prices?”
i guess the gain is a lower unemployment % and more sales tax revenue
G- many people challange me on this site and I welcome it. However, your challanges seem to have an extra personal component. What is at the core of that? Take some time and think about it. You will feel much better once you realize the true reasons you have to discount everything I post.
“G- stick to providing data and leave the analysis to the grown-ups/more experienced people.”
Lol. Clio is off the hook last few days.
“My record here adds all I care to my credibility. Take it or leave it. I’m pretty sure most have found my opinions to be credible. Yours?”
I haven’t really seen much in the way of opinions. Just raw data dumps.
This discussion reminds me of an article I read years ago with regard to porn. Apparently many people denied looking at porn but if one looked at the size of the industry, number of rentals, sales and so on, it was evident that not a minority of perverts were watching porn 24/7 rather the majority of the population was at it occasionally. Basically what I am trying to say is that with so many foreclosures, no one can claim that they are only in bad neighborhoods and bad buildings. In fact, I argue that they are a few very good stable buildings that are avoiding it and everyone else is impacted. That being said if one is very picky about the place they are buying of course foreclosure shopping might not be the answer.
Please, sir, I want some more. [data]
clio: “G- many people challange me on this site and I welcome it. However, your challanges seem to have an extra personal component. What is at the core of that? Take some time and think about it. You will feel much better once you realize the true reasons you have to discount everything I post.”
Every. Trick. In. The. Book.
You relentlessly name call and belittle people (“idiot” and “moron” in your first post on this thread, as an example). Then, when they get pissed off at your inexcusable attitude and rhetoric you start up with the “poor me, why are you taking it so personally” routine. Your tactics are just sickening.
I disagree with your position, but I don’t think it is absurd. If you actually just stuck to giving your opinions, forecasts and data, people would have nothing to beat you up for. As it stands, you give posters ample ammunition and excuses for beating you up personally. You have made it personal by your own behavior.
No sympathy for you.
that crain’s link has mike adamle’s evanston house in foreclosure . odd that’s not hit the news after the dui. or maybe is a mistake?
I think the bottom line is that foreclosures are not necessarily good deals. Most of which are unihabitable. Most are inaccurately priced. And we are all concerned about the “flood” which may occur.
On the flipside, banks have *no* reason to sell them off quickly due to gov support and unknown acutal book value. And in some cases (e.g. mine), there are quasi-good deals to be found suitable for the buyers needs.
“No sympathy for you.”
Aww, come on- it’s my birthday (it actually really is).
happy bday clio
“Aww, come on- it’s my birthday (it actually really is).”
Happy Bday internet bro, knock one back for me!!! Have a great bday and stay out of jail, groove cannot covering your bail tonight 😉
thanks a-fed and groove; you guys (and everyone else) always make my days more interesting!!!
“I haven’t really seen much in the way of opinions. Just raw data dumps.”
JMM, I prefer to let others form their own opinions. I still provide much more insight than your “born on third base and will bloviate incoherently in order to make anyone, just anyone, believe I hit a triple” approach. I’m sure it works for you when daddy is the real boss and sycophants are in place, just not so much here.
“Aka- the house (and apparently the land) are worthless so even the bank doesn’t want it.”
Not quite correct–the house + land is worth *less* than the bank’s expectation of costs to foreclose + delinquent taxes + maintenance/boarding up/complying with city requirements for vacant props + real estate fees + liability + “costs” of putting out cash to cover those things. Given the uncertainty about *ever* being able to sell any given house for more than accrued property tax liability, the bank’s don’t want to take on the other $10k, $20k, whatever, plus (remote, but potentially huge) lawsuit risk for someone being injured while trespassing on a barely maintained property.
If the property doesn’t appear to be worth at least, say $30k, with a likelihood of being Fannie-financeable, there’s not much point in taking title.
Happy bday Clio
very insightful comment.
“JMM, I prefer to let others form their own opinions. I still provide much more insight than your “born on third base and will bloviate incoherently in order to make anyone, just anyone, believe I hit a triple” approach. I’m sure it works for you when daddy is the real boss and sycophants are in place, just not so much here.”
“clio – areas with homes like this are not fringe areas”
HD–you can’t really be suggesting that fringe areas don’t have ridiculously over-improved for the block props that have been on the market for 40+ months, can you?
“Every. Trick. In. The. Book.
No sympathy for you.”
“Aww, come on- it’s my birthday (it actually really is).”
TftInChi, very well put.
G – I think JMM is on another thread right now – better go put him in his place.
G- I DO find your posts to be very informative and useful – seriously, thank you for all of the information. How are you able to compile such lists so fast?
No need. Much like you and me, clio, JMM has himself to thank for his credibility among posters here.
fwiw, G has posts over 3 years old and there’s lots of opinions in there. it’s pretty easy to check on his predictions, just go back and look at comments from the early months of cc.
“How are you able to compile such lists so fast?”
Let’s see: decent education, 25 years experience, numerous data sources, proprietary databases, a full staff, etc. Oh yeah, free intern labor at times, too. Basically, a well-oiled machine.
Of course, but the area of this home is not a fringe area.
“#anon (tfo) on January 14th, 2011 at 11:47 am
“clio – areas with homes like this are not fringe areas”
HD–you can’t really be suggesting that fringe areas don’t have ridiculously over-improved for the block props that have been on the market for 40+ months, can you?”
Thanks Itcaffey!!!
G – can I borrow your intern?
clio – excel and redfin. jeez.
“Of course, but the area of this home is not a fringe area. ”
Right, but the existence of that one house does not make it so, as you posited to clio.
and that sold house was a (most likely) technically fraudulent trade up by the f/c’d owners. They took their re-fi’d equity out of that place to buy a new, more expensive, one on which they appear to be current(-ish).
anontfo-
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4018-N-Hamlin-Ave-60618/home/13484811
anon-
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4041-N-Lowell-Ave-60641/home/13480852
I think sometimes it’s better to just let clio and hd battle it out with their air tight logic
“I think sometimes it’s better to just let clio and hd battle it out with their air tight logic”
It seems HD is trying to do some actual work, b/c he doesn’t usually miss that type of point that badly.
wait a minute here – are there 2 anons on this site?
I’m not battling it with anyone.
I just like posting redfin links to expensive victorian homes.
I’ve been getting tons of work done today – it’s just, like usual, I am the bearer of bad news…
“Borrowing costs may also soon rise, if Wells Fargo gets their way…”
That’s not really accurate.
During the bubble, most loans and especially subprime and alt A loans were immediately packaged into securities and sold to investors, with the riskiness of these loans obscured via deceptive practices that did not realistically model default rates or the effects of falling prices. Generally, the original lender was not required to retain any of the risk for these securities or the underlying loans, so they had large incentives to originate lots of loans without any concern for the loans to be paid back (or, if they weren’t paid back, for the underlying collateral to be sufficient to cover the loan costs).
This led to all the problems we’ve been having for the last few years. The new Dodd-Frank legislation, to prevent this sort of moral hazard, is going to require that banks retain some of the risk for the loans they originate.
All Wells Fargo is saying is, “ok, we get it, but how about that retention requirement doesn’t apply if someone is putting 30% down? In that situation, the collateral should be sufficient to cover losses in general given recent changes in procedures and standards.”
I haven’t seen recent data on loan defaults and foreclosures based on loans with 30% down, but WF’s ask sounds pretty reasonable to me. They’re trying to make sure that they can still offer buyers with a strong down payment good terms based on an ability to get these loans off their books if they want to.
“are there 2 anons on this site?”
There were at least two, hence my tfo. Many go back and forth in using the tfo, which isn’t confusing unless another anon is posting in that particular thread.
“Aww, come on- it’s my birthday (it actually really is).”
Alright, I guess I can take it a *bit* easy. 😉 Happy bday.
Thanks TftinChi – however you don’t need to “take it easy” on me – I learn a lot from people’s comments on this site and am always up for a good discussion!!!
“Aka- the house (and apparently the land) are worthless so even the bank doesn’t want it.”
Tough poop banker. You used it as collateral to make a loan and its coming back to you. Also you’ll have to pay back taxes on this, banker.
If the bankers didn’t want to take possession of these properties and deal with the ensuing issues of being a property owner and paying back taxes why exactly did they use these properties as collateral to make loans?
“Tough poop banker. You used it as collateral to make a loan and its coming back to you. Also you’ll have to pay back taxes on this, banker.”
You’re being irrational, Bob. The borrower can just walk away, but the lender can’t? Why? Beyond “Bob hates bankers”?
“JMM, I prefer to let others form their own opinions.”
So basically you have no opinion on anything? And basically no common sense or insight? Sounds about right.
“my wonderful studio in a doorman building in the Gold Coast is in the foreclosure process.”
Because you let it and prefer to let others pick up the tab for your mistakes.
“And missed the request for this one:”
Kenilworth?
“But I would have hit a triple if they let me bat.”
LOL.
“No, really, I could have done it.”
LOL.
“Daaaaddddyyyy, make them believe I could do it on my own.”
LOL.
“You’re all a bunch of losers anyway (runs home with bat and ball.)”
LOL.
““my wonderful studio in a doorman building in the Gold Coast is in the foreclosure process.”
Because you let it and prefer to let others pick up the tab for your mistakes.”
Longtime readers of this site know that dollface has been trying to sell her studio in the Gold Coast for years. Please don’t attack her during what is a very difficult time.
As we’ve talked about many times, there aren’t a lot of options for sellers when prices have fallen 20% or 30% (or more) in your building/neighborhood and sales are at 20 year lows.
Good luck dollface. It will only get better from here.
Whats with Mike Adamle??? I have been living out of state for a few years. But we are on our way back…
dollface, there’s no reason to feel guilty or sad or angst. I real mean that. Enjoy the free rent and save the money you would otherwise use as the mortgage payments. Hire a lawyer who specializes in foreclosure defense (and at least appears competent), pay the lawyer $1,500 or $2,000 to show up for a couple of court appearances and drag the case out. That’ll buy yourself another year.
If you have a B of A loan it might be, as the CEO recently said, 560 days after your first missed mortgage payment before they even file the mortgage foreclosure.
Again, I strong advise you hire an attorney (but not me!) to guide you through the process because, what i’ve noticed, is that it’s the uncertainty that causes the most anguish. I’ve seen quite a few people abandon their property in the very early stages of the foreclosure process because the uncertainty caused a lot of stress. But if you know what you’re dealing with and set a reasonable time lines when you plan to leave, the transition is so much easier and there’s no stress, just an opportunity to build up an emergency fund and some savings, and a opportunity to take advantage of some cheap rents all around the city.
“Chief Executive Brian Moynihan told investors during the third quarter conference call that he expected fewer than 30,000 foreclosure sales to be delayed, and borrowers who received a foreclosure in the third quarter were delinquent on their mortgage for an average 560 days.”
http://www.housingwire.com/2010/12/10/bank-of-america-ramps-up-foreclosure-restarts
But dollface, pay or assessments otherwise your neighbors will be picking up the tab for your mistake.
Yes yes yes a local, I forget to mention that. The condo assoc can and will sue you for any unpaid assessments up until the day the bank takes title. Which could be years.
JJJ
1. Your disagreement is with the WSJ reporter, not me, for when I wrote “Borrowing costs may also soon rise, if Wells Fargo gets their way…”, I was only summarizing the WSJ story, the first sentence of which reads:
“Banks are sparring over looming U.S. mortgage-lending rules that could raise costs for millions of borrowers.” [my bold]
2. If you think the reporter’s speculation on the effect of implementing WF’s proposal is “not really accurate”—that adopting it would not result in higher borrowing costs, I’d like to hear your reasons for believing such.
If you read the comments section to that article in the wsj, numerous people present compelling arguments why borrowing cost will rise only slightly if at all.
Coupla stray points here;
Didn’t anyone read the Trib article about how there ARE properties that even the banks don’t want? Granted, they’re in the poorest most desolate and depressed areas, but still… To just walk away seems to be something that should be illegal.
Shadow inventory is still going to be a big problem in the near future, I’m thinking, as it becomes harder for the banks to hold onto these “assets”. The friend I’ve mentioned before, who hasn’t paid mortgage since 03/2009, and had the first foreclosure proceedings mysteriously dropped, has been re-served. I suspect she’ll be in that house yet another 6-9 months, at the very least. If only she could find a job…
Groove77; to track the progress of foreclosures, you have to find your way to the Clerk of the Cook County Circuit Court’s website, and follow the electronic court docket. Foreclosures are heard in Chancery. You can see when the next court dates are and a bit of what transpired at the last hearing, and so forth. You need the defendant’s name for that.
I have to stop using the “” convention for inserting URLs here, since they become invisible…
Trib article on Bank walkaways:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-13/news/ct-biz-0113-walkaway–20110113_1_foreclosure-process-foreclosure-filing-servicers
wojo, I would expect that you understand the difference between a down payment and borrowing costs, but it’s not completely clear from your post. Regardless, I think that you’re misunderstanding the likely effects of a bank like Wells Fargo being able to originate certain loans that it doesn’t have to retain.
hd & jjj
I think I understand the difference between a downpayment and borrowing costs, and I read the wsj comments. But I still think the reporter is right to contend that if WF’s proposal becomes law, borrowing costs will probably rise. Only time will tell.
“I think I understand the difference between a downpayment and borrowing costs…”
I’m more concerned about Wells Fargo’s proposal to require 30% down.
How many people have that?
It means even less buyers than what we are seeing right now.
“I’m more concerned about Wells Fargo’s proposal to require 30% down.”
I interpret it as more of WFC doesn’t want to be in the biz of originating mortgages that can’t be securitized but doesn’t want to be excoriated by policy makers for not wanting to continue in this segment so they just raise lending requirements to levels that aren’t competitive.
Plenty of people will manage to find 30% down payments as the cost of housing declines to reflect this new reality. Your average unit will decline in price to reflect the new reality that a down payment isn’t borrowing 90 of the purchase price of a house simply because you can afford the monthly payment ‘today’.
Wih low interest rates the price of a house goes up about 100k for every 500$ a month the borrower can pay. Now if you require a home buyer to save or earn 30k of that 100k instead of paying 500 a month to borrow it, you’ll set a floor on home prices real quick.
“Wih low interest rates the price of a house goes up about 100k for every 500$ a month the borrower can pay. Now if you require a home buyer to save or earn 30k of that 100k instead of paying 500 a month to borrow it, you’ll set a floor on home prices real quick.”
I agree Homedelete- that’s why the 30% requirement is more worrisome than the higher borrowing costs. Either way- the market is going to be seriously affected.
Isn’t this the argument (blackmail) that some of the banks are making to the regulators? That if they require them to hold the 5% then it will crash the housing market further as they require the larger cownpayments OR the borrowing costs will go up substantially?
“Plenty of people will manage to find 30% down payments as the cost of housing declines to reflect this new reality.”
Heh I disagree–in aggregate, the proles (the majority of Americans) have used debt to sustain their lifestyles for the past three decades in the absence of real higher wages.
To assume that they won’t jump the gun on RE at the first available opportunity is to underestimate their ability to exercise caution. RE would have to become much more of a nightmare story for 30% down to become anything common.
I actually agree with clio that Americans are largely stupid. Look at the people that have come on this site eager to buy over the years since it’s started and how their situations have turned out.
The next lemming never ponders the fate of the previous one who disappeared over the ledge.
We won’t see a movement towards larger downpayments unless absolutely required. For conventional loans the proles will just flock to WFC’s competitors–they certainly won’t buy less house.
Wells Fargo, by the way, said it recommended the 30% downpayment because half of its mortgagees put that much down.
At first that seemed incredible to me- until I realized that that’s true only because the government is loaning for most of the loans now (including FHA making up about 40% of all loans.) Wells Fargo must only really be lending to the upper bracket buyers.
“We won’t see a movement towards larger downpayments unless absolutely required. For conventional loans the proles will just flock to WFC’s competitors.”
It WILL be required by April under the Frank/Dodd Act.
The “regulators” are tasked with coming up with a downpayment requirement by then under the act. Each of the banks submitted their proposals and Wells was for 30% down (the highest.) But JPMorgan also said that the current law would raise its borrowing costs by 3%- so the 5% mortgage becomes 8% (if the downpayment requirement isn’t raised.)
Most of the other big banks said 30% downpayment was too high. But I didn’t see what their proposals actually were.
not true of all recent buyers 09 flava going strong.
”
I actually agree with clio that Americans are largely stupid. Look at the people that have come on this site eager to buy over the years since it’s started and how their situations have turned out.
“
“It WILL be required by April under the Frank/Dodd Act”
Not for all lenders. If this happens, you will see private lenders come out of the woodwork. Yes, interest rates will be higher – but what else are you going to do if you want to buy a place?
Hi guys! I’m from Chicago and there are 27 homes on my block in Avondale area (between both sides). there are 7 abandoned (REO gang-hangouts) 2-flats and homes, and 11 houses in foreclosure as I write. That means more than half of the homes on my block are in foreclosure or have been foreclosed upon in the last 2 years.
Not surprisingly (to me at least) most of those are Wells-Fargo-Serviced.
Did you know? Wells Fargo owns RealtyTrac. I wouldn’t trust the phony numbers much. Especially thier “average home value” statistics for the areas. Trying to make it seem like nothing’s wrong. The Mortgage Banker’s Association team gets top foreclosed Chicago real estate (like downtown million-dollar condos) for pennies on the dollar, and they pay in cash (thnk you, MERS, for bidding on the foreclosure auction). Hey, it’s not illegal to make a profit – and apparently, it’s not illegal to make a profit illegally, either.
Just a rant, sorry – I’m in foreclosure also, not because of irresponsibility, but for stupidity of believing a real estate broker who was a double-agent for the lender. My bad for not noticing that the “good-hearted” broker was out to make a quick profit and the lender a great sec deal by overpricing my home and selling the mortgage-backed loan at full price to an even stupider (and probably rich) investor. Geez.
Hope you all have a great year regardless, pardon my intrusion, I just couldn’t resist.
Simon