« Development Watch: Bill Ross Does 47 Dean Street Today on the Forum »
November 11, 2008
Quote of the Day
Deadbeats are deadbeats, and I have no sympathy at all for people who borrowed money they could not reasonably expect to afford to repay -- especially because they are largely responsible for driving up MY housing costs the last few years as the end of the housing bubble coincided with me reaching a point in my life when I was tired of living in a crappy rent stabilized apartment. In fact, my gut feeling is just to let all of these places get foreclosed as it will drive down property values so that when I eventually do buy a place it will be even cheaper yet. But I feel more and more like this is a case where my neighbors have built a poorly designed dam upriver from me, and while I may think they are irresponsible, selfish, and stupid, it doesn't change the fact that the bursting of the dam will drown me too, so it has become in my best interest to see their problems fixed.
by northsloperenter in Citigroup Puts the Kibosh on Foreclosures
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7140
Comments
I largely agree with this sentiment. I worked for the better part of my twenties to get myself completely out of debt, and have stayed that way for the last four years. Part of the way I accomplished that was by not buying stuff I can't afford. I'm marrying a woman who also has fantastic control of her finances and is debt-free as well.
I understand that housing is a different scenario. I'm not expecting people to pay cash for their house - obviously it requires incurring debt. Nonetheless, I don't have a ton of sympathy for people who were unable to do the basic math required to figure out "hey, wait, just because we're approved for this loan doesn't mean we can actually make the monthly payments."
Now I'm in what should be an excellent position to purchase my own home, and I can't. Our combined incomes do not allow us to borrow even as much as it would cost to buy a 2BR condo in any neighborhood we want to live in, let alone buying our own house. Ten years ago, we could've gotten a loan for a sensible amount of money and used it to purchase a nice, but not extravagant place. Now we're left on the outside looking in thanks to a crisis we had no part in creating. It's pretty frustrating.
And yes, if the dam bursts - and it's already leaking badly - a huge chunk of us are screwed even though we didn't have anything to do with building the dam in the first place.
For the record, I do have sympathy for people who borrowed sensibly and then lost their jobs due to the failing economy. That sucks, and I hope they are able to work something out with their banks.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at November 11, 2008 3:38 PM
Well said northslope. An interesting take on a subject that we have all hashed to death. Smart to recognize that, no matter how much it pisses you off, that you have a stake in the recovery of the market and in the bailing out of some of your neighbors bad loans. So many people here are advocating a "let em hang" attitude and your more nuanced understanding of the situation is very welcome.
Posted by: wasder at November 11, 2008 3:40 PM
Likewise.
Posted by: altervoce at November 11, 2008 3:43 PM
Wow, sorry for the novel above. Didn't realize how much I was typing. :P
Posted by: cwbuecheler at November 11, 2008 3:45 PM
"this is a case where my neighbors have built a poorly designed dam upriver from me"
I'm SnarkSlope and I approve this metaphor.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at November 11, 2008 3:46 PM
Amen to that!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at November 11, 2008 4:06 PM
Nicely said northslope...everything needs to come back down to reality. Unfortunately, on the way down, it's hitting alot of us.
Posted by: bayridgegirl at November 11, 2008 4:19 PM
Well said
I have been a lurker for some time as I find Brownstoner a great site for those looking for input or advise on home ownership, etc.
I personally don't know anyway who has purchased and could not afford or at least no one fessing up to it as their homes are not being forclosed but this is the price that we are all having to pay for irresponsible lending. I may not agree with a lot of things going back in forth on the forum but I do agree that this issue affects us all and to play the blame games doesn't help anyone.
Just wanted to finally post that I appreciate logging on to read the positive/negative posting from a bunch of folks that make this forum/site great.
Posted by: BrookLynn816 at November 11, 2008 4:32 PM
am I the only person appauled by this comment? there are too many scenarios to name in this economy why there have been foreclosures. why has no one mentioned all of these luxury buildings like the Oro or Forte, which aren't selling, do we really think those owners are paying billion dollar mortgages when units aren't selling? what about the renters that lost their jobs & the owners who are stuck trying to get rid of them & cover their mortgage. what about the banks that took advantage of a lot of innocent well intentioned folks to make a profit??? not explaining interest only or adjustable loans. no i guess it's all the people who knew they couldn't afford their home and just knew and wanted to go into foreclosure.
do you really understand how many jobs have been lost or are you in that much of a bubble b/c your credit is finally good enough to own???
i am glad i own - b/c you really do sound bitter....
Posted by: bkny at November 11, 2008 5:25 PM
bkny-
I don't find the op's comments bitter.
On the whole, though there exists a multitude of reasons why we got into the mortgage mess, at the end of the day its the fault of the home buyer. I wouldn't buy something I couldn't afford no matter what kind of snake oil was being thrown at me. I wouldn't get into an interest only or an ARM if you had a gun to my head. Again, I agree that there are many reasons it got to this place but the bottom line is with the buyer.
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at November 11, 2008 5:47 PM
bkny -
I understand how many jobs have been lost. I also know what it's like to be broke, in debt, jobless, and staring at the possibility of bankruptcy. It sucks. That's why I specifically pointed out at the end of my message that there are plenty of foreclosures that didn't occur due to people borrowing too much or taking crazy interest-only loans or whatever.
I'm not that bitter - I have a good life that I'm largely quite happy with. I'm just frustrated that real estate prices in an area I really love have been driven beyond my means in large part by people who were trying to flip houses for profit. The people being affected by the housing crisis in Brownstone Brooklyn are not, by and large, the same as the "innocent and well-intentioned folks" in places like Syracuse that are being hurt by it (which includes several members of my family).
Posted by: cwbuecheler at November 11, 2008 5:51 PM
people over extend themselves everyday in everyway. but i find it hard to believe the failure of banks is due to average homeowners and not developers who are over extended on luxury properties that are not occupied and owe the banks millions and billions of dollars. Do you think Toll Brothers are up to date on their mortgage payments or a building that is 30% sold? those mortgages have a much larger impact than small loans. it's also so called educated buyers that took out large home equities that now is worth more than their homes. i just think the blame is being shifted to the wrong individuals.
do you realize how many home equity loans are putting people in foreclosure and out of their homes. banks were giving away helocs like water and folks were drinking - 250k, 300k, 500k above what they already owed!
Posted by: bkny at November 11, 2008 5:59 PM
cwbuecheler is where I'm at.
The sad thing is that you save your money, count your pennies and act responsibly. Then, you are told you have to help other people who acted irresponsibly, and if you don't help them, the damn will break and water will crash onto your head.
I don't mind being a renter right now. These days, seems like people who own should be labelled "anxious owner" rather than "smug owner". In any case, rent or own, the more important thing is financial stability.
Posted by: theandrewlee at November 11, 2008 6:04 PM
Wow, a thread on Brownstoner where people are actually agreeing that prices have been crazily overinflated over the past few years because of these insane lending practices. This has to be a first on this website. Usually someone suggests that fact, and yes it is a fact, and twenty others try to disprove it and talk about what a great buy that 900K fixer upper SRO in need of a complete tear-down is in (insert some historically bad neighborhood name here), and how just buy it now and in a couple years when prices "recover" you'll make a profit. Because we all know that at $4 a gallon all those middle states people are going to be rushing up here to buy those $900K+ houses. Folks, anything over $400K is much too high for any average working family in the good old USA even here in NYC - whether that's an apartment or fixer upper brownstone/or aluminum sided woodie. I truly found it interesting today when the new housing rescue plan was announced and they actually reinstated the old 36% debt to income level for sane decision making on these loan workups. If your house payment is anything over 36% of your monthly income, you are in over your head and somewhere between now and 30 years from now when the note is paid off, you will more than likely end up in foreclosure or in a position that will be almost impossible to recover from (ie paying your mortgage instead of food, clothing, or electricity for instance). Those are historical facts in the financial industry. Just wait awhile. There will be affordable houses in the city before long once sellers either come to reality, or the life event occurs that proves to them why that 36% level is the maximum rational amount sets in and the bank gets their house back.
Posted by: williamsburgguy at November 11, 2008 6:36 PM
36% of monthly gross or net?
Honestly curious, because that makes a huge difference in what one can sanely afford. I'm assuming it's net?
Posted by: cwbuecheler at November 11, 2008 7:11 PM
Let this be a lesson to all the good boys and girls: following the rules like good scouts can often end up biting you in the f...ing ass.
Posted by: sam at November 11, 2008 7:26 PM
bkny: "people over extend themselves everyday in everyway."
Not everyone. Some people make a real effort to NOT overextend themselves in any way.
Its the American materialism, greed and usury that would make you think that -everyone- overextends themselves.
But its not all of us.
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at November 11, 2008 7:46 PM
Um, hard to complain about others being unfairly subsidized when you are in a rent stabilized apartment, no?
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at November 11, 2008 7:47 PM
"This has to be a first on this website. Usually someone suggests that fact, and yes it is a fact, and twenty others try to disprove it and talk about what a great buy that 900K fixer upper SRO in need of a complete tear-down is in (insert some historically bad neighborhood name here), and how just buy it now and in a couple years when prices "recover" you'll make a profit."
So 2007 Williamsburg guy. For several months now this board has been engaging in these kinds of discussions. You won't find too many people talking the way you characterize it above. There are a few very obvious real estate shills around and they get soundly beaten down when they post.
Posted by: wasder at November 11, 2008 8:30 PM
I am an owner, and I don't feel anxious at all. I bought my first place in Park Slope at the age of 30, can afford my payments easily and think about the future. I would like to retire before the age of 80.
I am not a real estate shill, but I rather like the idea that at the age of 60 (or probably before that since I often pay a little extra on my principal) will have no housing costs except maintenance and taxes.
I am terrified at the idea of living in the city when I retire in a 5k a month rental, looking to retire and being a prisoner to rising rents on a fixed income.
Some of those who talk highly of renting don't seem to realize that if you never buy, you will be renting for a lifetime...NOT just for 30 years.
I also don't agree that we should be saying that homes in NYC should cost 400k. That's kinda ridiculous. This is New York. I recall when my parents bought their house 20 years ago in a suburb of a B level city and it cost 400K. That was WAY before the housing boom and no where near the cosmopolitan haven that is New York City.
I do think prices are a little out of whack, but honestly more in the neighborhood of 20% or so. My mortgage payment is about 400 bucks less than the typical rental for my size apartment and when you factor in the tax deductions, more like 600 or 700 bucks less. And I bought in 2006.
I'm down to 28 years left until I am free and clear, and that's a really nice feeling to me.
Posted by: 11217 at November 11, 2008 11:53 PM
Would it interest you to know that just 12 years ago the houses on both sides of me in Williamsburg sold for less than 100K? I helped both my neighbors sell theirs back then, and they both had to accept a lower offer than their asking price. I gave 69K for mine about 15 years ago. 6 years ago I thought about refinancing to do some improvements and my house appraised for $350K. Luckily I changed my mind. Houses on my street were appraising for 1.2-1.5 million in 2007 and still over 1 million this week. We are talking aluminum sided wood frame 3 stories. I could rebuild it if it burned tonight for less then 150K. So out of whack might be the understatement of the year. The "this is New York" idea is total bunk and total hype and usually used by people in denial that their house could return to normal price levels. And New York isn't really that much different of a place than its been all this time. Some areas better, some worse, but overall it averages out to be able the same place as it's always been in terms of crime and amenities. Maybe it's better than when the Five Points and Tammany Hall were around, but since I've been alive and been here (43 years) it's not been a lot different. Plus, it's been New York for 400 years and only in the past 6-8 have prices been this much out of line with the rest of the country. New York has always been expensive (maybe 1.5 to twice as expensive as other areas in my experience and I've been all over the country and still own properties down south), but working class families have always been able to afford a single family or two family house if they really wanted one. I don't know of a single person on my block who could afford to buy their house now if they didn't already own it, and I know everyone on my block and surrounding blocks and we all have decent jobs, but none of us make what it would take to pay that kind of mortgage for the next 30 years without serious problems as financial and job cycles happen, medical emergencies, periodic $600 fuel oil bills, kids needing braces, etc. I can't wait for my house and all in the city to drop in value to normal levels, albeit higher than other parts of the country, but cheap enough that people can actually live here without having to have 3 jobs or live 5 families to a house just to pay the bills. If you're not over 30 you probably don't even remember what New York used to be since it's only been changing up to this wacko price level for about 8-10 years now. 11217, how many months away from foreclosure would you be in you lost your job tomorrow? I pray to God that doesn't happen, but realistically in this upcoming/ongoing recession/depression we might all suddenly be out of work for a few months. You think the Lehman Brothers employees saw this coming back around July or August? So everyone reading this blog better have 3-4 months of mortgage payments in the bank just in case. That's hard to do when your monthly mortgage is in the thousands. Also hard to collect rent when all your tenants are unemployed - and even harder to get them out and new ones in place in this city before the bank takes your keys from you. Just saying. Not that I want to bring everyone down :-)
Posted by: williamsburgguy at November 12, 2008 1:33 AM
CWB - that lack of distiniction between net and gross irritates me. Why the heck would one come up with a precise 36% figure - but then leave that vital piece of information out? Newspapers and news anchors also do it.
Also please use the word lampost instead of the horrible term lightpost, or even worse, lightpole.
Posted by: dittoburg at November 12, 2008 8:23 AM
bkny -- I know how many jobs have been lost and suspect how many more will be lost. I know my own isn't completely safe. These are grim times, and, while I'm not happy about it, I do support efforts to bail out people who have found themselves unable to pay their mortgage provided they are willing and reasonably able to pay a refinanced mortgage.
Putnamdenizen -- I haven't lived in a rent stabilized place for over 5 years, although I'm not sure living in one would completely invalidate my having an opinion on the housing crisis, since rising housing costs trap people in those crappy places. Rent control/stabilization is a different topic, but, despite having lived in such a place, I'm not a big fan of the way those policies work.
Funny story: I didn't know the place was rent stabilized when I moved it. I got it through a broker, paid the fee and everything. All I knew was it was a crappy apartment in a crappy neighborhood but it was the only placed I'd seen that was less than 60% of my monthly net income so I took it. I didn't realize it was stabilized until I read my renewal notice a year later. Oh, and my upstairs neighbor was a male prostitute.
11217 -- Yes, the thought of trying to stay in the city while renting (and not having a rent stabilized place) is frightening. I expect to buy (in or out of the city) within the next few years. Although, having just found out how much daycare costs in Brooklyn (yikes!), uh, I may have to wait til my kid is old enough for school before I can afford a mortgage!
Posted by: northsloperenter at November 12, 2008 9:30 AM
kids really throw a wrench into the caluclations.
Posted by: dittoburg at November 12, 2008 9:34 AM
In the real estate and finance world its 36% of your GROSS monthly income with all debts (excluding utilities, food, normal spending, etc) included. The rule of thumb is 28% of your gross for mortgage, and 36% of gross total DTI (debt to income level) to get a conventional loan approval - the "old standard" which is not surprisingly the "new standard". So assuming you have zero other debt, banks will typically allow up to 36% for a mortgage. They will reduce that percentage amount if you have other debts (student loans, car loans, furniture loans, credit cards, etc) by however much that is so that your total long-term debt isn't over 36%.
Posted by: williamsburgguy at November 12, 2008 10:05 AM
Again, 11217 projects an amazing level of optimism. I've never met anyone in the present market who thinks a 28-year death vow is a really nice feeling.
If we can convince every American to think like 11217, we will put this economic crisis behind us!
Posted by: Polemicist at November 12, 2008 10:49 AM
"11217, how many months away from foreclosure would you be in you lost your job tomorrow?"
I have about 2-3 years worth of savings in the bank, not including my retirement account. Since I bought a co-op, they insisted that I proved to have at least a year's worth of mortgage payments in savings after my downpayment.
In the last year I have not only been re-signed to a 3 year contract with work, but also given a 20% raise in the last couple months.
Posted by: 11217 at November 12, 2008 11:36 AM
"Again, 11217 projects an amazing level of optimism. I've never met anyone in the present market who thinks a 28-year death vow is a really nice feeling."
Maybe because it seems like yesterday that I moved into my place. It still feels new (to me) and it's already been 2 years! Time flies, and before you know it you're 55 and have 10K in savings for retirement like about half the U.S. population. I'm working hard now so that I can really take advantage of that hard work when I get older. I don't plan to wake up after working for 40 years and find out I've got nothing.
Posted by: 11217 at November 12, 2008 11:40 AM
Well you're doing a lot better than most homeowners 11217. Most working class homeowners with kids are generally 1-2 months away from foreclosure at any given time (ie if work stopped today they would only have enough in savings to last 1-2 months). I know some who I have worked with in the past (I used to be a realtor but now am not although I do stay involved and hold an active license) who had decent jobs, but were literally living paycheck to paycheck and if work stopped today, not only would they not have next months mortgage, but they wouldn't have enough money to pay their utilities or buy food by next week. Sad but true, especially here where incidentals are becoming so high - literally by the day now with all this talk of no rebates, high property taxes, higher income taxes, higher MTA charges, higher food costs, utilities through the roof, etc. If I were you 11217, I would make sure to hang onto that nest egg for the next year or two. Resist the urge for those new granite countertops and private school tuition. Even with a newly signed contract and raise, all jobs are expendable if a company is suddenly faced with their credit frozen or customer base evaporates overnight. God help us all! (and I'm not at all religious)!
Posted by: williamsburgguy at November 12, 2008 12:19 PM
I'm sooooo there!
Posted by: doghouse at November 12, 2008 2:22 PM

Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.