Loan owners have come to believe they are entitled to loan modifications. They aren't, and banks don't want to change the terms of the loan, so they make the process as difficult as possible.

Irvine Home Address … 314 STREAMWOOD Irvine, CA 92620

Resale Home Price …… $232,900

Absolutely no one that knows me better

How did we stay so long together?

When everybody, everybody said we never would

Sugarland — Stuck Like Glue

Lenders and borrowers are stuck with each other. Lenders know everything about their borrowers, and most lenders believe their borrowers are capable to making their mortgage payments. Unfortunately, when they are severely underwater and paying more than a comparable rental, borrowers don't want to make their payments. A poor compromise is a loan modification. They haven't worked out very well.

Why is housing market stuck? This family offers one answer

By Bob Sullivan — June 27. 2011

CHICAGO — Ron and Cheryl Schmalz think they know one reason the U.S. housing market is stuck. They just spent more than two years and created about 50 pounds' worth of paper trying to get a $300-per-month modification to their mortgage.

Whoa! Wait a minute. What is the connection between the housing market being “stuck” and people having difficulty getting a loan modification? If everyone who wanted one were given a loan modification would the market suddenly get unstuck? Of course not. The banks are still in denial that they gave out a bunch of free money. If they have to write off the debt in loan modifications, they truly would be giving out free money. They won't do that.

Nearly every month for the past two years, the Schmalzes received a warning from their mortgage holder, JP Morgan Chase, that the bank was about to foreclose on their home and that late fees were mercilessly piling up. Nearly every two months, the couple would dutifully fax in a pile of paperwork reminding the firm that they were participating in its loan modification program and making trial payments prescribed by the bank.

“We had 17 different relationship managers,” said Ron Schmalz. “They just make you file the same papers again and again and again. And each time you get a new manager, you have to start over. The last time we thought we had a permanent modification, we got another call that said, 'Hi, I'm your new representative.' It makes you crazy.”

At some point, perhaps after the 10th different “relationship manager” doesn't it dawn on people that their lender doesn't want to give them a loan modification?

It reminds me of the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. You can enter the contest without buying their magazines, but they will resend you the paperwork with another query to buy a magazine. After about a dozen mail ins, if you still haven't bought a magazine, they will begrudgingly enter you in the sweepstakes. They make people fill out endless paperwork over and over again because they don't want to enter people into the sweepstakes who don't buy magazines.

The same is true for loan modifications. They make people fill out endless paperwork because banks don't want to give the loan modification. Why would they? Particularly if they can get borrowers to keep making partial payments, they will shine those people on as long as possible. As far as the bank is concerned, these borrowers are the living dead, so squeezing a few extra payments out of debt zombies is gravy to them.

Further, if lenders did start giving out loan modifications, everyone would want one. Who wants to pay back their full mortgage balance under onerous terms when banks are giving borrowers better deals?

There are many troubling clogs in the mortgage pipeline that are keeping the housing market stuck — lenders aren't lending; there are too many homes for sale; there's a lack of buyers because of poor employment prospects.

I have read the statement that lenders aren't lending many times. It isn't true. This is a sensationalist claim that implies lenders are capriciously hurting the economy and the housing market.

It is true that lenders are no longer giving unlimited amounts of free money to anyone with a pulse. Hopefully, we will never return to the complete lack of standards and accountability of the housing bubble. However, lenders stand ready to loan money to anyone who meets appropriate lending guidelines. There just aren't that many of those people available.

But one critical clog is the limbo faced by homeowners who can't afford their full mortgage payments any longer but who could survive if their loans were refinanced or modified. In 2009, the Obama administration launched its Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), estimating it would help keep 5 million families in their home — and keep 4 million empty houses off the market, critical to the health of the housing market.

Did anyone who wasn't engaging in wishful thinking really believe the government would be able to execute 5 million loan modifications? The announcement had all the features of symbolic politics, with perhaps the exception of the appointment of a foreclosure czar.

Also, I dislike the pandering in this article when he says the program would keep “families in their home.” It isn't their home, it never was. They borrowed a huge amount of money, often with nothing down, to occupy real estate. Underwater loan owners have the same claim to real estate a renter does: none. They have no equity. The only thing they own is their loan.

At the same time, banks committed to continuing their similar, parallel proprietary modification processes.

The Schmalzes' odyssey is a window into the challenges faced by homeowners looking for help, by government regulators trying to prop up the failing market and by banks trying to pick the right bets among mortgage holders who might be able to pay some, but not all, of their monthly payments.

The Schmalz family has a happy ending. After two years of effort, the monthly payment on their Chicago-area home was reduced from about $1,175 a month to $861. It's not a free ride: Their original $90,000 mortgage is now a $98,000 mortgage, and the couple will make up for the lowered payments with additional payments on the end of the loan.

In other words, these borrowers converted their fixed-rate mortgage to an Option ARM. Do you remember the terms on Option ARMs? Temporary payments less than the fully-amortized amount with the principal being added on to the mortgage balance, and increasing payments in the future: those terms are a proven disaster, but they make up the core of loan modifications.

Still, the break the couple got in April represents the end of a nightmare that began in September 2008, when Ron lost his job in telecommunications and the couple told the bank it needed help. It's a Red Tape wrestling match that Ron Schmalz says can break the spirit of homeowners who might otherwise be able to ride out the rough employment market.

“You keep going and you keep giving and you keep doing and you keep faxing and you keep calling to no avail. And you just feel like you're a gerbil,” said Ron. “You're sitting in a wheel going nowhere.”

That's because they are gerbils, or sheeple if you prefer. If they were trying to give lenders more money or new business, do you think the process would have been so difficult?

Right after losing his job, Ron Schmalz began working with Washington Mutual, the original mortgage holder, on the modification paperwork. By early 2009, it was clear the application was in trouble, as Chase's acquisition of Washington Mutual had thrown things into disarray. After a few rounds of resubmitting required tax forms, income statements and monthly budgets, the Schmalzes were denied.

Ron Schmalz had found a new job by then, albeit at a lower salary, and for a few months in 2009, the couple tried to keep up with their $1,100 payments. But then Cheryl lost her job, they missed a payment, and they resubmitted their application. Working with Chase's proprietary modification program, rather than the government's HAMP program, they were given a temporary modified payment around $800 per month. The couple says they dutifully made the new payments beginning in January 2010 and were told that within three months that Chase would decide whether the adjustment would be made permanent or rescinded, so either way, they could move on with their lives.

Then, 14 months passed.

What is the bank's urgency to do anything? The took a loan in default and got the people to make $800 per month payments, and they didn't have to agree to anything. The bank is going to allow that situation to go on indefinitely. They have bigger problems with other loans to deal with.

Letters saying “We are prepared to start foreclosure proceedings” arrived every month. Ironically, they all included instructions on how to enter a loan modification program.

Almost as frequently, the Schmalz family says, they were told they'd forgotten to submit a tax form or an income form, or that their file was incomplete, so no decision could be made. With nearly every conversation, there was a new “relationship manager.”

“It's about obstacles. It's about what they placed in front of us to make this modification a reality. It made things very difficult,” Ron said.

Of course they did. They don't want to make the process easy because they don't want to give out loan modifications. This isn't a story about a bad program that needs to be streamlined. The banks have no desire to streamline this process or make it any easier. They want to get whatever they can out of borrowers, and if providing a dangling carrot leads borrowers to make at least partial payments, banks will do that.

There's no way to know who's to blame for paperwork mishaps, but the Schmalzes brought quite an organized pile of documents and file folders with them to show a reporter.

“Things got so tense that we were at each other's throat, saying: 'Did you file this? Didn't you file that?' You know, sometimes blaming each other,” said Cheryl. By that point, they'd fallen behind by $10,000, and “the tune of our conversations with Chase got nasty.”

They were $10,000 behind on their mortgage payments. What did they expect, invitations to the Chase Christmas party?

In the middle of 2010, the couple turned to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan looking for help.

After a flurry of complaints dogged the various loan modification programs, Madigan's office had created a special division to deal with consumers facing the Schmalzes' plight. The agency gets about 200 calls per week to its mortgage help hotline, said Christine Nielsen, who heads the division. It brought on two full-time housing counselors to help homeowners submit loan modification requests to banks; still, she's seen the difficulty consumers have when working with banks. Despite a flurry of complaints about modification applications in late 2010, homeowners are still being left in the lurch.

Loan modifications are not an entitlement. As I noted last year, Loan Modifications Succeed by Increasing Borrower Entitlements. “If people are not forced to cut back discretionary spending before they obtain a government bailout, taxpayers are subsidizing their discretionary spending. The standards of what constitutes discretionary spending from essential spending depends greatly on the the spender's sense of entitlement.”

How many of the people calling the hotline looking for the loan modification they deserved were unwilling to cut back on their lifestyle extravagances? Remember Calculated Risk's post HAMP applicants tanned and juiced?

“Consumers are still having a fair amount of difficulty getting answers from banks about their loan modification applications,” she said. She said the Schmalz case was typical of the problems consumers are encountering, but some are much worse. One recent applicant was turned down for a modification by another bank (not Chase) because of a difference of $20 per month, she said.

Banks have to draw a line somewhere, and no matter where that line is drawn, someone will just miss it.

Chase wouldn't discuss the specifics of the Schmalz case, other than to say the firm provided the family with a “special forbearance” in 2010 and a modification in 2011.

“In general, we need complete and current information from a customer to make a modification decision,” a Chase spokesman said.

Timely processing of modification applications is essential to the housing market recovery, said Madigan.

Why? Loan modifications are not essential to a housing market recovery, so timeliness is certainly not necessary. The timely processing of foreclosures is essential to the housing market recovery, but nobody wants to deal with that reality.

“Our nation continues to be in the grips of a home foreclosure crisis of unprecedented proportions. Meaningful loan modifications — ones that truly reduce a homeowner's payments to affordable levels — can save homes, yet people often face serious obstacles attempting to navigate the loan modification process on their own,” Madigan said. “Resources provided by my office and other HUD-certified housing counselors can help people received a modification by ensuring banks comply with federal modification guidelines.”

Reducing payments to affordable levels after the fact does not save homes. By converting these loans to Option ARMs, they merely delay the inevitable foreclosure. These homes should never have been imperiled in the first place through foolish lending. Making sure lending does not get stupid again is the only thing that can save homes and sustain ownership.

As the modification process drags out over months, or even years, it's easy to understand the problem facing both banks and consumers. Generally, banks are working off an affordability formula based on income. Financial circumstances change; applicants can and do lose or recover income after they submit an application, which requires a recalculation. That explains part of the delay faced by the Schmalz family.

In the real world when someone gets laid off or can no longer afford their house — they have to sell it and move. Now, once you have obtained a certain level of housing entitlement, apparently you get to keep it forever even if you can't afford it any more.

Here's my new retirement plan. In my late 50s, I will borrow the maximum I can at the peak of my salary. Then a couple of years later, I will retire and demand a loan modification based on my social security income. Since I am entitled to a loan modification, they should reduce my payments to what I can now afford. That way I get to keep a McMansion on a retiree's income.

Excessive delays, however, lead inevitably to such changes. A family that applies for help because of a loss of income will be working immediately to replace that income. That places them squarely in a catch-22 — success finding a job could lead to failure in a loan modification application or, more specifically, in the conversion of a temporary to a permanent modification.

Duh! If someone finds a better paying job, they no longer need the loan modification, do they?

The delays leave the family in a perpetual state of uncertainty, with a pile of threatening bank letters rising. It also leaves the housing market in uncertainty — no one knows how many trial modifications will ultimately be rejected, with the likely outcome that the owners will lose their home and the house will be thrust onto the already-saturated housing market.

I'll give you a hint. Over time, they all will fail. Even in the early stages, the failure rate is 75%. Why would that number improve?

The most recent data on the administration's HAMP modifications show that only about one-third of 2 million modifications have been made permanent. Millions of other homeowners are engaged in proprietary bank modifications.

Even as the bills and foreclosure notices piled up last year, Nielsen's office told the Schmalzes to keep making their trial modification payment in order to demonstrate their ability to satisfy the lowered obligation. Finally, in April, the Schmalzes got the good news they'd been dreaming about.

“Essentially, we got a refinance,” Ron Schmalz said. “But they could have done this at Day 1 for us. We're not upset with the result; we're happy with it. We're just upset with the process. We just don't understand why it took this long.”

That's the question nearly every observer of the housing market is asking about a potential recovery.

Yes, the lender could have given these borrowers and the millions of others loan modifications on day 1, but that would cost them billions more than they are already losing. Once the word gets out that loan modifications are easy to get, everyone will want one. Foreclosure Is a Superior Form of Principal Reduction.

MetLife eats a reverse mortgage

As you may recall, I really don't like reverse mortgages. MetLife recently began pushing reverse mortgages as Wells Fargo and B of A exited the industry.

“They must know something that I don’t know,” said David Lykken, president of Mortgage Banking Solutions, an Austin, Texas-based consulting firm. “They’re too smart to be heading into an area that’s disastrous.”

A lender that is too smart to make a bad loan? LOL!

I don't know what MetLife is up to, but the reverse mortgage industry is theirs for the taking. Based on loans like the big loser they made on this property, they can have it.

Today's featured property was purchased for $125,000 on 8/24/1990. There is a $112,921 first mortgage recorded in 1999, but no other refinance or HELOC activity. In other words, this was a responsible borrower.

Then on 1/28/2010, MetLife gave her a $367,500 reverse mortgage. Apparently, she took the money and ran.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 03/03/2011

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 11/30/2010

Document Type: Notice of Default

MetLife bought the property for $184,759. Perhaps that is all they gave her of the $367,500 they approved her for. Either way, this doesn't look like the kind of business a “too smart” lender would want to engage in.

Irvine House Address … 314 STREAMWOOD Irvine, CA 92620

Resale House Price …… $232,900

House Purchase Price … $125,000

House Purchase Date …. 8/24/1990

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $93,926

Percent Change ………. 75.1%

Annual Appreciation … 3.0%

Cost of House Ownership

————————————————-

$232,900 ………. Asking Price

$8,152 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.49% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$224,748 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$48,747 ………. Income Requirement

$1,137 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$202 ………. Property Tax (@1.04%)

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$49 ………. Homeowners Insurance (@ 0.25%)

$258 ………. Private Mortgage Insurance

$242 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$1,888 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$104 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$296 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment (Amortization)

$14 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$49 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$1,550 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$2,329 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$2,329 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$2,247 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$8,152 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$15,057 ………. Total Cash Costs

$23,700 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$38,757 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 314 STREAMWOOD Irvine, CA 92620

——————————————————————————

Beds: 2

Baths: 1

Sq. Ft.: 889

$262/SF

Property Type: Residential, Condominium

Style: One Level, Traditional

View: Ocean

Year Built: 1977

Community: Northwood

County: Orange

MLS#: S664087

Source: SoCalMLS

Status: Active

——————————————————————————

Welcome to the wonderful Springs area in Irvine. This lovely lower level condo features 2 beds and 1 bath, kitchen with dining area and open livingroom. Super clean and ready to move in. A must see!!!

BTW, rumor has it that OCAr is meeting today to discuss a settlement offer. I will update everyone soon.

The GSEs are picking up the pace of liquidations by offering incentives and lowering prices. The banking cartel who is still withholding inventory will be left with devalued REO.

Irvine Home Address … 30 SPARROWHAWK Irvine, CA 92604

Resale Home Price …… $361,900

Just take me as I am,

or have nothing at all.

Mary J. Blige — Take Me As I Am

Last September I noted the GSEs were expediting their foreclosures and REO sales and this behavior was going to threaten the banking cartel. The GSEs are still at it, and they are undercutting bank REO pricing to sell their inventory. Take the property as is, or take nothing at all.

Foreclosures for sale, all homes sold as is

By Kenneth R. Harney, Friday, June 24, 8:21 AM

From what I have observed pulling comps on closed sales, the GSEs are making deep-discount giveaways. Anyone looking to be an owner-occupant on a lower cost property should look at the GSE portfolio. These must-sell properties are the best deals in the market today. And given the huge shadow inventory the GSEs have not begun to process, the deals will only get better.

Federal shadow housing inventory is getting bigger

Posted by Tracy Alloway on Jun 21 12:20.

A housing milestone, of sorts.

Federally-backed loans already make up a majority of the mortgages classified as ‘seriously delinquent’ in the US financial system. In other words, there are more soured loans held or backed by the US’s giant GSEs — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — plus the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), than those held by banks and in private-label securitisations.

But when it comes to Real Estate Owned (REO) property, some reckon the federal share of so-called shadow housing inventory (foreclosed properties) looks set to surpass the private sector’s too.

Here’s Goldman Sachs, including economists Alec Phillips and Jan Hatzius:

The federal share of REO property is also rising. For 1Q, RealtyTrac estimates that total REO property held by lenders totaled 872,000. Of this, we know from monthly or quarterly financial statements that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA hold roughly 300,000 of these properties on their books, and that this inventory has been rising by more than total REO inventories over the last year. Over the next few quarters, the federally backed entities are likely to see their inventories of REO property become a larger share of the total. The chart below shows the accumulation of REO property by the GSEs and FHA, which was on a trend to overtake private sector activity until it declined in 4Q, most likely due to legal irregularities in foreclosure processing (the chart relies on filings from the federal entities and assuming that the difference between this number and total REO filings reported by RealtyTrac are related to private label securities or bank portfolios).

Now, Goldman reckons the government could use its newly-acquired shadow inventory in a couple ways — one of which, notably, is to help prop up house prices by not doing anything with it, really.

So far, the GSEs are not withholding inventory from the market. If prices continue to crater, they may change their minds, but for now, REO is being cleared out as fast as it comes in.

Here’s Goldman again:

As the GSEs and FHA begin to take on a larger and larger share of seriously delinquent loans and, ultimately, foreclosed properties, how policymakers approach the operations of these entities could become an important factor for home prices, since these entities could in theory be used to hold supply off of the market in an effort to support prices. As shown in the chart below, distressed property sales appear to be weighing on home prices, with solid gains over the last couple of months in the CoreLogic HPI that excludes distressed sales, compared with weakness in the index that includes them.

However, the federally backed entities have not shown much sign of trying to hold properties back from the market. The FHA may be particularly constrained by costs, since it has been trying to raise its capital level after concerns last year that it would fall below required minimums. But the Treasury is providing temporarily open-ended financial support to the GSEs, so they do not have the same constraint. (though the administration would probably prefer to avoid further losses at the GSEs if possible). Despite federal support, the GSEs have not made any significant new attempts to hold supply off the market.

Indeed, Goldman says the first quarter of this year was the first since 2009 that the GSEs and FHA acted as a combined net supplier of foreclosed properties to the market. They expect the agencies to assume ownership of as many as 180,000 properties per quarter, or 700,000 over the next year.

Which would mean — if the federal entities decide to keep selling as they’ve been doing so far — there would be a whopping 30 per cent increase in the number of properties feeding into the market.

We’ll say it again – the supply! The supply!

Here comes the REO

Ever since the housing bust became headline news, housing bears have been predicting a flood of inventory that would push prices lower. Lenders successfully withheld product from many markets, and the GSEs were not foreclosing in earnest for several years as they attempted various loan modification programs. With the complete and utter failure of all loan modification programs, the GSEs are now shifting toward foreclosure processing. The lenders who are attempting to withhold product are going to sit and watch as the GSEs devalue the holdings of lenders and make them wish they hadn't waited.

Irvine is an unusual market. Relatively little of our inventory was financed by the GSEs because our price points were generally above the conforming limit during the bubble. Some will take that to mean that Irvine will escape the problems of GSE liquidation. Not true. As the GSEs liquidate their properties in nearby communities and lower prices there, the substitution effect will steal buyers away from Irvine. That will lower sales rates even more, and the few must-sell properties that come to market will push prices lower. In other words, the GSEs will cut the Irvine market down at the knees. The price correction will take longer, but it will still occur, just as we are seeing now.

Conservative revisionist history

One of the more annoying lies to come from the housing bubble is the revisionist history the conservatives in the Republican party have been peddling concerning the role of the GSEs. The GSEs did not inflate the housing bubble:

The worst junk mortgages that inflated the housing bubble to extraordinary levels were not bought and securitized by Fannie and Freddie, they were securitized by Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Lehman and the other private investment banks. These investment banks gobbled up the worst subprime and Alt-A garbage that sleaze operations like Ameriquest and Countrywide pushed on homebuyers.

The trillions of dollars that the geniuses at the private investment banks funneled into the housing market were the force that inflated the bubble to its 2006 peaks. Fannie and Freddie were followers in this story, jumping into the subprime and Alt-A market in 2005 to try to maintain market share. They were not the leaders.

Conservatives are peddling the lie about the GSEs because they want to see them dismantled. I agree with their policy ideas. The GSEs should be dismantled, but not because they inflated the housing bubble. The GSEs are no longer necessary. We have a robust secondary market for securitized loans without the GSEs. At this point, the GSEs are being used to keep mortgage interest rates low through their explicit government guarantee. The government has no place assuming the risk of private enterprise — and pay the billions in losses — and for that reason, the GSEs should be eliminated.

The folly of the GSEs is apparent in properties like today's featured property. The GSEs came in at the end of a long series of Ponzi borrowing and bought an Option ARM the former owners took out. As Dean Baker noted in the quote above, they were followers in the story, and they bought loans like this one in 2005 to maintain market share. In other words, they gambled with money they didn't have and now you and I are paying for it.

Regular housing ATM users (HELOC addicts)

• The owner of today's featured property paid $171,500 on 2/4/2000. They used a $162,925 first mortgage and a $8,575 down payment.
• On 12/5/2000, less than a year after buying the property, they pulled out their first $35,000+ in mortgage equity withdrawal with a new $199,138 first mortgage. They went Ponzi.
• On 10/15/2001, less than a year after their first big payday, they pulled out another $15,000+ with a $215,847 first mortgage.
• On 6/7/2002, less than 9 months later, they refinanced with a $209,600 first mortgage and a $52,400 second mortgage which gave them another $35,000+ cash infusion.
• On 7/10/2003 they were back for $25,000+ more obtaining a $275,500 first mortgage.
• On 6/18/20004 they refinanced with a $290,500 first mortgage. They only got $15,000+ on that year's trip to the housing ATM. I imagine they were disappointed.
• On 7/27/2005 they obtained an Option ARM with a 1.37% teaser rate for $337,500. The $45,000+ they got in 2005 must have made them feel better after the poor take from 2004. This was the loan Fannie Mae bought.
• On 12/6/2007 they went back for one final trip to the ATM and obtained a $37,187 HELOC.
• Total property debt was $374,687 plus negative amortization.
• Total mortgage equity withdrawal was $211,762.

We joke about the housing ATM, but it was very real for loan owners during the housing bubble. These people went back for income supplementation every year. They would still be doing it today if it weren't for the collapse of the housing bubble.

How many people in California want to buy a house because they think they will be able to do what these people did? With the government now insuring nearly the entire housing market, if we allow this behavior to resurface, all taxpayers will be subsidizing this theft.

Irvine House Address … 30 SPARROWHAWK Irvine, CA 92604

Resale House Price …… $361,900

House Purchase Price … $171,500

House Purchase Date …. 2/4/2000

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $168,686

Percent Change ………. 98.4%

Annual Appreciation … 6.5%

Cost of House Ownership

————————————————-

$361,900 ………. Asking Price

$12,667 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.49% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$349,234 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$75,747 ………. Income Requirement

$1,767 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$314 ………. Property Tax (@1.04%)

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$75 ………. Homeowners Insurance (@ 0.25%)

$402 ………. Private Mortgage Insurance

$310 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$2,868 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$284 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$461 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment (Amortization)

$21 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$65 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$2,210 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$3,619 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$3,619 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$3,492 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$12,667 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$23,397 ………. Total Cash Costs

$33,800 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$57,197 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 30 SPARROWHAWK Irvine, CA 92604

——————————————————————————

Beds: 3

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1240

$292/SF

Property Type: Residential, Condominium

Style: Two Level

Year Built: 1900

Community: 0

County: Orange

MLS#: F11061161

Source: CRISNet

Status: Active

——————————————————————————

End unit condo in excellent community. This 3 bedroom + 1.5 bathroom home occupies approx. 1220 sq. ft. and includes kitchen with appliances. Outside brick patio with cover. Tile downstairs with carpet upstairs. Upstairs bedrooms include mirrored closets. Community includes tennis court, green belts with pool/spa and playground for kids.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The California Association of realtors acknowledges that a lower conforming loan limit will further damage our already weakened housing market.

Irvine Home Address … 51 CEDARLAKE #84 Irvine, CA 92614

Resale Home Price …… $695,000

We're not scared to lose it all

Security throw through the wall

Future dreams we have to realize

A thousand sceptic hands

Won't keep us from the things we plan

Unless we're clinging to the things we prize

Howard Jones — Things Can Only Get Better

Are falling house prices good or bad? I suppose it depends on who you ask. According to homeowners and realtors, falling house prices are the end of the world (see below). For those who want to buy a house, falling house prices means things can only get better.

House prices are currently falling, and they are expected to do so for the foreseeable future. Despite the whining by realtors that lending standards are too tight, these standards will continue to tighten as the market is weaned off government supports.

In 2008, the conforming limit was raised from $417,000 to $729,750 in high priced markets like Irvine. Apparently, bureaucrats felt high wage earners needed government subsidies to afford the ridiculously priced housing in places like Irvine. The real motivation was to prop up prices and shift the losses from private lenders to the government-backed GSEs. To some degree, they were successful.

I have made the case on two separate occasions that lowering the conforming limit will lower house prices in Irvine, particularly on those properties that required conforming loans in the $625,000 to $729,750 range. This argument has been dismissed by some in the astute observations.

In February, I reported that Lowering GSE and FHA loan limits will lower house prices.

However, if they do lower the jumbo conforming limit from $729,750 to $417,000 or below, the meat of the Irvine market would suddenly have to pay jumbo rates. We would be among the first markets in the country to experience the transition from public to private financing. Jumbo rates are somewhere between half-a-point and one point higher than conforming rates. If future buyers are facing higher interest rates, their hopefully higher incomes will not be leveraged as much, and the loan balance will not be larger.

Markets where jumbo conforming loans ($417,000 to $729,750) are prevalent, the market impact will be the most noticeable. If you combine that with the possibility that loans that large will no longer be tax deductible, and borrowing huge sums to take a position in real estate doesn't seem quite so appealing. Future take-out buyers will not be so leveraged.

I followed up with the post Conforming mortgage limit falls to $625,500 October 1, prices to follow.

This change strikes at the heart of the Irvine single-family detached market. Many Irvine properties have loans between $729,750 and $625,500. Every buyer contemplating a loan in that range will face an interest rate half a percent higher. As a result, buyers will either need to come up with 10% more income to afford the same mortgage, or the loan they will qualify for will be 10% smaller. Since most Irvine borrowers are maxed out, loan balances in this price range will likely decline by 10%, and the houses they were intended to finance will similarly drop in price.

Market prices are set on the margins, and if the current balance of supply and demand is not sustaining prices, what happens when demand is curtailed even a little bit? Obviously, the market will find a new equilibrium, most likely at a lower price.

For those that dismiss this upcoming drop in the conforming limit as meaningless, why has the California Association of realtors raised the alarms and come out opposing this change? i think we all know the answer to that one.

Pending conforming loan limit decrease puts California on edge

With the conforming loan limits expected to drop in October, the California Association of Realtors warned of the impending harm to homeowners, while the only private-label securitizer left notified investors of more opportunities.

Have you ever noticed that realtors only defend the interests of homeowners? Aren't buyers half of their income and market? Why do realtors consistently want to screw buyers in favor of sellers?

The conforming loan limit determines the maximum mortgage amount the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy or guarantee. Without congressional action, the limit will drop to $625,500 from $729,950 for the majority of counties nationwide on Oct. 1.

These three agencies currently fund 95% of the mortgage market, and housing finance reformers point to lowering this limit as a first step to usher in private capital.

The lowering of the conforming limit back to $417,000 is the first step toward returning to a private market. Private loans without government backing will have risk, and providers of the capital for these loans will want to be compensated appropriately for the risk they are taking on. This will increase borrowing costs and thereby reduce loan balances which will in turn lower prices.

However, according to CAR, more than 30,000 Californian homeowners will face higher down payments, higher mortgage rates and stricter loan qualification requirements when the limits drop.

Notice the choice of words above. It isn't California homeowners who will face those problems, it is California home buyers. This will hurt current homeowners trying to get their inflated prices, so CAr has conflated homebuyers with homeowners and chosen sides to favor owners over buyers.

Further, CAr is acknowledging that the new lower conforming limit will dampen demand. Of course, they portray that as a bad thing because it doesn't benefit homeowners. However, it's great for homebuyers, and I think it's fantastic.

The $104,450 decrease in most counties will not be felt in some California counties. In fact, it will be steeper.

CAR analyzed the effect of dropping the limit across several specific counties in California. In Monterey County, for instance, the government-sponsored enterprise limit will drop a total of $246,750, followed by a $151,250 drop in San Diego, and $141,550 in Sonoma County.

The FHA conforming loan limit will fall $201,450 in Merced County and $164,650 in Riverside.

“By reducing the conforming loan limit, thousands of California homebuyers will be shut out of homeownership,” CAR President Beth Peerce said.

Bullshit. It really annoys me when I read that nonsense. Nobody will be shut out of ownership. Sellers will have to lower their prices in order to sell. Period. If sellers chose not to lower prices, they won't sell. Since so much of the market is must-sell distressed inventory, sellers will lower their prices, and properties will become more affordable.

“The higher mortgage loan limits are critical to providing liquidity in today’s housing market and are essential to our housing recovery.

More bullshit. A higher conforming limit is essential for prices to stabilize at higher levels, but no government guarantees are required to stabilize pricing or for housing to recover.

We urge Congress to maintain the current limits and make them permanent to provide homeowners and homebuyers with affordable financing and help stabilize local housing markets.”

She forgot to add the words “at inflated price levels” to the end of her statement.

Redwood Trust, a real estate investment trust based in California and the only firm to issue a residential mortgage-backed security since the financial collapse in 2008, said the conforming loan limit decrease could drop more loans into its grasp. Redwood already plans to issue two more RMBS by the end of the year.

If risk is properly priced, and if the buyer pool meets the qualification standards, the private market will pick up the slack. It will just do it at a lower price point. The return of the private market is what we want.

If annual residential mortgage originations return to $1.5 trillion and jumbo loans — which served as the collateral in its RMBS deals — account for 20% of that, originations of jumbo loans could reach $300 billion, Redwood said in its first quarter report to investors.

“With GSE reform, the portion of the mortgage market that could potentially be available to Redwood could be substantially larger if the conforming loan limits are reduced (as the Obama administration has indicated it intended to do) during the reform transition period, and perhaps still larger if, as part of GSE reform, the concept of conforming limits is eliminated,” Redwood said.

Write to Jon Prior.

Follow him on Twitter @JonAPrior.

There is no question in my mind that a lower conforming limit will lower prices on desirable single-family detached homes in Irvine. It's only a matter of how much and how soon the impact is felt. With the other market headwinds, during the fourth quarter of 2011 when the new standards will be in effect could be pretty ugly.

Did the former owners buy this at auction as a flip?

This property was emailed to me by a reader who thought the transaction appeared a bit fishy. The property was originally purchased by a realtor and another party on 4/27/2004 for $715,000. They used a $515,000 first mortgage and a $200,000 down payment. They refinanced up to a $600,000 mortgage, but that still left $115,000 of their own money in the property, which they lost.

Perhaps with the lowered income everyone in real estate has been dealing with, the payments became burdensome. The property was allowed to go into foreclosure.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 02/02/2011

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 11/01/2010

Document Type: Notice of Default

The property was purchased at auction for $570,000 by SD Growth Fund LLC. In a strange coincidence, the initials of the last names of the former owners are S and D. Another reader (an attorney) looked into this coincidence, and there is no connection to the former owners.

The SD Growth Fund LLC is expecting a healthy profit from this property. With 20% down, the mortgage wouldn't be in the new jumbo range, but if it doesn't sell by October 1 when the new lower limits kick in, I suspect they will face some competition from nicer properties looking for those few buyers that remain.

Irvine House Address … 51 CEDARLAKE #84 Irvine, CA 92614

Resale House Price …… $695,000

House Purchase Price … $570,000

House Purchase Date …. 4/25/2011

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $83,300

Percent Change ………. 14.6%

Annual Appreciation … 125.1%

Cost of House Ownership

————————————————-

$695,000 ………. Asking Price

$139,000 ………. 20% Down Conventional

4.49% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$556,000 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$120,594 ………. Income Requirement

$2,814 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$602 ………. Property Tax (@1.04%)

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$145 ………. Homeowners Insurance (@ 0.25%)

$0 ………. Private Mortgage Insurance

$280 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$3,841 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$469 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$734 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment (Amortization)

$231 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$107 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$2,976 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$6,950 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$6,950 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$5,560 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$139,000 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$158,460 ………. Total Cash Costs

$45,600 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$204,060 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 51 CEDARLAKE #84 Irvine, CA 92614

——————————————————————————

Beds: 3

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 2200

$316/SF

Property Type: Residential, Condominium

Style: Two Level, Other

Year Built: 1984

Community: 0

County: Orange

MLS#: S659826

Source: SoCalMLS

Status: Pending

——————————————————————————

Fantastic! The best ways to describe this wonderfully refreshed lake community home. With this ideal location you receive the best of all worlds. Quiet, tranquil neighborhood, tennis courts, pools, lake amenities, shopping, walking trails, and amazing schools makes it a joy to come home everyday. The home itself has a floor plan that not only speaks but yells out functionality, and elegance. Formal dining area, large vaulted living room cascading with natural light and cozy gas fireplace, functional kitchen and eating nook, and generous sized family room give the nuts and bolts to this interiors main floor that provide the perfect setting for all occasions. From day to day living, cozy family movie night, intimate dining and large family and friend gatherings you will not be disappointed. Three bedrooms upstairs give plenty of room for everyone to have their own space, including the master bedroom that boasts it's own reading enclave, gigantic walk-in closet, and spa like bath.

a floor plan that not only speaks but yells out functionality? Give me a break.

Have a great weekend,

Irvine Renter

From loan owners caught up in the frenzy to renters being forced to wait for lower prices, the housing bubble and crash has caused everyone psychological harm in one form or another.

Irvine Home Address … 3131 MICHELSON Dr #304 Irvine, CA 92612

Resale Home Price …… $380,000

There's no way we can sell our house now

so we'll just have to stay.

Suppose we found a buyer

so we could go our separate ways.

Loudon Wainwright III – House

When house prices were going up, real estate was very liquid, and everyone who played the game was making lots of money. realtors, mortgage brokers, homebuilders and ordinary homeowners all enjoyed the false prosperity of a debt-driven boom. Even those who did not sell their properties for a profit were given the ability to extract their equity and spend as they pleased. It was the best of all possible worlds.

Then the crash came.

Everyone who prospered as prices went up began to suffer as prices went down. Transaction volumes were the first to plummet, so everyone who made a living off real estate transactions began to suffer. They are still struggling today. As loan owners saw the housing ATM shut off, their entitled lives began to fall apart, and the crushing weight of their bubble debts started to take a toll.

There were a few responsible renters who foresaw the crash, and many more who decided to wait for prices to bottom once the downtrend became apparent. These wouldbe homeowners were forced to wait, and when the government and lenders conspired to keep prices artificially high, these people were forced to wait even longer. And in areas like ours, we are still waiting.

IrvineRenter says renting sucks

I have enjoyed the financial freedom and lower cost of housing renting has afforded me over the last decade, but I used to be a home owner, and I would like to own again someday. Renting lacks an emotional quality of belonging that is difficult to replicate. Intellectually, I tell myself it shouldn't be that way, but emotionally, I know it to be true.

Back when I owned my own house, I maintained many house plants, and I always enjoyed keeping up with the landscaping. Having grown up in a rural area surrounded by nature, I liked the spiritual connection to the earth and life that maintaining plants can bring. For the first four or five years of renting, I killed a dozen or more plants. It didn't dawn on me why this kept happening. I thought it was because my transitory living kept me too busy. The reality was, I didn't feel connected. My spirit was withering, and my house plants were the outward sign of my distress.

I gave up on growing house plants, but my longing for connection remains. I find other outlets, and my connection to Irvine comes through this daily writing, but on a deeper emotional level, I am still a detached observer who's just passing through. It's difficult to feel rooted when you know you aren't. There is an emotional quality of ownership you just can't replicate in a rental.

Ownership in a declining market sucks too

Perhaps it goes without saying, but owning property that is declining in value sucks too. Overpaying for property so the cost of ownership exceeds a rental can only be compensated for by increasing values. When the cost of ownership is too high and the value of the house is declining, it is the worst of both worlds.

Few who strategically default make that decision lightly, and few who go through short sale or foreclosure want that outcome. Leaving a family home and losing money is a double whammy. For as much as I find renting emotionally unsatisfying, owning an overpriced and declining asset is far more emotionally damaging. I don't regret my decision to rent, and I suspect many who are facing the perils of ownership in today's declining market wish they could trade their problems for mine.

Denial is dead

The double dip in home prices has forced loan owners to give up their denial and accept their fate. Every foolish belief that prompted buying during the bubble has been thoroughly discredited. Real estate does not always go up. Financing will not always be made available. Everyone does not want to live here. We are not running out of land. Home equity is not free money. Appreciation is not income. Credit is not savings. And debt is not wealth.

With the death of denial comes a new era. Market participants are fearful, and many have capitulated and either sold or walked away. Over the next couple of years, the pain of the market declines will lead to widespread despair. When kool aid is really dead, the market will bottom, and the cycle will start all over again.

Does gathering gloom raise risk of double dip?

With recovery limping along, pessimism could begin weighing on growth

John W. Schoen Senior producer

msnbc.com

updated 6/17/2011

This month marks the second anniversary of an economic expansion that began at the end of what is now being called the Great Recession. But for millions of small businesses and households, the economic recovery has yet to arrive.

Frank Goodnight, owner of Diversified Graphics, a Salisbury, N.C., printing company with 12 employees, is among them. In 37 years, he has survived some tough economic times. But never like this.

“This recession is equal to the other four doubled,” he said. “Business has just been so bad for so long that right now we’re just hunkered down trying to survive.”

Everyone I know in the homebuilding industry — what's left of it — is hunkered down trying to survive. Over half the industry is unemployed, and many with jobs are underemployed making a fraction of what they were five years ago.

Consumer sentiment worsened more than expected in June on renewed concerns about the outlook for the economy, a survey released Friday showed . It was just the latest in a series of surveys that have pointed to a marked downward shift in the outlook for jobs, housing and the stock market. …

“If you think things are going to get bad and you stop buying, things will get bad,” said Goodnight, the printing company owner. “And that’s where we are right now. Everyone is afraid of the deficits. They’re afraid of the new regulations that are coming down fairly soon. They’re afraid about health care. And no one’s going to make a major investment when there’s this much uncertainty in the air.”

You don’t have to look far to find the source of all this gloom. A solid economic expansion slowed to a sluggish 1.8 percent annual growth rate in the first quarter. After posting healthy gains for most of this year, the job market stalled badly in May. The rising cost of gasoline has taken a big bite out of household budgets, though pump prices have recently begun to back down from a peak of nearly $4 a gallon. After stabilizing last year, home prices have begun falling again.

Since the housing bubble burst in 2006, about $10 trillion in household wealth has been wiped out. Some 12 million homeowners with mortgages — roughly one in four — owe more than their home is worth. That means they’ll be cutting into future savings to pay off a debt that will leave them with little to show for it once they’re done. …

The pain is very real. Unfortunately for the herd, the more people who need a market to move in a certain direction, the less likely the market is to comply. If everyone is bullish, they have likely already purchased. With no buyers, prices are certain to go down. We see that in the housing market right now as the tax credit pulled forward what little demand their was, and the buyer pool is seriously depleted. Everyone is on the wrong side of the trade, so prices are likely to fall further.

“We are forecasting that real household net worth should take a major hit in the second quarter of this year because the stock market is not doing well and there’s going to be no relief from housing,” said Chris Christopher, an economist at IHS Global Insight. “When people take a loss on their financial assets they’re going to step back on their spending.“

The recovery has also been weakened by sluggish wage gains and fears that future paychecks aren’t going to grow.

“There’s not really much impetus for spending other than wages,” said Franco. “And what we’re seeing is that a lot of the profits that companies have made over the last several quarters have not filtered down to the consumer’s bottom line.”

In a healthy economy, there shouldn't be much impetus for spending other than wages. Money isn't free. As the debt addicted abandon their entitlements and adjust to living within their means, the economy will slowly improve and be put back on stable footing.

U.S. Housing Crisis Taking Strong Psychological Toll on Many Families

Alex Finkelstein — 06/06/11

The value of single-family homes in the U.S. has been dropping like a stone in the last four years of the Great Recession. And it hasn't hit bottom yet.

The continuing decline in housing values is changing the lives of numerous Americans for ever, The Wall Street Journal finds in a recent informal survey with various sources.

The most frightening aspect of the falling-prices phenomenon the WSJ finds is that prices now stand at 2002 levels. That means, the WSJ reports, “Nearly a decade's worth of appreciation has been wiped out.

“If you bought anytime in the last 10 years, chances are your house is worth less than you paid. You're trapped in a loss.“

That has to be disheartening. It's worse in Las Vegas. If you bought any time in the last 16 years, your house is worth less than you paid. There is little joy in that reality.

The WSJ states “the housing funk is even seeping into popular culture. In his new album, called “10 Songs For the New Depression,” Loudon Wainwright sings to a wife seeking divorce in the tune “House:” “There's no way we can sell our house now so we'll just have to stay.”

He also ponders: “Suppose we found a buyer so we could go our separate ways.”

How would you like to be in that situation? Trapped in a marriage you can't escape because you can't sell your house. Yikes!

The WSJ states Wainwright has captured the moment. The economy has wreaked havoc on personal lives, transforming decision-making in the household.”

Psychologists say the phenomenon is more than just a musical expression of home-sweet-home.

“More and more divorced couples are forced to remain in their homes while their houses are for sale, which creates extreme stress on the couple and their children,” Margo Meeker, a clinical psychologist, tells the WSJ.

“Having to live under one roof post-divorce and then having to stage and show the house while the family is going through such a major transition and loss creates even more anguish in an already stressful situation.”

People get divorced because they often can't stand one another. Imagine being forced to live with someone you may have grown to hate. The distress of losing large amounts money is bad enough without adding more anguish to the situation.

The WSJ reports a recent survey by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling concluded that “financial distress was having an impact on our marriages, our roles as parents, our jobs, health and even sleeping patterns.”

Just 6% of respondents said financial distress wasn't a factor in their daily lives.

Contrast that with the carefree feelings people had in 2006 when house prices were going up, everyone had nearly unlimited spending money, and projections were for them to be able to live that lifestyle forever.

The ripple effect has become larger partly because so many Americans have tied up their wealth in housing, the WSJ reports. In 1985, 12% of personal disposable income came from savings, while just 1% came from home-equity lines, according to the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office.

“By 2007, 10% of personal disposable income came from housing credit: second mortgages, home-equity lines and so on,” notes the WSJ. Less than 1% came from savings.

Wow! I find that statistic truly remarkable. People really did believe credit was savings and home equity was a personal piggy bank.

“Today, Americans are saving more and spending less”, the WSJ states. “Their homes are no longer piggybanks or sources of free money. That's a good thing, but we spend less when we're saving. Falling home prices have failed to translate into demand. People who want to buy homes still can't afford them.”

In another National Foundation for Credit Counseling survey, the WSJ found nearly half of respondents said they could never come up with a down payment for a new home. Another 17% said they would have to borrow from family or friends. And 21% said they would need to get a low down payment if they used their own funds.

“The confluence of sellers unable to sell and buyers unable to buy has created what Meeker calls a “housing trap.”

If sellers can't sell and buyers can't buy, it isn't a housing trap; it's a recipe for continued low sales volumes and a major decline in prices.

“People who anticipated home prices rising-or at least staying level-can't afford the economic hit even if they choose to move to a place that is less expensive.”

People anticipating higher home prices was the root cause of the foolish buyer behavior that inflated the bubble. Lenders provided the air in the form of stupid loans, but buyers had to borrow that money, buy houses and drive up prices. Many knew they couldn't afford the house without mortgage equity withdrawal, yet they went through with the purchase anyway. Those foolish buyers are suffering right now. The sad truth is, they deserve it.

How to lose $75,000+ per year for 5 consecutive years.

Some people who bought at the peak are suffering worse than others. The owner of today's featured property bought in the North Korea towers (Marquee at Park Place) in 2006. The description claims the property is not a short sale, so the buyer is losing well over $400,000 of their own money (purchase price plus upgrades).

This one has to hurt.

Irvine House Address … 3131 MICHELSON Dr #304 Irvine, CA 92612

Resale House Price …… $380,000

House Purchase Price … $778,000

House Purchase Date …. 3/31/2006

Net Gain (Loss) ………. ($420,800)

Percent Change ………. -54.1%

Annual Appreciation … -13.4%

Cost of House Ownership

————————————————-

$380,000 ………. Asking Price

$13,300 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.49% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$366,700 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$79,536 ………. Income Requirement

$1,856 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$329 ………. Property Tax (@1.04%)

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$79 ………. Homeowners Insurance (@ 0.25%)

$422 ………. Private Mortgage Insurance

$840 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$3,526 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$298 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$484 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment (Amortization)

$22 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$68 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$2,834 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$3,800 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$3,800 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$3,667 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$13,300 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$24,567 ………. Total Cash Costs

$43,400 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$67,967 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 3131 MICHELSON Dr #304 Irvine, CA 92612

——————————————————————————

Beds: 2

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1369

$278/SF

Property Type: Residential, Condominium

Style: One Level, Contemporary

View: Park/Green Belt

Year Built: 2006

Community: Airport Area

County: Orange

MLS#: S653854

Source: SoCalMLS

Status: Active

——————————————————————————

This is NOT a short sale! Beautiful condo in Irvine's finest highrise at the Marquee in Park Place. Resort style living! Located on the 1st residential level in the West tower, with garden view, facing away from the freeway. Original owner with totally custom re-modeling with Black granites thru-out, black carpet, black sink, Jacuzzi tub, custom black drapery. .. etc. If you love black, you will fall in love with this place! Enjoy the amenities: pool, spa, fitness center, BBQ area, billard room, and conference rooms. State-of-the-art security including 24/7 concierge service, guard-gated access, keyed elevator access, and security cameras. Conveniently located, close to John Wayne Airport, renowned restaurants, beaches, shopping and tollroad/freeways. Unbelievably priced for quick escrow! A must see!

totally custom re-modeling

This interior might appeal to someone, but I suspect it is a turn off to most.

Do you think this owner cooks much with those paintings on the stove?

Is that a statue of the Borg? Is that fine art included in the purchase price?