Luis and Melissa just closed on the purchase of their new home, listen to what they have to say about their experience with Cornerstone Mortgage.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Ann Scharenberg
Ann recently closed on the purchase of a new home, listen to what she has to say about her experience with Cornerstone Mortgage.
Jaime Halbert and Chad Sucher
Jaime and Chad recently closed on the purchase of a new home, listen to what they have to say about their experience with Cornerstone Mortgage.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Economics : Mortgage Servicers Threatened With Litigation
By David McLaughlin - Jun 22, 2011
Banks negotiating with state attorneys general over foreclosure practices would be sued if a settlement isn’t reached, two of the state officials leading the talks said.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper threatened litigation if settlement talks with largest mortgage servicers, including Bank of America and JPMorgan break down.
“If we don’t get an agreement, we’re prepared to go to court,” Cooper told homeowner advocates at a meeting of state attorneys general in Chicago yesterday.
Cooper and Madigan are members of the executive committee of attorneys general which, along with officials from federal agencies, is negotiating with the banks. State and federal officials are seeking to set standards for the way the banks service loans and conduct foreclosures. They also want monetary relief for homeowners.
The attorneys general from all 50 states began investigating banks’ procedures last year.
State and federal officials in March proposed settlement terms that called for “a substantial portion” of monetary relief from the banks to fund loan modifications, including principal reductions.
Making Progress
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is leading negotiations for the states, told the group of homeowner advocates yesterday that officials are making progress in the talks. He declined to provide any details.
“We don’t want a settlement around the margins, around the edges,” Miller said. “The settlement has to be fundamental, has to make some changes that are worth it, that are constructive.”
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said in an interview yesterday that his office is investigating dual tracking in Oklahoma, in which servicers foreclose on homes while negotiating with borrowers about lower payments. The office has found about 75 instances of what it believes is wrongful conduct, mostly related to dual tracking, he said.
“The dual-track foreclosure problem is something we see as being most problematic in Oklahoma, and we are continuing to investigate,” he said in Chicago.
The offer from banks to pay $5 billion to reach a settlement isn’t enough, Madigan said yesterday at a press conference.
‘Billions of Dollars’
“We’re going to try to get as much as we can because there are billions and billions of dollars of harm they have done to our entire economy, to our communities and to individual families,” she said.
In an interview afterward, when asked if a deal with the companies is likely to be reached, she said she is “not positive.”
“If that’s what we have to do, that’s what we’ll do,” she said of the possibility of suing the banks. “We have the resources to do that.”
Dan Frahm, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, and Christine Holevas, a spokeswoman for New York-based JPMorgan, declined comment. State and federal officials are also negotiating with Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial Inc.
Robert Bushey, a community leader with Illinois People’s Action, said after the meeting with some attorneys general yesterday that he supported lawsuits against the banks if necessary. Any settlement should require principal reductions, he said.
‘Weak Agreement’
“I’d rather they go to litigation than sign a weak agreement,” he said. “If they have to go to court to battle it out, so be it.”
Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens said June 20 that a settlement may allow states to individually choose how to use any money, including whether to apply funds toward principal reductions for borrowers.
Including those choices may broaden support for any accord among the attorneys general who oppose requiring banks to fund principal writedowns, Olens said in an interview. He estimated that as many as 20 of his colleagues oppose forcing writedowns.
At least eight attorneys general, including Olens, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Florida’s Pam Bondi, have publicly opposed principal writedowns as part of any deal. Olens, Abbott and Bondi are Republicans.
Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Miller, a Democrat, declined to comment on whether officials had discussed a structure that would give states the option of using money to fund principal writedowns.
Banks negotiating with state attorneys general over foreclosure practices would be sued if a settlement isn’t reached, two of the state officials leading the talks said.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper threatened litigation if settlement talks with largest mortgage servicers, including Bank of America and JPMorgan break down.
“If we don’t get an agreement, we’re prepared to go to court,” Cooper told homeowner advocates at a meeting of state attorneys general in Chicago yesterday.
Cooper and Madigan are members of the executive committee of attorneys general which, along with officials from federal agencies, is negotiating with the banks. State and federal officials are seeking to set standards for the way the banks service loans and conduct foreclosures. They also want monetary relief for homeowners.
The attorneys general from all 50 states began investigating banks’ procedures last year.
State and federal officials in March proposed settlement terms that called for “a substantial portion” of monetary relief from the banks to fund loan modifications, including principal reductions.
Making Progress
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is leading negotiations for the states, told the group of homeowner advocates yesterday that officials are making progress in the talks. He declined to provide any details.
“We don’t want a settlement around the margins, around the edges,” Miller said. “The settlement has to be fundamental, has to make some changes that are worth it, that are constructive.”
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said in an interview yesterday that his office is investigating dual tracking in Oklahoma, in which servicers foreclose on homes while negotiating with borrowers about lower payments. The office has found about 75 instances of what it believes is wrongful conduct, mostly related to dual tracking, he said.
“The dual-track foreclosure problem is something we see as being most problematic in Oklahoma, and we are continuing to investigate,” he said in Chicago.
The offer from banks to pay $5 billion to reach a settlement isn’t enough, Madigan said yesterday at a press conference.
‘Billions of Dollars’
“We’re going to try to get as much as we can because there are billions and billions of dollars of harm they have done to our entire economy, to our communities and to individual families,” she said.
In an interview afterward, when asked if a deal with the companies is likely to be reached, she said she is “not positive.”
“If that’s what we have to do, that’s what we’ll do,” she said of the possibility of suing the banks. “We have the resources to do that.”
Dan Frahm, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, and Christine Holevas, a spokeswoman for New York-based JPMorgan, declined comment. State and federal officials are also negotiating with Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial Inc.
Robert Bushey, a community leader with Illinois People’s Action, said after the meeting with some attorneys general yesterday that he supported lawsuits against the banks if necessary. Any settlement should require principal reductions, he said.
‘Weak Agreement’
“I’d rather they go to litigation than sign a weak agreement,” he said. “If they have to go to court to battle it out, so be it.”
Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens said June 20 that a settlement may allow states to individually choose how to use any money, including whether to apply funds toward principal reductions for borrowers.
Including those choices may broaden support for any accord among the attorneys general who oppose requiring banks to fund principal writedowns, Olens said in an interview. He estimated that as many as 20 of his colleagues oppose forcing writedowns.
At least eight attorneys general, including Olens, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Florida’s Pam Bondi, have publicly opposed principal writedowns as part of any deal. Olens, Abbott and Bondi are Republicans.
Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Miller, a Democrat, declined to comment on whether officials had discussed a structure that would give states the option of using money to fund principal writedowns.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Sara Licari and Adam Enloe
Sara and Adam just closed on the purchase of their new home. Listen to what they have to say about their experience with Cornerstone Mortgage.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Check out Chris Scheer in the latest issue of the Illinois Business Journal!
Click HERE to read the article on page four.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
MHDC help for disaster counties.
Features: Higher cash assistance than regular MHDC First Place program, and no first time homebuyer restriction.
We have introduced this program to help persons who are living in disaster counties with home financing. The program will be through any one of our 65 certified lenders. The lenders will have two options:
Click HERE for more information!
We have introduced this program to help persons who are living in disaster counties with home financing. The program will be through any one of our 65 certified lenders. The lenders will have two options:
Click HERE for more information!
"Worse than the Great Depression!"
That seems to be the rallying cry of every media outlet over the past few days. While it makes for sensationalistic headlines, it is not true. At least, we do not have data that proves it is or isn't true.
Let's start with a few facts about Housing data:
There is little reliable data about national home prices in the 1930s. The NAR data only goes back to 1969, and the US Government data from that era covers new home construction, not existing home sales.
The closest thing we have to national prices is the S&P/Case Shiller Index. The Index, which uses repeat home sales pricing, originated in the 1980s. Any chart showing home prices in the 1920s or 30s does not use actual sales data, but are hypothesized, historical data for the indices are available back to January 1987.
Know that sales volume of New Homes has fallen 82% versus 80% covering the 1929-33 era. By that one measure, you can ostensibly draw a conclusion that this single metric, covering less than 15% of all home sales, is worse today.
How does the Great Recession compare to the Great Depression? Some facts we do know:
1. Home ownership in 1930 was 47.8% versus 66.2% in 2000, and near 70% in 2006. (Census Bureau)
2. Unemployment was 25% at its Depression peak; the 2007-09 Recession never saw unemployment get over 12%. (BLS)
3. GDP lost 30% in the Great Depression; During the Great Recession, we lost 6% of GDP. (BEA)
4. Following the 1929 crash, broad stock market losses were more than 75% (Peak to trough Dow losses were 89%). 2007-09 stock losses were 50-57%.
5. Industrial production, which plummeted 75% around the 1929 Crash, has actually thrived during the Great Recession. Fed action and a weak dollar has helped US Manufacturers.
Both the Housing markets and available financing were widely different, then versus now. In addition to the lower Home ownership levels, 66.2% vs 47.8%, it was more concentrated among the wealthy as opposed to broad-based ownership now. Many more people lived on family farms early in the 20th century than today. And, more homes were owned outright, no mortgage in the 1930s versus today. I recall it was over 70% in the 1920s with no mortgage versus about 40% today. But the biggest and most important difference was financing. Mortgages were 3 to 5 year, interest only, with a balloon payment of the amount borrowed at the end. After that 3 year period, you either resigned with the bank, or sold the land and paid off the note. There was no such thing as a 30 year fixed rate mortgage in the 1920s or '30s. That would have had a huge impact on prices. Banks were failing by the 1000s; even someone with the means to roll their mortgage over might have found the bank did not have the ability to do so. With few buyers and almost no credit, the odds favor that RE prices would fall quite substantially. How much? One study of Manhattan, that looked at market-based transactions home prices between 1920 and 1939 found that Home prices plummeted 67% during the great depression.
Yes, home prices are bad. They are nearing the 35% drop we forecast back in 2005. But worse than the Great Depression? I don't think so.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative!
Let's start with a few facts about Housing data:
There is little reliable data about national home prices in the 1930s. The NAR data only goes back to 1969, and the US Government data from that era covers new home construction, not existing home sales.
The closest thing we have to national prices is the S&P/Case Shiller Index. The Index, which uses repeat home sales pricing, originated in the 1980s. Any chart showing home prices in the 1920s or 30s does not use actual sales data, but are hypothesized, historical data for the indices are available back to January 1987.
Know that sales volume of New Homes has fallen 82% versus 80% covering the 1929-33 era. By that one measure, you can ostensibly draw a conclusion that this single metric, covering less than 15% of all home sales, is worse today.
How does the Great Recession compare to the Great Depression? Some facts we do know:
1. Home ownership in 1930 was 47.8% versus 66.2% in 2000, and near 70% in 2006. (Census Bureau)
2. Unemployment was 25% at its Depression peak; the 2007-09 Recession never saw unemployment get over 12%. (BLS)
3. GDP lost 30% in the Great Depression; During the Great Recession, we lost 6% of GDP. (BEA)
4. Following the 1929 crash, broad stock market losses were more than 75% (Peak to trough Dow losses were 89%). 2007-09 stock losses were 50-57%.
5. Industrial production, which plummeted 75% around the 1929 Crash, has actually thrived during the Great Recession. Fed action and a weak dollar has helped US Manufacturers.
Both the Housing markets and available financing were widely different, then versus now. In addition to the lower Home ownership levels, 66.2% vs 47.8%, it was more concentrated among the wealthy as opposed to broad-based ownership now. Many more people lived on family farms early in the 20th century than today. And, more homes were owned outright, no mortgage in the 1930s versus today. I recall it was over 70% in the 1920s with no mortgage versus about 40% today. But the biggest and most important difference was financing. Mortgages were 3 to 5 year, interest only, with a balloon payment of the amount borrowed at the end. After that 3 year period, you either resigned with the bank, or sold the land and paid off the note. There was no such thing as a 30 year fixed rate mortgage in the 1920s or '30s. That would have had a huge impact on prices. Banks were failing by the 1000s; even someone with the means to roll their mortgage over might have found the bank did not have the ability to do so. With few buyers and almost no credit, the odds favor that RE prices would fall quite substantially. How much? One study of Manhattan, that looked at market-based transactions home prices between 1920 and 1939 found that Home prices plummeted 67% during the great depression.
Yes, home prices are bad. They are nearing the 35% drop we forecast back in 2005. But worse than the Great Depression? I don't think so.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)