topic Re: Boomerang Buyers in Los Angeles

Boomerang Buyers

Glenn — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:09:26 GMT

Best, Glenn

Hi there, I'm Glenn Kelman, Redfin CEO and huge fan of these forums tho often from afar. I was writing because the WSJ is looking for boomerang buyers, folks whose credit was damaged because of a foreclosure or short sale, but are now back in the game to buy a home. It's a hopeful piece, about redemption and recovery, and the WSJ is a big deal. Let us know if you're interested and we'll put you in touch with the author of the piece. Thanks, and thanks for all the thoughtful, fun posts to this forum!

Best, Glenn

Re: Boomerang Buyers

Andiamo53 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:32:08 GMT

Yes, I imagine the WSJ would LOVE to write a spin piece about how the economy is improving. And they want to write this piece 2 days after the biggest Occupy Wall Street movements across the the whole world have occurred? Glenn says "It's a hopeful piece, about redemption and recovery". Yeah, right--it's Wall Street that's looking for redemption. I'd love to think the powers that be are getting a little nervous and this article is part of their marketing campaign. This IS Rupert Murdoch's rag, after all.

Re: Boomerang Buyers

digo — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:17:32 GMT

Just curious why the WSJ is the only newpaper to come to the forums in search of people with a story about RE. Is there some hidden affiliation between Redfin and WSJ?

Re: Boomerang Buyers

LoansbyJW — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:20:46 GMT

There is a real phenomenon of "Boomerang Buyers" - a good subject to delve into since there are many people seeking a "how to" article on re-buying. I run into "BB"'s on a daily basis, but none of them are capable of buying. It's either timing or credit issues that prevent BB's from moving forward. It's too soon for most, considering that the first run of Strategic Defaulter's were a mere 3 years ago (early 2008). The BB's will be in force late 2012 when most restrictions on getting a new purchase loan have faded.

Since prices are deteriorating it's hard to say if eligible and rational BB's are even going to take that step. I say "rational" because some BB's are fresh off of a 2 month old Short Sale asking "Can I buy again? I promise not to default this time" which is irrational at best.

I'd read the article if generated.

Thanks for reading,

Re: Boomerang Buyers

bukowski — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:41:20 GMT

A good topic actually, since I have some family that intends to walk (I call em "Walkers"), saying goodbye and f u to their community (via con REO or ShizzSale), and totally expects to be able to buy in their newly desired locale sometime soon. These are people, btw, who are serial flag wavers and slumdogs, and offer horrible recommendations on Things.

Re: Boomerang Buyers

Bruin99 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:52:49 GMT

LoansbyJW wrote:
I say "rational" because some BB's are fresh off of a 2 month old Short Sale asking "Can I buy again? I promise not to default this time" which is irrational at best.

I think it would be even more irrational if a bank actually gave them a loan...

Re: Boomerang Buyers

Goran_K — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:56:31 GMT

bukowski wrote:
A good topic actually, since I have some family that intends to walk (I call em "Walkers"),

As a Walking Dead fan who was pleasantly surprised with the Season 2 premiere, I think that name fits spectacularly in every shape and form.

Re: Boomerang Buyers

987s — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:24:24 GMT

Andiamo53 wrote:
Yes, I imagine the WSJ would LOVE to write a spin piece about how the economy is improving. And they want to write this piece 2 days after the biggest Occupy Wall Street movements across the the whole world have occurred? Glenn says "It's a hopeful piece, about redemption and recovery". Yeah, right--it's Wall Street that's looking for redemption. I'd love to think the powers that be are getting a little nervous and this article is part of their marketing campaign. This IS Rupert Murdoch's rag, after all.

Seems a little cynical to me. I imagine the piece would take a few weeks to get put into print, and I doubt it's a response to any of the Occupy Wall Street stuff.

I believe a lot of the little guys are getting screwed, but mortgage laws still favor the consumer in most states. A consumer buys a house, stops paying and lives for free for 18 months, can walk away free and clear except for bad credit. On top of that since banks are greedy, they'll be sending out credit card offers to the bankrupt/foreclosed individuals within a year and will probably approve a new mortgage in 4-5 years. Isn't that pretty much the definition of redemption and recovery for the consumer?

Re: Boomerang Buyers

Andiamo53 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:38:08 GMT

987s wrote:
Andiamo53 wrote:
Yes, I imagine the WSJ would LOVE to write a spin piece about how the economy is improving. And they want to write this piece 2 days after the biggest Occupy Wall Street movements across the the whole world have occurred? Glenn says "It's a hopeful piece, about redemption and recovery". Yeah, right--it's Wall Street that's looking for redemption. I'd love to think the powers that be are getting a little nervous and this article is part of their marketing campaign. This IS Rupert Murdoch's rag, after all.

Seems a little cynical to me. I imagine the piece would take a few weeks to get put into print, and I doubt it's a response to any of the Occupy Wall Street stuff.

Possibly cynical, but have YOU heard of anyone who in a position to buy now after having strategically defaulted? I just think that as the mouth piece for Wall Street, the WSJ would serve a lot of interests if they could argue (convincingly) a rebound in the housing market via so-called boomerang buyers. I don't see it happening though (the rebound--not the article).

Re: Boomerang Buyers

LoansbyJW — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:53:03 GMT

Don't ruin it for me as I've not yet had time to watch the Season 2 opener trapped on my DVR. Going to make a big plate of Manwiches (Sloppy Joes) and enjoy the show. Anyone shambing over to the Long Beach Zombie Crawl on 10/29? But I digress...

There are some buyers who have their spouse on their departure residence who let's it go back to the bank, hoping then since they are "clean" to buy right away. The problem though is that when we ask "where've you been living for the past 2 years?" They can't say they were renting, and more often than not their tax returns (jointly filed) show joint claiming of the Mortgage Interest Deduction. It's an impossible task at that point in time to get a new loan until time passes.

One Boomerang Buyer had a Corporate Relo go terribly wrong. The company went out of business and stopped paying their housing subsidy. Is that the buyers fault for finding their home unaffordable? Not really. It's people in these situations, rare as they may be, who are able to re-buy in a shorter time window than others.

Thanks for reading,

Re: Boomerang Buyers

987s — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:01:45 GMT

Andiamo53 wrote:
Possibly cynical, but have YOU heard of anyone who in a position to buy now after having strategically defaulted? I just think that as the mouth piece for Wall Street, the WSJ would serve a lot of interests if they could argue (convincingly) a rebound in the housing market via so-called boomerang buyers. I don't see it happening though (the rebound--not the article).

No, I haven't personally heard of anyone buying after a default but I'm probably not a good person to ask. If LoansbyJW says he hasn't seen any qualified candidates than I'm sure they are few and far between.

I'm just saying, I don't see this as an article as a response to Occupy Wall Street, and to be honest I didn't even think they would even use it to argue for a rebound in housing. It just seemed like a feel-good fluff piece of how one can still purchase a home after a financial disaster like foreclosure.

I'm glad the US allows people (and corporations) second chances. There are plenty of stories of companies that have declared bankruptcy and flourished. If a consumer can do the same, more power to them. Maybe someone had extenuating circumstances that led to foreclosure and then was able recover, save some money and buy another home. I'd rather read about that then someone bragging about how long they've gone without paying their mortgage.

Here's an article about rebuying after foreclosure, but I hope it's not what the WSJ has in mind:

http://detnews.com/article/20110907/METRO01/109070383/Owners-escape-tax-debt-by-rebuying-foreclosed-homes

Re: Boomerang Buyers

Bruin99 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:33:02 GMT

987s wrote:

Here's an article about rebuying after foreclosure, but I hope it's not what the WSJ has in mind:
http://detnews.com/article/20110907/METRO01/109070383/Owners-escape-tax-debt-by-rebuying-foreclosed-homes

Found that article interesting. However, the main problem to me wasn't the loophole, the main problem was that housing is soo bad in Detriot, that a home is only worth $500. And in one example, why are there $26,200 in property taxes on a home only worth $1,051?

Re: Boomerang Buyers

Andiamo53 — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:12:01 GMT

987s wrote:
Andiamo53 wrote:
Possibly cynical, but have YOU heard of anyone who in a position to buy now after having strategically defaulted? I just think that as the mouth piece for Wall Street, the WSJ would serve a lot of interests if they could argue (convincingly) a rebound in the housing market via so-called boomerang buyers. I don't see it happening though (the rebound--not the article).
No, I haven't personally heard of anyone buying after a default but I'm probably not a good person to ask.   If LoansbyJW says he hasn't seen any qualified candidates than I'm sure they are few and far between.

I'm just saying, I don't see this as an article as a response to Occupy Wall Street, and to be honest I didn't even think they would even use it to argue for a rebound in housing.   It just seemed like a feel-good fluff piece of how one can still purchase a home after a financial disaster like foreclosure.

I'm glad the US allows people (and corporations) second chances.   There are plenty of stories of companies that have declared bankruptcy and flourished.    If a consumer can do the same, more power to them. Maybe someone had extenuating circumstances that led to foreclosure and then was able recover, save some money and buy another home.   I'd rather read about that then someone bragging about how long they've gone without paying their mortgage.

Here's an article about rebuying after foreclosure, but I hope it's not what the WSJ has in mind:
http://detnews.com/article/20110907/METRO01/109070383/Owners-escape-tax-debt-by-rebuying-foreclosed-homes

Yes, we can both agree that the article is a "feel-good fluff piece." We need a lot more of that right now. You know, to pacify people so that they don't challenge the status quo.

Re: Boomerang Buyers

stop_bailouts — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:34:13 GMT

It doesn't surprise me that the mainstream media already decides what conclusions they will draw in an article before they've even done the research.

I'd like to see an article in the mainstream media about responsible, hardworking people who didn't try to "game the system", tried to live within their means, and are now watching irresponsible people get a "do-over" and the richest 1% of the country control more and more of the nation's wealth, while they see prices for necessities go higher and higher while making less and less money.

But that'll never get written...

Re: Boomerang Buyers

msdmoney — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:07:19 GMT

So Boomerang buyers are the ones that threw out the housing boomerang only to see it come back and hit them in the face.

It's hard not to be suspicious, this isn't the first request for people for an article that feels like it has an angle or agenda. And it's hard not to be cynical when the biggest financial purchase of a person's life is summarized as being "back in the game". I would love to see more articles that didn't start out with the premise that getting everybody back into loans is the solution or the recovery. Maybe they could discuss the rebuilding of a person's life following foreclosure or a short sale, but not from the angle of them jumping back into the game, but from the angle of the person reclaiming their financial future after freeing themselves from debt.

Re: Boomerang Buyers

TrabucoDom — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:34:12 GMT

msdmoney wrote:
So Boomerang buyers are the ones that threw out the housing boomerang only to see it come back and hit them in the face.

It's hard not to be suspicious, this isn't the first request for people for an article that feels like it has an angle or agenda. And it's hard not to be cynical when the biggest financial purchase of a person's life is summarized as being "back in the game". I would love to see more articles that didn't start out with the premise that getting everybody back into loans is the solution or the recovery. Maybe they could discuss the rebuilding of a person's life following foreclosure or a short sale, but not from the angle of them jumping back into the game, but from the angle of the person reclaiming their financial future after freeing themselves from debt.

I have a cousin that used to work for the LA Times and NY Times...from what I gather, these "news" people come up with an "angle" and then get it approved by the editor if it sounds like something that they can make an interesting story with...then they set out to satisfy the "angle". You would think it is the opposite, that they would investigate something and identify a trend or anomoly and do an interesting story on it. But we need to face reality here, newspapers are mostly entertainment and not news, so they need to write stories on "angles" that get the most people to read them.

Re: Boomerang Buyers

GEAH — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:23:22 GMT

Bruin99 wrote:
Found that article interesting. However, the main problem to me wasn't the loophole, the main problem was that housing is soo bad in Detriot, that a home is only worth $500. And in one example, why are there $26,200 in property taxes on a home only worth $1,051?

If the anti-Prop 13 crowd gets its way, that will be the norm in California.

Re: Boomerang Buyers

GEAH — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:26:29 GMT

msdmoney wrote:
It's hard not to be suspicious, this isn't the first request for people for an article that feels like it has an angle or agenda.

Newsflash: This is a feature article being written, not a news article. In feature articles, you come up with an angle and cover it.

If you're doing a story on a student, you may want to find an illegal alien kid who has graduated as a valedictorian, so that's what you look for. Or, you may want to find one that didn't beat the odds and is finding out how tough life is. Or, any one of a million potential stories you might think your readers would find interesting.

Also, in searching out what you want for that angle, you may find out other information that will spur other stories with other angles. Welcome to the basics of journalism.

Re: Boomerang Buyers

stop_bailouts — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:18:35 GMT

Oh, it's a "feature", so that means you don't have to be honest, then? Silly me - here I was thinking good journalism entailed researching a topic and then writing an article, not writing the article and then looking for quotes to back up what you already concluded. What if the interviews don't go the way you expected them to? I guess you just make something up? Wouldn't want to make the editor angry now, would we?

I'm curious - in what section of the newspaper do the "features" appear, and how are they differentiated from "regular" articles? And where does the disclaimer appear letting the readers know that the story was concocted ahead of time and isn't to be taken seriously?

Re: Boomerang Buyers

bukowski — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:30:19 GMT

The basics of journalism nowadays is celebrity coverage. This is why we are still getting Michael Jackson news and the dude has been dead for a couple years now.