I don't know why I'm finding this thread so annoying - it could be the cold I'm suffering from - or I could just be cranky.
Peter - if the gist of your post was whether it was smart to buy a home in LV now vs later, then my response is go for it! Just don't pay any more than 65 or 75% and expect a further drop in the market. This will probably prove to be the best time in a generation to buy.
Rob K - I subscribed to Bigger Pockets for real estate investing information not a holier than thou bash fest on one of its members. As for your post ... a clear violation of what? Some ethical bank's rules? Is this one of the ethical banks that bundled mortgages without documentation and sold to hedge funds across the planet eventually bringing down Lehman Bros and who knows how many others in the process?
Are these the banks that demanded appraisers appraise properties at the asking price so as to justify the loan they were willing to give on the property even though any sane person would know the property was overvalued? (And refused to give them work driving honest appraisers out of business for refusing to play; Realtors were complicit in this, too.) Makes me wonder what credibility we should put on the appraisals we're getting now. I assume you also object to purchasing property subject-to since it violates the Due on Sale clause?
Are these the same banks that are sitting on vacant houses and being fined $1000/day for failing to maintain them? It'd be different if they actually tried to sell them, but some in my town have been vacant for years. Perhaps they can't find the notes? ... The banks seem to be selling the higher end ones - for what? To jack up the national price averages so we gullible people will actually believe that housing is getting better? (and coincidentally creating bidding wars to fraudulently increase prices?)
Ann Bellamy - you are quick to call Peter a fraud. I wonder if you know the definition of fraud. Not only a misstatement of material fact (an outright lie or a fact that someone will misconstrue) but also an omission of material fact. If you're an attorney or legally trained, I suggest that your omission of that is a form of fraud. If you're not, then aren't you practicing law without a license?
In checking how many Peter Lees there are in NV it makes me wonder - are you a cop?
Regarding the lease: if the banks would work with borrowers in doing loan modifications, people would have have to resort to such arrangements.
Scott W - ditto Rob & Anne comments - but the same question - what law do you think Peter violated?
Jeff Smith - So if Peter had filed bankruptcy to cram down a loan modification, you'd be happy?
To all - what does any of this have to do with Peter's investing question?
As a matter of full disclosure, I am trained as a lawyer, but not licensed nor practicing. I worked as an associate (before licensing) for over 8 years 50% in real estate law, but quit to care for brain injured husband for the next 7.
Further, I don't know Peter (nor anyone else on this post) and don't know anything about his situation other than what he revealed here. Somehow I don't see how any of it is relevant to his question about buying a house or about investing in general.
I'm also trained as a geneticist, but never worked in it - didn't want to be a lab monkey.
Real estate investing is far more interesting except for the people trying to turn it into a moral play.
FWIW
Mary
Cranky in Stockton, CA - one of the foreclosure capitals of America
