homeowners posts
FeedPosted Jan 6th 2010 1:40PM by Mark Fightmaster (RSS feed)
Filed under: Analyst Upgrades and Downgrades, Chubb Corp (CB)
Homeowner insurance provider Chubb (CB) is having a rough day, as the company was downgraded to market perform from outperform at FBR Capital. The downgrade was accompanied by a price-target lowering from $60 to $65. This news forced the stock more than a percentage point lower in pre-open trade, and CB was more than 2% lower in early trading.
I find it rather difficult to believe that CB is going to get anywhere near $60 anytime soon. The shares are currently trending sideways between the support of its 10- and 20-monthly moving averages and the $53 to $55 region. I'm not sure why the company's target price would be set in all-time high range, but I am not one of the expert analysts.
Continue reading FBR Downgrades Chubb, Sending Shares Lower
Posted Jul 19th 2009 3:00PM by Tom Johansmeyer (RSS feed)
Filed under: Headline News, Housing
When you're serving your country, there's a good chance you'll move around a few times . . . which can conflict with the traditional American dream of homeownership. Soldiers who bought homes several years ago could be stuck selling now at depressed prices -- and on fairly short notice.
Needless to say, the financial pressure can be profound. A Staff Sergeant with a decade of service behind him, for example, is paid just under $37,000 a year. Even when you add in the health care and other benefits provided by the Department of Defense, it's still hard to handle a serious loss on a home.
The February stimulus plan included provisions to help military personnel in this situation, but little has happened. Soldiers complain that information is hard to find and guidelines aren't available. So far, none of the funds have been disbursed, and the federal government is keeping its collective mouth shut.
Continue reading Military housing woes to persist for a while
Posted Dec 4th 2007 4:15PM by Sheldon Liber (RSS feed)
Filed under: Other Issues, Press Releases, Products and Services, Consumer Experience, Economic Data, Politics, Housing
One of our readers asked the following question about the cost of foreclosures.
- "I would like someone to explain where the costs of a foreclosure go. It was reported on TV that the average cost is $75,000.00 per house. Why so much and can someone breakdown who gets the money. Legal, recording fees, advertising, etc."
A report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress estimates that the average cost of a foreclosure, to the homeowner, lender, local government, and neighbors (whose homes decline in value), is $78,000. By contrast, preventing the foreclosure would cost $3,300 per home on average. Here's how the report breaks out that figure among various "stakeholders":
-
Homeowner: $7,200
Lender: $50,000
Local government: $19,227
Impact on neighbor's home value: $1,508
Estimated total cost of foreclosure: $77,935
Homeowner: To me these costs might not even include everything, it might be more. The homeowner had the cost of moving in and moving out. Some disruption to normal working hours (and pay) if they still have a job and the loss of equity might be far greater. If you only lost 2% of a $400,000 home, you would have lost $8,000.
Continue reading Foreclosure costs explained: $75,000 per house
Posted Oct 30th 2007 3:02PM by Zac Bissonnette (RSS feed)
Filed under: Politics, Housing
By now you've probably heard the reports.
Merrill Lynch (NYSE:
MER) CEO Stan O'Neal is being pushed, making him the first CEO of a big investment bank to be held directly accountable for his company's exposure to the subprime debacle. Of course, his clandestine efforts to sell the company without the knowledge of the board didn't help his case.
The Wall Street Journal wonders (subscription required) when Washington will take some responsibility:
And speaking of Washington, that's one place where no one is being held accountable for the subprime boom and bust. That includes in particular the Federal Reserve, whose far too easy monetary policy created a subsidy for debt that fueled the housing and subprime mortgage excesses. One difference between Wall Street and Washington is that in the latter no one ever admits a mistake, much less suffers for it.This is exactly right. Last week, I wrote about
Washington's obsession with increasing homeownership -- seemingly at any cost, even if it meant encouraging mortgages for people who couldn't afford them. The Fed's lax monetary policy combined with this to make a subprime crisis an almost forgone conclusion.
But all that we hear is Congress
blustering with calls for investigations and lawsuits against the lenders. They need to look in the mirror.