Skip Navigation
StreetEasy Logo

Deposit Losses from Credit Crisis

Started by akallabeth
over 16 years ago
Posts: 47
Member since: Mar 2009
Discussion about
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/realestate/22cov.html?ref=realestate When the sellers had the power to lock people into this awful contracts.... March 22, 2009 Up in Smoke: The Deposit Vanishes By VIVIAN S. TOY SOME of the buyers who thought they would be moving into new condominiums in the region this year are finding that those plans are in ruins as they are being forced to walk away from the... [more]
Response by alpine292
over 16 years ago
Posts: 2771
Member since: Jun 2008

"When the sellers had the power to lock people into this awful contracts...."

Sellers did not lock anybody into contracts. The buyers signed them on their own free will. Nobody put a gun to their head. The buyers locked themselves into the contract.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by ms1013
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1
Member since: Mar 2009

Toll Brothers has deep pockets and it is my understanding that as an incentive to new buyers, they
recently offered attractive fixed rate mortgages. If they are in the position to offer mortgages, clearly they could offer a mortgage to the Pham family mentioned in the New York Times story. If the
NYT story has all the significant facts, then the fact that Toll Brothers would prefer to take the family's deposit rather than offering the family
a mortgage plan reflects very poorly on this company. To be sure, Mr. Pham should have obtained
a contingency clause and not doing so proved to be both short-sighted and foolish. Nevertheless,
a more congenial outcome that does not ruin the Pham family could have been obtained, even if Toll Brothers would make a little less from such a transaction than they would make by keeping the deposit.

Toll Brothers may be in the right, so far as the law is concerned, but as someone who is looking
to buy an apartment, having read this story, I will
instruct my agent not to look at any Toll Brothers properties.
I hope others will feel the same way.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by HT1
over 16 years ago
Posts: 396
Member since: Mar 2009

Toll Brother ended FY 2009's first quarter with $1.53 billion in cash, compared to $956.6 million at FY 2008's first-quarter-end. The Company's cash position was down slightly from $1.63 billion at FY 2008's fourth-quarter-end, principally due to the payment in 2009's first quarter of previously accrued taxes and the retirement of purchase money mortgages and other debt. In addition, the Company had $1.32 billion available under its bank credit facility, which matures in March 2011.

TOL reported a FY 2009 first quarter net loss of $88.9 million, or $0.55 per share diluted, which included pre-tax write-downs totaling $156.6 million. This compared to FY 2008's first quarter net loss of $96.0 million, or $0.61 per share diluted, which included pre-tax write-downs totaling $245.5 million.

Toll Brothers may need this cash - no I am pretty sure they need that cash to survive.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by alpine292
over 16 years ago
Posts: 2771
Member since: Jun 2008

No developer wants to take a buyer's deposit and keep the unit. That is the last thing they want. As far as why they did nto give a mortgage to the family in the NY Times story, maybe they are not credit worthy. Maybe they have a low credit score. Maybe one of them lost their job. We don't know.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by bugelrex
over 16 years ago
Posts: 499
Member since: Apr 2007

NYT should have at least mentioned the reason the toll couple could not get a loan. Maybe they left that part out to portray them as victims

I would suspect could only get a NINJA loan .. No symphaphy here...

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by pjc
over 16 years ago
Posts: 175
Member since: Dec 2008

People who are saying it is "foolish" to not have a mortgage contingency don't realize that Developers did not offer this option (or offered watered down versions). This means a buyer had 2 choices - either take the risk of not being able to get a mortgage, or stay out of the market. If they chose the latter, many bulls on here would have told them they are foolish, considering banks were - at that time - making 85-90% loans on a regular basis. So, why not get into the game!

In hindsight, the smarter choice would be stay out of the market. This is still the smarter choice and will remain so indefinitely, at least with respect to new construction where you sign a contract and don't close for a year or more.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by crescent22
over 16 years ago
Posts: 953
Member since: Apr 2008

I agree that in 2005, it would have been very hard to envision the late 2008 no-loan situation. One might have reasonably envisioned a market downturn but not one so severe. That said, given a three year lag period, I would never have forked over my whole life savings. That is where the "what-if" questions should have led them to pull back.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by manhattanfox
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1275
Member since: Sep 2007

it is tough out there

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by alpine292
over 16 years ago
Posts: 2771
Member since: Jun 2008

"This means a buyer had 2 choices - either take the risk of not being able to get a mortgage, or stay out of the market."

Or they could have chosen option 3, which is to buy an EXISTING condo!

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by newbuyer99
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1231
Member since: Jul 2008

I guess I noticed a couple other things. 1) they put all their savings into the deposit 2) Phams say it'll take them another 15 years to save another $93K. 3) They were buying a 2-bedroom in Hoboken for $950K. 4) They borrowed against their current apartment to come up with part of the deposit. 5) James Pham is an RE broker.

So, let me get this straight - they severely overextended in order to buy a grossly overpriced apartment in Hoboken. Is it any wonder no bank will give them a loan? They sound like poster children for the excesses and stupidity of the boom. No one forced them to agree to anything they signed. Pretty tough for me to feel sorry for these "victims". I do feel bad for their young kids, who will certainly feel some of the financial consequences of the greed/stupidity of their parents.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by pjc
over 16 years ago
Posts: 175
Member since: Dec 2008

alpine292 - you are correct, I should have included option 3. I think many of us have learned a lesson the hard way: never buy a new construction condo without an iron-clad mortgage contingency. Which Developers will never give.

So the lesson is: never buy new construction, period, unless the building is already complete, and Developer is ready to close immediately.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by kelee804
over 16 years ago
Posts: 2
Member since: Dec 2008

Anyone who is a buyer at Maxwell Place, have NOT closed, and are interested in getting the deposit back (or price negotiation), please contact me at 1125maxwell@gmail.com. Thank you.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by BSexposer
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1009
Member since: Oct 2008

"They sound like poster children for the excesses and stupidity of the boom. No one forced them to agree to anything they signed. Pretty tough for me to feel sorry for these "victims"."

A fool and his/her money are soon parted. Let not bail out all of these fools, or we will just encourage more foolish behavior in the future.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by akallabeth
over 16 years ago
Posts: 47
Member since: Mar 2009

"Sellers did not lock anybody into contracts. The buyers signed them on their own free will. Nobody put a gun to their head. The buyers locked themselves into the contract."

Oh please. In the last climate, if you didn't sign certain contracts, someone else would. It's not an issue of free will, it's where the power is. The power has shifted. Let's stop being naive.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by akallabeth
over 16 years ago
Posts: 47
Member since: Mar 2009

"They sound like poster children for the excesses and stupidity of the boom. No one forced them to agree to anything they signed. Pretty tough for me to feel sorry for these "victims"."

During the boom, when 90% of anyone around would have laughed at the scenario that played out, the "fools" were those not flipping and making insane profits every few years. The moralizing in retrospect, when so few voices were heard during the bubble, is as sad as it is funny.

Ignored comment. Unhide

Add Your Comment