Household Wealth Reaches Record $45.153 Trillion

[conjur]

because rates are low because we were in a recession.

On the flip-side, three states have had record numbers of foreclosures and bankruptcies.



Still doesn't answer the question.


What is the per household wealth value and how does it compare to prior years?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
because rates are low because we were in a recession.

On the flip-side, three states have had record numbers of foreclosures and bankruptcies.



Still doesn't answer the question.


What is the per household wealth value and how does it compare to prior years?

Are the record number of forclosures by volume or %.

Wealth of the US has generally been going up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Just pointing it out since you seemed to have gotten your panties in a bunch a while back about changing people's nicks. I don't and probably won't believe your excuse because of how you responded when I called you on your nick hypocracy before. Anyway - I wouldn't want this to go on either if I were you - so I'm fine with the thread getting back to the topic at hand.

When did I get my panties in a bunch about changing people's nicks? If you look closely it was probably because they were blantantly insulting and obviously intentional. And in all those cases nobody says it was an accident or that they were sorry. Yet I've done that here, suggesting strongly it was unintentional and that I haven't intended to antagonize people.

When did you call me on my nick hypocrisy before (besides with "FelixDeKat")? Point me to the situations and I'd be happy to clarify it for you.

Also, if you are interested in serious discussions perhaps you can leave the antagonistic quips like "panties in a bunch" to times when you're exchanging banter with family and friends.

(PS Here's my off-topic questions to you: are you trying to goad FelixDeKat into not accepting my apology?)

You have PM.

I don't care about your issues with Felix. You can also take your patronizing BS and shove it. I will continue to use colorful and descriptive phrases inspite of your objection.

CkG

 

[conjur]

They were foreclosure rates (%).

But, they could have been by number as that seems to be acceptable by some, including the OP.

For example,
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/05/24/daily9.html

April filings of Notices of Trustee Sale Auctions in the Phoenix metro area were running 38 percent ahead of the foreclosure rate in May 2003.

http://www.nahrep.org/Real_Voices/Home_Foreclosures_Hitting_Reco/home_foreclosures_hitting_reco.html

During April, May and June [2002], 1.23% of mortgages - about 640,000 - were in the foreclosure process. That's the highest rate in its 30 years of tracking, said the Mortgage Bankers Association. A year earlier, not even 1% of mortgages were in foreclosure.

http://www.realtor.org/rmoDaily.nsf/AllStories/071603

(July 16) -- Mortgage Bankers Association of America chief economist Doug Duncan attributes the record first-quarter foreclosure rate of 1.2 percent to the stagnant job market and a rise in the number of subprime loans. Although the high pace of foreclosures should not significantly impact the entire housing market, experts say it does suggest a slowdown in home-price appreciation and also reflects the risk inherent in subprime lending, which caters to borrowers with no or poor credit history. Any trend that creates more risky borrowers subsequently raises the risk of foreclosure, notes Michael Sklarz, chief valuation officer at Fidelity National Information Solutions. Given that most homeowners on the brink of foreclosure could afford to make smaller mortgage payments but are no longer eligible for refinancing, Foreclosures.com President Alexis McGee says an increasing number of lenders are helping homeowners by delaying foreclosure and offering forbearances.

Source: Inman News Features (07/15/03); Swesey, Jessica