Did rent soar? What’s the market like near you?
Tight market boosts rents
Rental prices rose year-over-year in every Bay Area city surveyed by RealFacts. The chart below shows average rents, occupancy and year-over-year changes in cities that have more than 20 apartment complexes with at least 50 units.
City Complexes Occupancy{+1} Change{+2} Rent{+1} Change Alameda 22 90.3% 9.6% $1,443 5.4% Campbell 28 96.5 -0.9 1,428 10.8 Concord 37 96.0 -0.5 1,146 3.4 Fremont 69 95.3 -1.1 1,439 7.5 Hayward 57 96.1 -0.9 1,196 6.6 Mountain View 59 95.6 -1.1 1,774 11.6 Oakland 21 95.5 -0.6 1,420 3.7 San Francisco 44 95.2 -0.6 2,285 14.5 San Jose 150 96.0 -0.6 1,541 10.5 San Mateo 29 96.9 2.8 1,809 9.8 Santa Clara 45 96.3 1.8 1,794 13.3 Santa Rosa 44 95.5 -0.7 1,170 6.1 Sunnyvale 82 97.1 -0.5 1,593 9.5 Walnut Creek 35 94.3 -2.1 1,452 12.4 Bay Area 1,241{+3} 95.8 -0.1% $1,562 9.4%
Thanks to WillowGlenner for bringing up this January 2008 piece.
I’ve heard a few mixed stories now – I’ve heard rent going up 0%, 3%, and 10%. It’s now September – did these past results reflect future direction accurately?
Will rent prices ever reach parity with mortgage payments?
Inquiring minds want to know!
September 7th, 2008 at 7:54 am
if the study is anything like the one we had here in Seattle a few months back, it’s all but worthless to people interested in renting houses. The data were based entirely on gargantuan apartment complexes. Meanwhile, more and more houses have become available here, making renting pretty easy.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
My lease rolls over next month, I’ll let you know. I’m expecting at least a 10% increase though.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
There’s one (rather upscale) complex here in Fremont that is advertising LOWER rents, but when you bother to investigate, you find that they lowered the rent for a 740-square-foot 1BR from $1650 to $1590! Imagine that! Some bargain! The place is still vastly overpriced by at least 40% (but then again, so are houses here, based on the fantasy prices sellers are still dreaming about). I’ll just stay put in my adequate 1BR for $1245, thanks very much. I also never see an increase, probably because of my stellar credit and the fact that I actually pay my rent three days early.
Oh, sorry, there I go again, gloating over my superior ability to value and manage money and to be happy with what I have and to not be in debt. Forgive me for living within my meager means and for laughing at the suckers who still think that being owned by a house and borrowing and spending themselves into oblivion is good for them. Please forgive me. I must be mad…
September 7th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
buckborden – Wise choice, picking a low-traffic Sunday to make a fool of yourself. So, avoiding debt reflects your superior ability to value and manage money? No doubt you know better than 100% of the landlords and entrepreneurs out there who have committed to leverage and debt in order to build value, bringing rentals and jobs to society’s more risk-adverse folks.
Actually what you know better is mostly how to be content not taking risks and indiscriminately laughing at those who do. Well sir, playing it safe and remaining debt-free is a stress-free approach to happiness, but it certainly does not reflect a superior ability in managing finances.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I rent partly because I cannot afford to buy, partly because I cannot afford to own a house, and partly because I pay below market rent. My rent has been $1075 since April of 2007, but new tenants are being charged $1300.. partly because all the units are totally renovated following a fire, partly because charging only $1150 brought some really sketchy elements to the building and the landlady is being forced to not renew about a half-dozen leases after their 6 months are up. It seems even the ‘hood types are willing to pay out the nose now. So I’ve become one of the “good” legacy tenants and likely will be shielded from any severe rent hikes.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
sonarrat, I thought you were buying a place in Oakland at some fantastic price? Did that fall through?
As for rents, I just looked up the place (Sunnyvale) I was renting in 2003 before I bought a house. The current rent for the same floor plan is within 5% of what I was paying when I moved out. *shrug* A friend of mine was just saying how high rents were, and that her daughter’s just went up to $1500/mo for a 2BR. I don’t know what she was paying before, but that sounded pretty inexpensive to me. She moves a LOT so I haven’t even kept track of where she lives any more. I think it’s up around Milpitas.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
For me, my rent would need to go up x5 to be comparable to house prices.
if that happened, i would leave tRBA as I’m not being paid enough to stay.
This year my rent went up 2%, so just 498% to go.
-zanon
September 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
DreamT,
Actually what you know better is mostly how to be content not taking risks and indiscriminately laughing at those who do. Well sir, playing it safe and remaining debt-free is a stress-free approach to happiness, but it certainly does not reflect a superior ability in managing finances.
Sir, I HAVE taken risks, in fact. I once owned a home and sold it for TRIPLE what I paid back when prices were totally insane and I knew it was false. I invested most of the profit in a good mutual fund and am pretty well off now, and not the least bit interested in “owning” an overvalued piece of land and wood again, at least until prices fall 50% or so, and yes, I probably would get into a house again. Sorry if I ruined your Sunday, but I do not consider myself a fool for opting out at this time, especially now that I work for myself and could not “buy” on my meager $50K a year income even if I wanted to. Despite what you think, I am perfectly happy to sidestep risk at this time. Thanks for writing. Hope you get rich quick in this wonderful economic environment based on greed and lack of personal responsibility. If you call that wealth building, then I feel sorry for you.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
sonarrat, I thought you were buying a place in Oakland at some fantastic price? Did that fall through?
I made it fall through. After it appraised low, the bank was hemming and hawing about whether they would let me reduce the price by $15K, and I was seeing prices continue to plummet by the week. So I bought a car to make the bank reject my loan.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Wow, I’d say “that’s too bad” but I’m thinking it really worked out in your favor.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
buckborden – So, based on your personal past experience, are you now confirming that “to be happy with what I have and to not be in debt” has no relation whatsoever with a “superior ability to value and manage money”? That was my very point and you didn’t address it at all. Your past experiences are anecdotical and don’t exactly support a general statement such as the one you made.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Well, I’m out $570 for the inspections. But I learned how the process works and I learned a lot of good things about Oakland that I never would have learned any other way.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
sonarrat said:
So I bought a car to make the bank reject my loan.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to withdraw your loan application?
September 8th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Sure, I could have. I had reason to buy the car besides getting out of the deal so it’s not like I saw it as my only way out, but then I was able to say that financing fell through.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am
No noticeable difference in Alameda as far as rent goes. A recent report showed a close to 10% vacancy rate in the town. I was driving home from the store yesterday and counted 10 places for rent in less than 10 blocks. What’s changed is that the mix of places for sale is different. Less houses, more apartments. I’d imagine that since those who could’ve “bought” a year or so ago no longer can since lending standards are now tighter.So if you’re a couple making say- under 150k, then your best option for now is probably to rent, because even now, renting here is 1/3rd the cost of buying.
Our rent is the same as it was 4 years ago and will probably stay that way until we move out of state, which is good because our rent is even cheaper than most.
In regards to Buckborden, how come anyone on this blog that mentions that they rent and save and don’t take risks are criticized? Most people I know who quietly save, invest, and ultimately retire due so as millionaires, and not via paper wealth either, but actual hard cash savings. It is entirely possible to buy what you want with zero risk. It requires patience which 99% of the US populace doesn’t comprehend.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
San Mateo is growing about 10% a year in good school districts. Big houses are rented for less than 1-2 years ago, but 1-2-3br apartments, town homes, budget houses rents are all growing substantially over the year.
Looks like Visa and Oracle brought over a lot new H1’s this year. Occupancy of apartments in FC/SM/Redwood Shores is close to 100%. FC Elementary had a waiting list of 100+(!) kids. Unprecedented thing.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Bob,
Thanks for the good word and for being a voice of common sense. Yes, I am financially set, and I didn’t do it by being stupid or greedy. It took 20 years of steady saving and smarts, and now at 53, I can do whatever I want, and that is a great reason to be proud of myself, despite what some of these no-count, bitter cretins say. The results speak for themselves. Besides, I am secure in myself enough to not even respond to their pablum. I am not owned by banks, credit card companies or other purveyors of financial slavery and never have been.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Buckborden,
Me and my Wife both come from families who still do everything the old-fashioned way. My Wife’s parents drive their old cars for years. When they needed a new car, they buy them for cash. When they bought a vacation home, they bought it with cash. When they bought their primary home, they bought 50% of it with cash. They’ve never been in debt. They are now comfortably retired. My parents are the same way. There is zero rocket science to this. There is no need to invest in the latest fads, gimmicks, or other get-rich quick schemes. Just save and go with a gut instinct versus the herd mentality.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Now what do you know – I ask a simple Yes/No question to buckborden and get insulted by proxy in return. Who’s the bitter person who persists on taking my question on sound financial management via leverage and debt as a personal question?
September 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
bob #15 – You realize I didn’t criticize buckborden’s lifestyle, present or past choices, and certainly cannot approve of signing debt you cannot handle?
I only criticized his highly misleading, grossly generalized statement about his “superior ability to value and manage money” which he since has carefully avoided to address.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Looks like Visa and Oracle brought over a lot new H1’s this year. Occupancy of apartments in FC/SM/Redwood Shores is close to 100%.
——–
And most of the H1 people tend to rent in big managed apartment communities because for them it’s easier to get approved for rental with no/short credit history. Avoid those apartment communities. Rent from individual landlords. You will get lot better deals.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Where is burbed? No feature today!
September 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Burbed clicked draft instead of publish again. Fixed. Thanks.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
This weekend I noticed more open houses in SW Sunnyvale than I’ve seen even at the height of Spring Bounce. This is for buying, not renting. I haven’t seen a For Rent sign on a house around here in more than a year, and the last couple of times I checked Craigslist for comps I couldn’t find anything in Sunnyvale/CUSD/Homestead (but I could in Svl/CUSD/Fremont).
Perhaps what WG mentioned in earlier posts is happening here too and rents are starting to move up to meet the declining house prices. I just checked all the new listings on Redfin, and I am seeing more houses under a million in my neighborhood. In early spring there weren’t any, in later spring there were few and they were snapped up immediately, now they are everywhere. If that doesn’t show softening prices I don’t know what will.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Bob,
It is easy to recommend saving at the end of extraordinary credit bust. The fact is that saving or dis-saving is inherently policy driven by the govt and not by the public. When people believe that govt fights inflation by keeping interest rates above inflation rates, savings rate will be reasonable. How can you recommend saving when you have US fighting useless wars it can’t win with money it does not have, and the Fed fighting deflation instead of inflation fiercely? At least, I don’t.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
could someone explain all those magnet schools in foster city? how does it all work? are the mandarin immersion ones just for chinese people? how do they have 2 montessori schools? so confusing.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
cannot specifically address FC schools, but the Mandarin Immersion program in Cupertino is open to whoever applies. Most families who attend it are full or half Asian but I know a full Euro family whose children attend CLIP (Cupertino Language Immersion Program).
There is no way any school board could set up a magnet school with discriminatory admissions, though. What ends up happening is that unless a child had previous Mandarin lessons, it is increasingly difficult to transfer into the school at higher grades.
As to Montessori, there are so many variants and certifying Montessori organizations that the terms has become almost meaningless. Having 2 competing Montessori schools doesn’t suprise me in the least, they are all over and not necessarily run the same way. I would carefully check anything labeled “Montessori” because of the schisming of the “brand.” Find out which Montessori organization accredits them and then check that organization’s priorities. Do as many school visits and observations as they will allow.
Hope this helps.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
scaredinca,
Not sure if I get what you mean. People should be saving whether we’re in good times or bad, war or no war, house or no house. The national savings rate last year was -0.08%. That’s right: nobody saved anything at all. That is really bad because when you have a country full of people in serious debt, then they lose their purchasing power which ultimately means they don’t serve the economy.
What’s been happening for years is that the economy has been engineered to extract as much money from the populace as possible. This is in the form of higher and higher mortgages, which banks receive 75% of their income from. Now we’ve reached the end of what is physically possible with the population’s debt consumption.
Savers in times like these are winners. There are many parts of the country I’m looking at right now where prices are plummeting. I’ve been saving since I was 15 years old and can just about buy any house I so choose in any number of areas. Had I not saved when times were ” good” this wouldn’t have been possible.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
The dimwittest comment of the month: “The national savings rate last year was -0.08%. That’s right: nobody saved anything at all.”
bob – did you even attend middle school?
September 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
isn’t that unfair though? euro/indian kids going to mandarin school with chinese kids who may speak mandarin natively?
well i guess it’s not that unfair since the opposite happens everywhere else.
schools here are so complicated. for the rest of my family in other states, you buy a house, you go to the (singular) elementary school that is associated with your house. period.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
isn’t that unfair though? euro/indian kids going to mandarin school with chinese kids who may speak mandarin natively?
well i guess it’s not that unfair since the opposite happens everywhere else.
schools here are so complicated. for the rest of my family in other states, you buy a house, you go to the (singular) elementary school that is associated with your house. period.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
bob, the point “scared” was making is that saving now is of only marginal value now, when any interest you may earn will be gobbled up by inflation. Now, if you can SAVE and INVEST at a return above inflation you’re doing great. Lately the stock market has been tanking too so that’s really difficult.
I agree that it’s always good to save. Government policies do tend to discourage it.
DreamT – just imagine where Warren Buffet would be if he felt the same way about investing as Buckborden…
September 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Didn’t you guys see the news on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? The nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved now, and that’s why the stock market is ever so optimistic. One should be looking ahead instead of looking in the rear view mirror.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
scaredinca – You’re too kind to spell it out. Yes, inflation is any saver’s enemy. Ergo savings alone does not reflect a “superior ability to value and manage money” (but any investment plan should probably include cash)
nomadic – Not just Warren Buffet but also 100% of all entrepreneurs. Who’d give a job to buckborden’s and bob’s children, with that kind of advice? Also do you realize that “it’s always good to save” eerily sounds like realtors’ “it’s always a good time to buy”?
September 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Crossroads, I have a good friend in Foster City, I think one of her kids goes to one of the Montessori places, but I am not really sure what to ask her on your behalf.
Kids are remarkably good at learning languages before puberty. The thing US schools completely screw up is not introducing foreign langauges until Middle School when they should be teaching it starting in preschool. I’m sure the native Mandarin speaking families will start off Mandarin immersion ahead but the others can still learn it.
Learning Mandarin is hard for English-speakers for two reasons. First, it is a tonal language, English is not. So it is more difficult to learn after puberty, something in the brain changes and it is harder to hear and learn to pronounce words in new langauges properly. Think about Henry Kissinger and his strong German accent; he moved to the US at age 15. His younger brother was 11 at the move, and speaks American English with no accent.
Secondly, to be a literate Mandarin reader, you must learn to read and write over 10,000 characters. (There are many more, but that’s a minimum.) English has an alphabet of 26 letters that form all its words, Mandarin has different ideograms and you must learn to read and write all these different shapes to be proficient.
I wish my older kid would take Mandarin, it turns out it is offered at the Middle School, but I think Spanish will chosen in HS next year. My older kid has perfect pitch and can hear those danged tones perfectly. Asian friends tell her she pronounces Mandarin words perfectly, and they are always shocked, they are used to Euros getting tones wrong.
Well, this is getting way off topic from real estate.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
So they finally admit that Fannie and Freddie are insolvent solves the problem? What happened to the claim that only sub-prime had problem? Do Fannie and Freddie have something to do with prime?
And DreamT, yes entrepreneurs borrow money, and that is why they fail spectacularly in the times of limited credit availability. You are getting too aggressive in the discussions. Credit has good side and bad side, I think we all know that. And when credit is tighten the bad side is more prevalent.
For Madhaus, “For Rent” signs are a joke, the complex in Homestead/Hollenback has put one up for almost a year now, originally the sign says 1/2 bedroom available, now it is 1/2/3. I really wonder if it is true, if so then they are really ‘effed. Along Mary/Remington there is another complex putting sign up for 6 months at least by now.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“Didn’t you guys see the news on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? The nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved now, and that’s why the stock market is ever so optimistic. One should be looking ahead instead of looking in the rear view mirror.”
Whenever I need a laugh, I can count on you, good sir. It must be nice to see the world through such rose colored glasses.
(psst: now’s the time to go buy your single investment property.)
September 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Dear all,
Gee, I didn’t know that to be secure and a real American, that I had to be an entrepreneur, according to some of the vitriol about my lifestyle. Still, I know who I am and what I have and how I got it, and that’s good enough for me. So I’m no Warren Buffett. Is there something WRONG with that? I’m glad it worked out for him.
DreamT, I’m not against debt, just debt one cannot handle. My choice to be more or less risk averse is just that, a choice, and it seems to me that millions of people have made really BAD, BAD choices about how to manage money. I fortunately am not one of them. That is not to say that entrepreneurs are necessarily stupid; merely that entrepreneurship is not for me, nor is stupid real estate “investing.” End of comments. Moving on now.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Too bad you can’t view the show in your local parks as ‘free soccer matches’!
September 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
rick, I was only talking about houses for rent, not apartment complexes. I don’t really follow those. The places along Homestead/Hollenbeck vary too, I knew someone who lived in one of them (on Hollenbeck), it didn’t look all that great from the outside but it was a nice 2-story inside. Very small patio though. Don’t know what the rent was, and they moved to a rental house in San Jose.
Hmmm… Mary & Remington, that would be across Remington from Sunnyvale Middle, right? At least that place looks reasonably well kept up. And a really nice park only a block away on Rockefeller.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
anon, aren’t you aware that non-residents do far more damage to soccer fields than residents? It’s scientifically proven!
September 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
BB, you’re missing the point. Not all debt is good, not all debt is bad. For what its worth, it appears to me that you have done a good job at being a solid, quality citizen.
That said, its not necessarily “risk averse” to not purchase a home. In some ways, refusing to purchase a home is more risky than purchasing.
You do not have to be an entrepeneur to be an american, and cheers to you for living within your means.
The question I often wonder: Does one become non-american if they live within their means? I am starting to believe the answer is yes.
Bob, I hardly think you meant what you said. Might I suggest: “The national savings rate last year was -0.08%. That’s right: nobody most people saved anything nothing at all.”
September 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Madhaus,
I’ve never seen “For Rent” sign up for houses in Santa Clara county, period. Not even during the tech recession.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Why does strikethrough not work? Oh well, I struck out the “nobody” and “anything”
September 8th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
buckborden #38 – quite fine moderation of your initial post. Thanks and no futher comments (except that as far as personal lifestyle goes I am very risk-adverse myself)
rick #36 – blanket generalizations and crazy logic from lesson-givers don’t irk you even a little? Ok, maybe Sunday was too slow to my taste…
September 8th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I sometimes wonder if RealEstater is real, or if it is just someone playing the role of RealEstater. It certainly is more entertaining now that he is back.
Oh, Pralay, can you attack RealEstater now, please?
September 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
anon – I am humbled by the non-aggressive wisdom of your post, and I’m not being sarcastic.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
DreamT, you insulted him first and then go on with some reasoning (though I don’t see it as sufficient), obviously that won’t be taken nicely. It won’t take long before everybody has bitterness against everybody.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Oh, Pralay, can you attack RealEstater now, please?
—————
I think he is too busy for reserving his BBQ spot. It’s Monday. There must be a long line for reservation – all the Facebookers, Googlers, mythical foreigners.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
The nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved now
——-
“Everything that can be invented – has already been invented.”
Commissioner of US patent office in 1899.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
rick – I did feel that our intelligence had been insulted before I even wrote my post, and tailored the tone of my response accordingly. Your do have a point on ‘aggressivity’ of course, but let me assure you I don’t feel bitter against anybody on this board
(the opposite is certainly untrue)
September 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
>>Commissioner of US patent office in 1899.
Take note, RealEstater.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
rick, I’ve seen for rent signs on houses many times.
anon, Strikethrough is a
goldamendflippin’ piece of cake. What tag were you using for it?September 8th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Guys,
I know it’s disappointing to the housing bears, but the crisis is now over. Look at what AP has to say:
NEW YORK (AP) — Stocks rallied Monday as investors placed bets that a recovery in the financial and housing sectors is more likely to occur following the U.S. government’s move to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Dow Jones industrials gained nearly 300 points.
The announcement Sunday that the Treasury Department was seizing control of the companies, which own or back about half the nation’s mortgage debt, brushed aside investors’ long-simmering worries that the pair would be felled by a spike in bad mortgage debt.
Investors were hoping that the plan to inject up to $100 billion in each of the government-chartered mortgage financiers could not only help lower mortgage rates but perhaps help buoy the overall economy. The move could help banks feel more open to write new mortgages and to refinance existing mortgages at lower rates, offering a possible lifeline to consumers struggling with increasing payments.
The move appeared to have an immediate soothing effect on mortgage rates. The national average interest rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage dropped 0.3 percentage point to 6.04 on Monday, according to financial publisher HSH Associates.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Pralay,
Attack all you want, but do read the last paragraph above. We all know what happens when interest rate falls by a significant amount. Housing just got cheaper, which drives up demand. It’s Econ 101. Did you take that in your free education?
September 8th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Used s inside the brackets instead of strike. worked in the preview.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Oh, yes, all our problems are fixed now that Fannie Mae got the fed backstop. Sure, pull the other one.
Bought SRS @ 79 today.
In a month, it’s going to be above 100 again.
Why? Because this isn’t over yet.
Housing may have gotten cheaper from lower interest rates, but the share of buyers is still too small, thanks to “enhanced” credit requirements. Alt-A just ain’t what it used to be. Econ 101, supply and demand.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Housing just got cheaper, which drives up demand.
———-
RE,
Remember your market analysis in last March?
Feb sale is up – that was the first good news. And now interest rate is getting lower – that’s second good news. I will be waiting for third good news from you – for my entertainment.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Look at what AP has to say:
——-
That doomsayer media, which is conspiring to pull down the housing market, suddenly became darling and reliable source to RealEstater.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:44 am
how about :
“Shall I say, I told you so? The info given by the amateur types here are plain wrong. The market is extremely healthy. Yes, inventory is up if you go by the numbers, but that’s normal for the time of year when a lot of homes come to the market. Pretty soon you’ll see sales volume ramp up as well, as we saw in February. During the winter months, the biggest problem in the real Bay Area is lack of inventory. Most of the homes offered for sale were either marginal or down right undesirable. That was the primary reason sales were down. Whenever you see sales being held back, that just signals demand is building up. Whatever happened before in Southern Cal is not applicable here. The BA is way more special — take it from someone who’s lived in SCAL.”
?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:44 am
taken from: http://www.burbed.com/2008/03/29/the-market-is-actually-booming-in-san-jose-and-san-francisco/#comment-14958
September 9th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Ooooops, sorry sorry sorry. How could I forget the BEST news of 2008! It’s stimulus check.
Gas price high? Stimulus check solved it.
Mortgage crisis? Govt solved it when it took over Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
ALL PROBLEM SOLVED. HA HA!
September 9th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Down to 6.04, that is good news for some buyers I guess. Still not as low as last year though, or as low as it was in 2005. Either way a significant change, clearly the government feels more secure in taking risks buying mortgages than the investors who buy them for a living.
Maybe if you wait until next year we will get better deals, like FHA loans at 5.5%? Government help has been increasing a lot, if you make less than 75k, you can hardly afford anything, but you qualify to get 0% loan (for some reason called a tax credit) from the gov’t, for up to 7.5k. Who here thinks they’ll extend that past ‘09 to ‘10?
Perhaps an increase from the 10k rule on the IRAs as qualified withdrawal to 20k? Come on Congress, you know you want to. Increase the cap from 5k to 6k on the IRA while you’re at it. These things just keep going and going.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:01 am
The quotes only goes to show I’ve been right all along. There is indeed no recession. Economy grew at a respectable 3.3%, thanks in part to the stimulus checks. Gas prices has settled down now, and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem just got solved today. Interest rate just came down to boot. We’re all clear for take-off, and the market did just that today.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Burbed,
Can you check if Pralay and anon have the same IP address?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:06 am
The quotes only goes to show I’ve been right all along.
————–
Yes
I wonder if “the economy is expected to do better in the second half” then why govt had to take over Mae/Mac. Something does not add up.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Can you check if Pralay and anon have the same IP address?
————–
LOL! This request is coming from a guy who demands public apology for absurd reason.
RealEstater,
Once verified, I require a public apology for making baseless accusations.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:26 am
RealEstater deconstructed!
I highly doubt anon and Pralay are one and the same based on personal experience.
As for lower interest rates, it’s really not by very much (not enough to threaten my 2005 rate) but most of all lower rates aren’t going to make mortgage loans suddenly look appetizing again for investors. Banks aren’t signing these loans if they cannot resell them, so these lower rates will remain out of reach anyway for many folks who’d have qualified two years ago. It will take more than lower rates to kickstart the credit market.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:32 am
I can assure you: we don’t have the same IP address. Can you not tell that we are different people from the way we write?
What a bummer, RE. I went looking for the one where you made a stated something to the effect of “every prediction I have made has come true.” Sure enough, you save me the effort and reiterate it yourself.
Yep – cleaaaaaaaaaared for takeoff.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I highly doubt anon and Pralay are one and the same based on personal experience.
——-
But, but, but, RealEstater’s suspicion cannot be wrong. As Herve mentioned earlier – he is the new Chuck Norris.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:41 am
I went looking for the one where you made a stated something to the effect of “every prediction I have made has come true.”
———
If his EVERY prediction has come true, why is he stuck in an “average hitech” job?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:46 am
#1 chuck norris fact:
If you have a two million dollar home
five dollarsand REChuck Norrishas a two million dollar homefive dollars, REChuck Norrishas moremoneyequity than you.http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/
September 9th, 2008 at 1:46 am
“If his EVERY prediction has come true, why is he stuck in an “average hitech” job?”
Simple – he works to have vacation time.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Hm, perhaps equity should have been value.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:05 am
RealEstater is Chuck Norris’ son!!!
RealEstater does not post, he educates.
RealEstater does not quote, he shares the spotlight.
RealEstater does not read news, he looks ahead so he already knows.
RealEstater does not reserve BBQ spots, he walls off non-residents.
RealEstater does not read the market, the market reads RealEstater (and so do we).
September 9th, 2008 at 2:23 am
SF Chronicle just went an published a wrong headed article saying the Sallie Mae bailout will not help the RE market that much.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/08/MNCS12Q74O.DTL&tsp=1
We know the Chronicle is not that good a newspaper anyway, what would you expect.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:31 am
From housingwire, for RE (the only person I know who gets their news off the AP wire) —
http://www.housingwire.com/2008/09/08/no-easy-fix-for-mortgages-housing-analysts/
Fourth time a charm?
Most analysts we spoke with suggested that the move to take over Fannie and Freddie would do little to ultimately help housing or restart the non-agency mortgage market, and would also do equally little to stanch a credit market crisis that has ripped apart balance sheets for well over four quarters now, despite strong investor optimism on Monday.
“This is the fourth attempt to revive the market and boost investor sentiment this year,” said Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER: 26.84 -2.72%) economist David Rosenberg, in a research note Monday. “Each time the stock market embarked on a rally averaging 6 weeks and seeing the S&P 500 advance 8% before sputtering and heading back to new lows.”
“If anything, the takeover of Fannie and Freddie is actually a testament to how broken the financial system is,” said Rosenberg.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:04 am
RE, you missed an obvious point. Those who “deserve” to live in the RBA have excellent credit. And they’d most likely need a jumbo (non-conforming) mortgage. There are already a large number of banks providing those loans to creditworthy applicants – and at rates more favorable than Fannie/Freddie. We’re talking Grade A loans – none of this subprime or Alt-A stuff. Right?
Right. So then the bailout is immaterial to the RBA.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Pralay says,
>>Once verified, I require a public apology for making baseless accusations.
Did I accuse you of anything? All I asked for was to check IP address.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Nomadic,
All things being equal, lower interest rate means more people qualify, leading to higher demand.
Lionel,
Rosenberg again? Is he like the only analyst out there?
September 9th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Uh, no, RE, Richard Thornberg was the guy I posted last time. But nice try.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Hard for me to keep up with all of these posts, but let me add to the chanting that the savings rate at -.08 is a pretty meaningless piece of nonsense. I can remember when some permabears were lauding the savings rate which was only slightly higher than it is today in 1999, as if people had no money in 1999. The savings rate doesn’t count investments of any kind.
As to Fannie and Freddie, in my view there are 2 basic impacts from this takeover for borrowers. First is interest rates will decline, closer to fed rates. Second is we will now see more willingness to renegotiate current underwater mortgages. Fannie/Freddie will structure something that allows this. It is a well known problem that consumers are trapped in rising ARMs with underwater homes that can’t be refinanced. The homeowner bailout bill had a stipulation to allow these people to refi into fixed loans, and this just simplifies matters.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I want to know why RealEstater is so busy arguing with everyone using amateur analysis from aggregate data instead of spearheading my solution to non-residents destruction of Palo Alto parks and soccer fields. Think of all the fun RE will have fixing up his very own EPA house!
September 9th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“It is a well known problem that consumers are trapped in rising ARMs with underwater homes that can’t be refinanced. The homeowner bailout bill had a stipulation to allow these people to refi into fixed loans, and this just simplifies matters.”
80% of option-ARM borrowers have been picking the minimum payment. They’re nowhere near able to refi. They’re already toast. And, as prices drop another 20% or so, who the hell would want to be stuck in their depreciating asset?
September 9th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I wouldn’t be so quick to call the Fannie/Freddie bailout a good thing. As anyone who might have read the whole story, BOTH lost more than 80% of their value right off the bat, investors got absolutely screwed, and as anyone can see from today’s market so far ( down almost 150 points) the bailout is far from solving the housing problem. Another report came out today indicating that unemployment insurance funds in many states ( including California) are about to run dry since the job market is the worst its been in over 5 years.
Personally, the whole bailout of Freddie and Fannnie is just more of the same: the government pissing away our money to make lame attempts at “saving” home prices. Nothing that they or anyone else do will solve the “problem”. Home prices are going to keep right on falling until they become more reasonably affordable.
As far as the savings rate, we’ve gone from saving over 10% of our incomes in 1980 to saving nothing, to actually saving negative, as in below zero. That’s a serious problem no matter how you look at it because having a population reliant entirely on servicing debt is not going to function properly. Like it or not, people will have to start saving or this economy is going to go nowhere.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
The savings rate only counts bank savings accounts, not investments. So that means my savings are about $520, because my kids each have a savings account.
But I don’t. Our money’s all invested in various mutual funds and stocks. Plus we have more overseas. None of that is counted in that savings statistic. Did you even look up its definition?
So, did we “save nothing” or not, bob?
September 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The Fannie/Freddie bailout takes care of one important part of the puzzle: it made mortgages easier to get. I was unfortunate enough to apply for a mortgage in June, and the banks were ruthless. Mortgage rates were at least half a point higher than they should have been, because the demand for capital was so high. And the banks wanted the properties to be PERFECT. Even a $6,000 pest report – which was not bad at all for a 80+ year old house – was enough to ultimately sink the deal. I wanted to buy, I could have bought, but the inability of the vast majority of customers to get financing was putting a damper on the market and there was nothing to keep prices from a freefall. Now, at least the people who want to buy and can buy will be able to, which should slow down the freefall effect at the low end.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am
To my knowledge, the national savings rate is determined by what percentage of income Americans save in general regardless of what they actually do with their savings.This is determined also in regards to how much the avg consumer borrows versus what they actually make. The savings rate today hovers between -0.05 and -0.08. The only other time that savings has been this low was in 1932 and 1933, or at the height of the depression.
Also interesting of note is that the avg baby boomer has saved less than 40,000 for retirement. So while it might be pleasant to imagine that everyone is investing in stocks and mutual funds, I seriously doubt that’s the case at all. As I can see from this blog, everyone still thinks that investing in houses is the way to go versus saving anything, which again sort of supports the attitude most Americans have, which is to distrust the market in the time that its actually the best time to get in.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am
The bailout will not necessarily make getting loans easier. IN fact, it will likely make them harder to get.Now that these two are now government controlled, then you better bet your boots that anyone buying will have to have full documentation indicating their income, jobs, savings, credit, and past track record on anything financial. That knocks quite a few people out of the ring. If anything, having these two mortgage lenders be carefully regulated could more closely monitor affordability versus letting things get out of hand.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Did I accuse you of anything? All I asked for was to check IP address.
——-
We never accused you for anything either. We just referred you as real estate agent.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Uh, no, RE, Richard Thornberg was the guy I posted last time. But nice try.
———
I thought it was Steven Spielberg.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:55 am
No-doc loans were already illegalized by legislation passed in July, so that doesn’t change anything.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
To my knowledge, the national savings rate is determined by what percentage of income Americans save in general regardless of what they actually do with their savings.
That’s the problem right there, bob. I don’t care what is “to your knowledge.” I asked you for the meaning of that item about the savings rate, how it is defined, what categories are counted as savings, etc., and you basically are telling me you are guessing what it is. This is why your statements on the economy are not credible.
I will ask you again: How is that -.08% savings rate defined? Be VERY specific. If you cannot define it, then stop making claims about what it means.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
bob – URL to that report about unemployment insurance funds drying out in California, please?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“most Americans (…) distrust the market in the time that its actually the best time to get in.”
bob, isn’t everybody saying that now’s the worst time to purchase a house or buy stocks? Wouldn’t this conversely mean that now is the best time to buy?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Pralay says,
>>We just referred you as real estate agent.
You spead a lie without any evidence. Unlike you, I would not say something without verification.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
You spead a lie without any evidence.
——–
We did not spread anything. We suspected (just like you suspected that I and anon are same) you as real estate agent and said so.
———
Unlike you, I would not say something without verification.
——–
Come on. You actually said something (post#65). Don’t assume everybody is stupid here. If you really wanted to verify, there is email id burbed@burbed.com. You posted #65 suggesting that I and anon are same person.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Oh, yes, there is a QUESTION MARK in post #65. I missed it. Too bad!
However, that sounds like Jon Stewart’s hilarious “Question Mark”, where he asked question “Is your mother a whore?“. You know, that’s just a question. It does not imply anything.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
DreamT,
The report was today on 1550AM, KU radio. They run a market analysis every morning at 7:00 AM on the dot. Secondly, when people buy stocks, they will often buy several hundred different types of stock. I am invested in bonds, international, small cap, large cap, and so on. In this method, if stocks in one sector performs badly, others will often pick up the slack. In this way, even in a super bad year, I might have an overall portfolio that drops 2-3%.
If you did the same with housing, you’d have to buy a house in North Carolina, a super nice home in California, perhaps a dumpy home in Queens, NY, and perhaps one or two in Europe… maybe a loft in Hong Kong. If you’re buying a house merely to invest in, then that’s like buying a single stock and counting on it to accumulate value reliably. So unless you have millions of dollars around to buy homes, then the argument that buying when everyone else isn’t is not a good point. Additionally, I can buy a $2 stock or a $700 stock. In other words, everyone from a burger flipper to a bank tycoon can buy stocks. In the case with housing, if they aren’t selling, then that could very well be an indicator that the populace can’t afford them. That would be like all the stocks on Wall Street becoming Google stock. Not a winning scenario.
Anyhow, I think I made my point.But I do agree that if homes become reasonably affordable- as in they more closely match actual incomes, then it might very well be a better time to buy.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
We’re all clear for take-off, and the market did just that today.
————
Dow is down 200+. Market it really taking off.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Pralay,
Your complaints are baseless. When airport security checks your bags, are they accusing you of being a terrorists? Do you understand that in this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
When airport security checks your bags, are they accusing you of being a terrorists?
———-
Absurd analogy. In airport, one security guard does not ask another security guard “Bob, could you check if this guy is from terrorist cell” either (the way you asked if I and anon were same person).
———–
Do you understand that in this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty?
———–
Another absurd analogy. Where is these “guilty”, “innocent” are coming from? Yes, I do understand. It applies to criminal court only. It does not apply to anything else and definitely not in burbed.com.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
bob – I was concerned about my biweekly $900 check. But a bit of web browsing shows California wouldn’t be insolvent until 2009.
As for the point you made, what is it exactly? If it’s “if they aren’t selling, then that could very well be an indicator that the populace can’t afford them” I’m afraid I disagree. Not selling means the “populace” does not find the investment to be attractive enough, not that they cannot afford it. Your sentence infers that every adult out there would purchase a house the second they could afford it… see the problem?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Pralay,
>>the way you asked if I and anon were same person.
If I presumed you guys are the same person, why would I bother checking?
>>Where is these “guilty”, “innocent” are coming from? Yes, I do understand. It applies to criminal court only. It does not apply to anything else and definitely not in burbed.com.
Maybe that’s how you operate (assuming guilt without proof), but I like to give people the benefit of doubt.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Jim D, nice call on the SRS. Up to 84 today. I expected the market to ferret out the BS in the next few weeks, I just didn’t expect it to happen in one day. Wow. Paulsen giveth, and reality taketh away.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
If I presumed you guys are the same person, why would I bother checking?
——
The answer is in post #98.
——-
Maybe that’s how you operate (assuming guilt without proof), but I like to give people the benefit of doubt.
——-
Well, if you had doubt you would not post #65.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Your sentence infers that every adult out there would purchase a house the second they could afford it… see the problem?
Anyone can buy a house, even in the Bay Area.. go to Movoto.com, type in Richmond, CA, and sort by houses under $100,000. You’ll see over a hundred. Sort by houses under $50,000, and you’ll see seven. Negative savings rate, mortgage meltdown, and all that baloney aside, I’m sure there are at least seven people, who aren’t even that well off, who could write a check for $50,000 and they would then own a house in the Bay Area. Outright, even. And they’d have a commute of less than an hour to San Francisco. Hell, those houses aren’t even all in the Iron Triangle of Doom.
Affordability is not the problem. There are ample options for those with limited funds. The problem is that people feel entitled. They think their hard-earned money should get them into a safe neighborhood with good schools. Never mind if that’s what everybody else wants, including many people with a lot of hard-earned money who are ready to capitalize on their good fortune and sound decisions.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Pralay,
I did not ask any offensive, low-class question (actually, I did not ask you any question). Just a tech guy asking about IP address.
BTW, there’s no reason to be nervous if you don’t ever plan to play this game.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Alright. Let’s put an end to the whole guilty/airport security thread of this conversation. Thanks.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I did not ask any offensive, low-class question (actually, I did not ask you any question). Just a tech guy asking about IP address.
——–
See the video in #98. “It’s just a question.” He he!
——–
BTW, there’s no reason to be nervous if you don’t ever plan to play this game.
——-
Never played that game. In fact, unlike you, I never used different email ids in different time to post comments here either.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
>>Affordability is not the problem. There are ample options for those with limited funds. The problem is that people feel entitled.
sonarrat,
You’ve hit the nail on the head. This is what I told Pralay before. I did not even ask him to look into Richmond or EPA, just a normal place like San Jose. But no, he said he’s priced out because he can’t afford RBA. It’s more ridiculous considering that he would be a first time buyer. Does anyone expect a VP position when searching for a first job?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Alright. Let’s put an end to the whole guilty/airport security thread of this conversation. Thanks.
——-
Burbed, did you make sure my and anon’s IP addresses are exactly same? I am not asking you do anything. “I am just asking a question.”
September 9th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Pralay,
Give it a rest.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
This is what I told Pralay before. I did not even ask him to look into Richmond or EPA, just a normal place like San Jose.
——-
The above statement has AN ASSUMPTION that I am actually looking for a home. I think it takes it to another airport/security/guilty/innocent argument.
I would rather settle with Chuck Norris argument (especially post #75). That’s more entertaining.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Pralay,
If you’d like to talk more about airport security, innocent/guilty, or Chuck Norris, please share your email address and we can take these topics offline. Meanwhile, please respect the forum and the other participants here.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Funny you should say then when you are the one who started by asking “Can you check if Pralay and anon have the same IP address?”. And no I’m not Pralay or anon or anyone else here. Paranoia runs deep here it seems.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The nuts have come to run the nut house here.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Funny you should say then when you are the one who started by asking “Can you check if Pralay and anon have the same IP address?”. A
———
I think that was about respecting forum and the other participants here.
Sometime I wonder if this guy is real all.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Sorry, I keep encouraging them, it is entertaining.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
RE: Naturally you will understand that in this country we have a right to privacy. Accordingly, I am reminding both you and everyone else of my expectation of privacy when posting on this board. Furthermore, I am hereby requesting that burbed not disclose any IP information – mine or anyone else’s for any reason whatsoever.
Do you have any idea what it means to “speak with forked tongue?”
September 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Furthermore, I am hereby requesting that burbed not disclose any IP information – mine or anyone else’s for any reason whatsoever.
———
I have pretty good amount of trust that burbed is not going to share anything with this guy.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
As do I, but he needs to know that two can play this game.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
he being RE.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
anon – “in this country”? Well… this is the Internet, not America.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
anon,
I was watching out for your privacy. That’s why I did not ask Burbed to reveal your IP address. All I asked for was for Burbed to compare if two IP addresses are the same.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Isn’t it pretty clear we are all living in the Bay area?
September 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Anon – You are right to expect privacy, but privacy is a relative thing.. it would only take a couple minutes of googling to find out my street address, missing only the apartment number, using nothing but my username. You could learn a wealth of information about me. I’m used to it, because I grew up with the Internet and it doesn’t faze me anymore.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Burbed can correct me if I’m wrong: impersonating as multiple identities is not compliant with the rules here. My request was completely legitimate. Burbed even made such a check before. Those of you complaining are essentially advocating that criminal conduct be protected.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Those of you complaining are essentially advocating that criminal conduct be protected.
———
Burbed,
Take a note. Your are allowing “criminal conduct”. Just wait for your burbed.com to be shut down.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I’m still waiting for bob to give me the source of that negative savings figure.
After that, I am going to laugh at RE patting himself on the back for stopping an argument that he started and kept feeding. That’s right, I am laughing at, not with, RE.
Pralay, I love the Cavuto mark routine. You can accomplish so much with it.
Anyone who thinks the market is doing well is definitely inhaling something reality-distorting.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Burbed can correct me if I’m wrong: impersonating as multiple identities is not compliant with the rules here.
———
“impersonating as multiple identities” – what does it mean? Impersonating another person is one thing. Having multiple identities is another thing.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Pralay,
Didn’t Burbed ask you to stop talking about this crap? Do you have anything to say about real estate? Any downtrend data? Found any deals lately in 94087?
September 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Actually I’d like to see both of you end the sniping at each other. Please.
Can’t we all just get a long?
September 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Anyone who thinks the market is doing well is definitely inhaling something reality-distorting.
—–
Or after Real Bay Area, Real Shopping, should we say Real-distorting.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Burbed,
I agree. Peace and chill everyone!
September 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Burbed, isn’t more traffic pretty much necessarily better?
September 9th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
RE:
1) There are rules regarding posting? I wasn’t aware there was a terms of service. Please provide a link.
2) With respect to your accusation that someone may be impersonating multiple personalities, I would like to know how do you draw the distinction between impersonating and having.
3) do you find it interesting that burbed referred to ‘both of you’? I certainly do!
If burbed determines some breach has occurred, then he will likely take steps to correct it.
Lastly, ever heard of an ip-spoofer, Mr.
hightech guy? A same – or different – ip will allow you to draw no inferences.I’m pretty relaxed as this seems like a good tit for tat exchange. We can rip on you for being the way you are; you can do the same.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
More on that final thought: you’re like the schoolyard kid who picks fights until the schoolyard authority comes over. At that point, he acts as if he wants a peaceful resolution and sides with the authority. Finally, when he’s walking away with the teacher, he sticks his tongue out at the other kid.
Unfortunately, those tactics don’t really work in the real world.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Besides, unlike the schoolyard kid, the authority hear saw and heard everything.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Unfortunately, those tactics don’t really work in the real world.
——–
Actually it can work in real world, especially where there is no record/witness for the incident and it ends up being a he-says-she-says kind of thing.
But here all the past comments are readable.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Guys,
All I’m hoping for is a chat environment that’s free of foul play and spam. Is that so unreasonable? It is to everyone’s benefit as much as it is for mine. Please try to think in a positive direction once in a while.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
anon #138 – you make so much sense this week that it’s scary. Are you the non-evil brother from two weeks ago’s anon?
RealEstater reminds me of that song… “I’m a man of wealth and taste”…. “pleased to meet you”
September 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
DT: I’m as evil as ever. If I’m acting differently, I don’t know how. Maybe you agree more with what I’m writing?
Of course, it is entirely possible there is more than one anon…
Pr: I suppose it does work in the real world, so I suppose you’re right. I like to think that those who act that way will get theirs, but it is probably pretty rare.
RE, you’re not here to do anything but spew perma-bull BS. I am thinking in a positive direction: downward spiraling property values. Exponential increase -> exponential decrease so as to create less “priced out forever” people. It is unfortunate some people will be caught up in the scam that the brokers and lenders pulled and It’ll hurt in the short term but its like ripping off a band-aid.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“All I’m hoping for is a chat environment that’s free of foul play and spam.”
This from a guy who takes every opportunity he sees to make a dig on a fellow tech person?
September 9th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Waow, very productive day I see… Between 9am and 6:05pm, here is the number of postings:
16 Pralay (Gold)
14 RealEstater (Silver)
9 anon (Bronze)
5 DreamT
5 madhaus
5 sonarrat
4 bob
3 Lionel
2 burbed
1 cardinal2007
1 cupertinoster
1 nomadic
1 WillowGlenner
To the first 3: are your companies hiring?
xoxo
September 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
This would seem to validate my theory:
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2006/11/chuck_norris_ho.php
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2165-Lemon-Heights-Dr/25509783_zpid (note the difference between the Zestimate and the owner’s estimate)
September 9th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
anon – It’s still you: you’re still leaving the spam protection sum in the website field when you post. But yes AFAIK tone and content are now right on.
Herve – If only I was employed, I could find the time to post as much as the first three combined. Alas, being jobless is hard work.
This evening I hopped by Cupertino library for the first time, to compare with Santa Clara’s. Santa Clara’s feels like what you’d expect in a suburb: relaxing atmosphere, crowd varied in age and origin, and not a great selection. Same as Burlingame’s, Palo Alto’s, Woodside’s or Mountain View’s. But Cupertino’s was… a modern, new, well-furnished setting with a fancy aquarium, huge parking lot and filled with tense-looking parents crushed by their workday and herding their children to and from story time. In short, it felt like a city library.
Also, not a white, black or latino face except for the staff. That place really felt like an island.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Madhaus,
This would be a good move-up property for you:
http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Palo-Alto/3317-Cowper-St-100_80831603.htm
What do you think?
September 9th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Yep another productive day in paradise, indeed. Too bad I was busy when the exchange between RE and PR was heating up. Further, it’s not great to be ‘working’ at nearly 10:00, but someone’s gotta buy the PB&Js!
I still want to find the time to modify some more chuck Norris sayings so as to properly reflect the man behind the bubble.
Does this comic remind anyone (other than myself) of a method of reasoning often employed on this board? : http://www.flickr.com/photos/30336855@N02/2843905157/
DT: Do you not like my website? When I first started posting here I assumed all the fields were required. The newfangled internet thing can be overwhelming. Ill update it.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
To the first 3: are your companies hiring?
——
Oh, that’s just having luxury for not being “management class” people. Not too many conferences.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Or, perhaps posting from one’s blackberry whilst in a meeting between coffee and pastry breaks.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
At least, that is how I picture RE. I can’t imagine he would have any valuable input to anything.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:46 am
#148 – I’m not going to get to grips with the fact that Palo Alto midtown commands a 50% premium over Santa Clara CUSD. I know I sound bob-ysian. Still, 50%? 50%?!? And RealEstater calls it an upgrade?!? I won’t say this again, but WTF?!?
September 10th, 2008 at 1:27 am
>>I’m not going to get to grips with the fact that Palo Alto midtown commands a 50% premium over Santa Clara CUSD.
Maybe, maybe not. The 50% premium is a reflection of the hierarchy of desirability among different cities in the BA. For example, Sunnyvale CUSD might have a 15% premium over Santa Clara CUSD. Cupertino Monta Vista will command another 15% over Sunnyvale. Finally, midtown Palo Alto gets another 20% over Cupertino. North Palo Alto has at least a 25% premium over midtown. It goes on and on.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:40 am
RealEstater – Today, yes, I know you’re right. But in 15 years? 10 years even? I cannot help but think the gap will be less than 50%. The houses are too similar in construction ; Palo Alto is already a destination place but was not 20 years ago ; destination place-land is expanding. Get my drift? I think smart investment is in tomorrow’s destination places, not today’s. I don’t think your suggestion is a smart upgrade.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:42 am
By the way, 15% * 15% * 20% is 45% not 50%. I know, irrelevant mathematical detail.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:07 am
so where are these destination places?
September 10th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Destination place, RBA, that’s all the same.
These are the places folks remodel and rebuild rather than move out. Something like “the only Los Altos seller is a dead one”.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:41 am
huh? i thought you just said that RBA Palo Alto isn’t a destination place anymore because it has arrived already.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:58 am
? you misread me. I wrote “Palo Alto is already a destination place”. I know of no destination place that is no longer one, whereas the opposite is true, hence my comment “destination place-land is expanding”
September 10th, 2008 at 8:10 am
DReamT,
Thank goodness the state will run out of unemployment insurance by 2009. Why, that’s only a little over 3 months away.
Madhaus, Here’s a link for you. It is a bit old, but since the economy has eroded even more since July, its probably all the more consistent with the latest report I heard on the radio yesterday:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/States_face_dwindling_unemployment_insurance_funds_0702.html
“In California, the fund will hit a low of about $1.1 billion by year’s end and is predicted to be insolvent next year, requiring some borrowing by the state. Benefit payments are expected to hit $2.6 billion by the end of next year.”
And one more thing DReamT, I realize you disagree with everything I pretty much say here, ( surprise) But what exactly do you think caused houses to stop selling in the first place? Was it because people stopped seeing them as attractive investments? Nope. It was because for one, they couldn’t get the phony loans needed to buy the houses they so desperately wanted, and secondly, those who had bought before began defaulting in record numbers, which would indicate that they couldn’t afford the homes they bought in the first place. So unaffordable homes caused defaults, the erosion in credit availability, and therefore the means in which to purchase- aka- purchasing power.
People are pretty much like Gold fish. They will gorge themselves on whatever crap is thrown in front of them, for as long as there’s a supply even if its bad for them. That homes became unaffordable as you indicated doesn’t necessarily mean that people will stop buying. As long as they have even an inkling of a chance of weasling their way into a house with whatever snake oil loan product thrown at them, they’ll buy. Take that away and suddenly, the real problem that created the whole mess- unaffordability- rears its head.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:51 am
i c. so where it is it expanding to? rwc?
September 10th, 2008 at 9:13 am
DreamT says,
>>RealEstater – Today, yes, I know you’re right. But in 15 years? 10 years even?
I’m sure you’re familiar with the term “the rich gets richer”. Same thing is true here – the good areas get better.
>>The houses are too similar in construction
That is true, but a house can always be knocked down and rebuilt. The value is in the land and the location. In PA, you can rebuild a house and have it be worth more than what you put into it. You can’t do the same in Sunnyvale, because there’s an upper bound on how much people will pay for Sunnyvale before they choose to move to the next level of the hierarchy.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
>>the real problem that created the whole mess- unaffordability- rears its head.
Bob,
We talked about this before. There’s no affordability problem; there’s only an entitlement problem.
There are plenty of places in San Jose, Fremont, and other parts of the East Bay (such as your town) that are affordable, but everyone thinks they are entitled to own RBA right out of school.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:37 am
RE,
then you might want to tell all those people making 40k a year to get off their A$$ and buy a Palo Alto house, because since it isn’t an affordability problem, buying the current median priced 500k home surely isn’t a problem is it? Those fools.
Anyhow, pointless arguing with you since your statements generally go so far into left field that it amazes me. Now wonder the country is in such absolute crappy condition financially if there’s even a small supply of economically ignorant people such as yourself. So go right ahead, keep on saying that homes are totally cheap and affordable here, that RE is the BEST investment to make, and that pigs can fly.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am
And secondly, since people like me think the RBA is a a $hithole suburb that looks like Iowa with palm trees, how could I feel “entitled” to live there since where I live now is in my opinion a lot nicer?
September 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
[...] reported on the Bay Area rental market, for those of you wanting to calculate if it makes sense to rent or buy. Looks like every market [...]
September 10th, 2008 at 9:49 am
that RE is the BEST investment to make, and that pigs can fly.
———-
As we are talking about flying pigs, I am sure many of us read RFC 1925
September 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
It’s not an unaffordability problem – as someone said before its an OVER VALUED problem. The homes are being purchased – there is no doubt about this. This shows that there is no unaffordability problem. The problem is that many people bought garbage boxes at inflated dollar values with the expectation that they could sell them for the same price they paid for them or more.
Yes, RE: There are plenty of trash boxes people are just dying to unload so that someone else can take the equity burn in the next few years. This is not even close to Bob’s point.
Let me ask you this: Why would a person “straight out of school” choose to buy a dump in the east bay? Pride of homeownership?
It’s so funny how you keep parroting the same things over and over as if it makes them more true.
Watch what happens in the next few years when ’starter properties’ no longer have equity to ‘unlock.’
September 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am
There are plenty of places in San Jose, Fremont, and other parts of the East Bay (such as your town) that are affordable,
——–
They are still over-valued. Just because it is affordable that does not mean people should buy it.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:19 am
But…but… a fresh grad could afford a ferrari on a $60,000 salary if they take out a 10 year loan.
Therefore ferraris are “affordable.”
September 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Bob says,
>>then you might want to tell all those people making 40k a year to get off their A$$ and buy a Palo Alto house, because since it isn’t an affordability problem
I really wonder if you read my whole post and understood it.
Pralay says,
>>They are still over-valued. Just because it is affordable that does not mean people should buy it.
Is that just your subjective opinion, or is there some basis for it? During the dot-com boom, people thought the same thing, but it turns out homes were under-valued compared to today. You can keep going back in time and find yourself in the same position, thinking homes were overvalued when in fact it doubles every 10 years on average.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:31 am
>>But…but… a fresh grad could afford a ferrari on a $60,000 salary if they take out a 10 year loan.
That was precisely my point. A first time buyer shouldn’t feel entitled to own in PA. They need to start somewhere affordable make their way up the hierarchy.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Reiteration of the SAAAAAAAAAAME POINTS:
1) When the dot com era busted, money went to real estate because it (a) had no place to go and (b) interest rates were kept artificially low to stimulate the economy.
2) Yep – every 10 years. Do you not understand that a home bought in 1980 for 500,000 would be nearly 4 million dollars now? Can you find one that actaully appreciated like this?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
s that just your subjective opinion, or is there some basis for it?
———-
Come on. Before asking for basis, why don’t you show the basis of your argument?
Home price is always tied to income. That’s the basis.
And did I mention that home price is still falling in those areas? They even have foreclosure bus-tour nowadays.
———
thinking homes were overvalued when in fact it doubles every 10 years on average.
———
You keep accusing others for extrapolations, but you yourself cannot stop doing it. Just because it doubled in last 10 years, that does not mean it is going to repeat in next 10 years. Needless to mention that the way in east bay, san jose home prices are falling this non-sense 10 year theory does not apply anymore.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:38 am
No, that’s not your point.
The point I was attempting to illustrate there is that if a fresh grad making such a small amount of money were to take out 100 year neg am loan, a fresh grad could ALSO afford RBA.
Would that mean that the ‘affordability’ problem would be solved? NO. If those loans were to become the norm, the arbitrary dollar value assigned to the homes on paper would skyrocket. Why? Because there is the same amount of competition and now people can “afford” to “pay” more.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:39 am
A first time buyer shouldn’t feel entitled to own in PA.
———-
Does anybody here actually feel so?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am
But don’t forget anon, whatever RealEstater predicted has become true. So he got to be right no matter how much BS it is.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I’ve never met anyone who felt that way.
The way I feel is that a college graduate should not be relegated to buying a run down shit box in the ghetto with a bunch of gangbangers as neighbors.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Well the good thing at least is that now recent college grads CAN buy the shit box in the ghetto, whereas 2 years ago that shit box cost $500,000 to start, so things are certainly improving.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
“But don’t forget anon, whatever RealEstater predicted has become true. So he got to be right no matter how much BS it is.
”
Right, like how he insisted there was no credit crunch or any problems in the economy, and only after it had been in the news for 3 months he comes back from vacation proclaiming something to the effect of: I think we’re in for a small amount of decline until the end of the year.
He’s like the anti-bob. (no offense bob)
September 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
i still don’t see how trading up works. you buy a house, it appreciates 5% YoY. the area you want to trade up to appreciates 5% YoY. you’re still screwed. just a bit less so.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
This above is very true, but remember another benefit is that it is also “forced savings.”
What you would be paying in rent effectively becomes savings in the form of (magic) equity.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
i still don’t see how trading up works. you buy a house, it appreciates 5% YoY. the area you want to trade up to appreciates 5% YoY. you’re still screwed. just a bit less so.
————
Of course it has an assumption that the current home appreciating 5%, which may not be true for all the homes in east bay and san jose.
On this issue, Gavin posted an excellent comment four months back.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:06 am
It worked in the past because up to 2006 the lowest tier had appreciated much faster than the two tiers above it, having tripled since 2000, and more than quadrupled since 1996. Whereas the top tier was less than double its 2000 price.
Clear this doesn’t work anymore, it only worked because people were desperate to buy or invest in RE, and were bidding up anything they could get approved for.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Right, like how he insisted there was no credit crunch or any problems in the economy,
———–
Funny thing is that he could not control his exuberance after watching Dow went up on Monday after bailout news and declared that market is “all clear for take-off“, only to witness 280 points drop on Tuesday.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Take for example Tracy vs Livermore.
Median Price
Tracy Livermore
2006 $560,750 $608,000
2007 $500,000 $600,000
July 2007 $481,500 $635,000
July 2008 $300,000 $495,000
Clearly volume distribution in each town will affect the median, but I don’t think it would be far fetched for me to say.
Interestingly in 2002 the number was more like this:
2002 $307,000 $370,000
September 10th, 2008 at 11:27 am
>>Yep – every 10 years. Do you not understand that a home bought in 1980 for 500,000 would be nearly 4 million dollars now?
This shows that you are unware of the history. Back in 1980, a typical home sold for $100K (I know because my parents bought such a home). That same home is worth a minimum of $800K today. A $500K house back then was a lot of money, and would indeed be worth $4M today.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Pralay says,
>>Funny thing is that he could not control his exuberance after watching Dow went up on Monday after bailout news and declared that market is “all clear for take-off“, only to witness 280 points drop on Tuesday.
My comment was regarding real estate, not the stock market. DOW is up over 100 now. Do you want to argue back and forth everyday?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
>>The point I was attempting to illustrate there is that if a fresh grad making such a small amount of money were to take out 100 year neg am loan, a fresh grad could ALSO afford RBA.
When we say affordable, we don’t mean taking extreme measures. If you have to take out a 100 year loan, you cannot afford it. Don’t waste time making a worthless point.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
#163 – “Same thing is true here – the good areas get better.” And the not as good areas get better too.
My point is that some areas will appreciate more quickly than others. I postulate that Palo Alto midtowm will appreciate less quickly than some others areas that aren’t destination places today but will become so.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
#161 – bob I actually agree with a few of your points. Although when I do, why should I bother posting?
Regarding your question “what exactly do you think caused houses to stop selling in the first place?” you’ll need to place it in context. The few houses that were for sale this year in my street sold immediately except for the priciest one (which took 2 months). So while I’m sure your question is pertinent in some areas, I personally cannot relate to it. Certainly I don’t observe that homes are unaffordable as the frothiest markets are in the pricier neighborhoods.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:49 am
My comment was regarding real estate, not the stock market. DOW is up over 100 now. Do you want to argue back and forth everyday?
———-
Oh, yes, it was about real estate. In post#64 when you make the following statements, it was indeed about real estate:
“We’re all clear for take-off, and the market did just that today.”
So, how exactly real estate responded “today” (i.e Monday)?
———
DOW is up over 100 now. Do you want to argue back and forth everyday?
———-
For that matter, I never argued for/against stock market based on one day rise or fall. It’s you who could not stop commenting too early (and prematurely). Yes, market was “all clear to take off” based on only Monday result. After all it RealEstater’s prediction.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am
“This shows that you are unware of the history. Back in 1980, a typical home sold for $100K (I know because my parents bought such a home). That same home is worth a minimum of $800K today. A $500K house back then was a lot of money, and would indeed be worth $4M today.”
It does not, sir. I have multiple friends who purchased homes in this price range at that time. Their homes are not worth $4M. Most are valued in the range of $2M.
“When we say affordable, we don’t mean taking extreme measures. If you have to take out a 100 year loan, you cannot afford it. Don’t waste time making a worthless point.”
Extreme measures – like taking out a neg am loan banking on rediculous appreciation? What do you classify as ‘extreme?’
More generally, I have to tell you guys: My subjective perception is that the high end homes did not appreciate like the low end homes in the past 10 years. (This is by %, not dollar).
A 1.5 million dollar home in the 90’s was around 2.8-3.0 in the peak.
Whereas a crap box that went for around $100,000 in the 90’s went for >$500,000 in the peak.
For RE: that’s 2x vs. 5x
Has anyone else noticed this?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Pralay,
You’re still arguing back and forth.
All I said was the market went up that day. The first sentence made no reference to the stock market. Why do you insist I’m predicting the stock market when that is not the case?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Pralay,
A grounded plane cannot crash!!
September 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Sir, clear for takeoff implies that something 1) has not taken off (as it has just been cleared) and 2) that it will fly once it approaches the critical speed.
Or, perhaps you meant cleared for take off… only to crash into the end of the runway…
September 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Mateo/948-Daisy-St-94401/home/2049354
Note how it is priced at 2.5 times the price 20 years ago, nowhere near 4 times as much. While it is just a sample, you will be hard pressed to find this 4 multiple except for some formerly sketchy neighborhoods.
Whereas a crap box that went for around $100,000 in the 90’s went for >$500,000 in the peak.
For RE: that’s 2x vs. 5x
That was absolutely true 2 years ago, not so much now, some of those are going into the 200s pretty quickly.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
>>It does not, sir. I have multiple friends who purchased homes in this price range at that time. Their homes are not worth $4M. Most are valued in the range of $2M.
Really? You have friends who bought in 1980 for $500K? May I ask what city they live in? It can be easily checked.
Where were you back then? Why did you not buy when your friends did?
September 10th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Sure, you can ask. Does that mean you will get an answer?
they are in palo alto, piedmont, and atherton. Before you ask for an address, I’ll tell you that you will not get one.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
All I said was the market went up that day.
——–
What is the point of telling something that fluctuates almost everyday? You got to be implying something.
Secondly, when you say “we are all clear to take off”, what is “we”? Oops, I forgot you meant “real estate” – real estate market, real estate industry, real estate agent so on. I thought you are in hitech industry. Freudian slip?
September 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The first sentence made no reference to the stock market.
——
BTW, I quoted only one sentence. No first or second.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
very true; we could be the netizens of burbed, anyone with a vested interested in real estate, anyone in the stock market, anyone in the economy.
What exactly was it that was cleared for takeoff?
On another note, Pralay, maybe you’re holding RE to the wrong statement. I think a better one would be “the market is fixed now.”
September 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
On another note, Pralay, maybe you’re holding RE to the wrong statement. I think a better one would be “the market is fixed now.”
—–
You mean post #33?
“The nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved now, and that’s why the stock market is ever so optimistic.”
Ever so optimistic! For only one day.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
BTW, as RealEstater said “nation’s mortgage/credit problems are solved now“, it got to be true. In future if you hear another financial institution failure (e.g Lehman), just assume that it is lie. Those are all false news reported by media, for the sole purpose of bringing down housing market.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Oh. right.
Wise words, my man…I will definatly take this into consideration. Disregard all MSM statements that are bad for real estate, mindlessly repeat all MSM statements which may have a positive impact.
Hey, I’m just trying to be positive. Is that a crime? It’s certainly not impersonating multiple personalities.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Since Pralay has a reading comprehension problem, let me just clarify once and for all.
The statement “we’re all clear for take-off” was referring to the real estate market being tied up by the credit and mortgage crisis. Now that government has taken decisive action, those elements adding constraint/obstacles to purchasing RE have been removed, so the runway is “cleared” for takeoff.
I thought it was pretty obvious that was what the post was all about. The stock market response on that day was tied to this event, so it was mentioned. Nowhere did I ever make any predictions about the stock market.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Pralay/anon,
Are you guys nominating me for President? Typically only a President’s every word is carefully watched, dissected, and interpreted.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Reading comprehension problem? You can’t even reconcile your own posts.
So what you meant is that the real estate runway has been cleared – nothing more. Obviously you made no assertions that the plane has gas or is even flightworthy. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and tell you that I think your plane may be 10 feet long, painted yellow and has wheels.
By the way: your new statement “those elements adding constraint/obstacles to purchasing RE have been removed” is incorrect. Credit is still more difficult to obtain than it was 2 years ago. Salaries are the same or less when adjusted for inflation. Where is the money coming from? Ah, crap. Foreigners. Nevermind.
Let’s all watch as the real estate market continues in the same vain, despite foreign money coming in y the truckload.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Nope, not nominating you for anything. This is for posterity and my own entertainment. However, it may be possible to provide you with an appropriate award…
September 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
By the way: your new statement “those elements adding constraint/obstacles to purchasing RE have been removed” is incorrect.
——-
How dare you say that RealEstater is incorrect. He was right all along.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Are you guys nominating me for President? Typically only a President’s every word is carefully watched, dissected, and interpreted.
——-
Not President. I am nominating you for New Chuck Norris.
BTW, someone who claims “I was right all along” deserves that kind of scrutiny – even if it not a serious but sarcastic one.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Anon says,
>>So what you meant is that the real estate runway has been cleared – nothing more. Obviously you made no assertions that the plane has gas or is even flightworthy.
Your read is certainly more refined and sophisticated than Pralay’s. I’ll give you some bonus points in case Pralay win’s Gold again today.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Holly macro, whenever I see posts go past 100 I knew RE and Pralay must be at it again.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Not only that, I asked bob to give me the source of the negative savings rate (-.08%) and he referred me to an article on unemployment insurance, a topic I have never commented on.
I really wish burbed would put all a certain pair’s bickering in moderation for a couple of days until they cool off.
As to the house on Cowper, I am actually surprised to find that while the lot is smaller than mine, the house is actually larger. The school scores are actually pretty similar to ours, although the high school is better.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“Your read is certainly more refined and sophisticated than Pralay’s. I’ll give you some bonus points in case Pralay win’s Gold again today.”
No, my “read” is me showing you how to retrospectively water down your preposterous statement such that it could be consistent with what actually happened. It’d readily obvious that this is NOT what you meant when you originally posted it. Read the way I construed it, it is essentially devoid of any meaning. In that case, I’d like to refer you to your previous statement in post 190: “Don’t waste time making a worthless point.”
You’re either wrong or you’re a hipocrate. Which is it?
Maybe I should take a break too. Ripping on RE is starting to eat into my time. It’s just too entertaining to resist.
Any way you cut it, the runway has plenty of obstructions and is sliding off a hill.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I’ll give you some bonus points in case Pralay win’s Gold again today.
———
I bet you need those bonus point considering the fact that you had only Silver. Or, as you are posting messages from your “management class” work
, you can add those points to your frequent flyer mileage account.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
It’d readily obvious that this is NOT what you meant when you originally posted it.
———–
If someone takes 10 posts to clarify his point (to be precise, 10 posts to do backfitting), there is something wrong in it.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
backfitting by agreeing with someone who has taken a completely sarcastic construction of the post, no less.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
>>If someone takes 10 posts to clarify his point (to be precise, 10 posts to do backfitting), there is something wrong in it.
Pralay, I clarified only because you have trouble comprehending.
Madhaus, I really don’t care to bicker with this guy, just explaining/helping as needed.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
(speaking to himself) Argh, Roger overdose (TM)
September 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Pralay, I clarified only because you have trouble comprehending.
——
Just remember that it was not me who referred you as New Chuck Norris or Chuck Norris’s son first. It seems most of the people can see through what you actually meant.
———-
Madhaus, I really don’t care to bicker with this guy, just explaining/helping as needed.
———
I bet she remembers your bickering (or “helping”) pretty well. For example, this “man enough” one.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Anon says,
>>they are in palo alto, piedmont, and atherton. Before you ask for an address, I’ll tell you that you will not get one.
You seem paranoid. No wonder you’re making up all kinds of twisted interpretations to what I’m trying to say.
Looks like your friends all bought into the right places. How did you end up renting until now?
I can tell you that your statement is balony. My PA home is in the 2M range, and it was definitely not $500K in 1980.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
and how much do you believe it was in 1980?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I have a couple examples of historical home pricing I can share since it has come up for discussion. I can only guess at the current value, but I tried to be conservative.
My parents bought in ‘79 in Danville for 250k – now worth about 1.4 and Mr. S’s parents bought in ‘71 in West MP for 40k now worth about 2.5.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Palo Alto’s price appreciation outpaced most towns in the Bay Area in the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps not as much in this century.
“Between 1980 and 2000, four of the five cities in the U.S. with the fastest-growing housing prices were in Boston’s metropolitan area: Cambridge, Somerville, Newton and Boston itself. (Palo Alto had the second-fastest-rising prices over that time.)”
JON GERTNER, Home Economics – New York Times, March 5, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305glaeser.1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
As for why RealEstater did not buy the house in 1980, or 1970 for that matter I don’t know, he obviously would’ve been much better off buying the house before the 1980s boom. Clearly $100,000 in 1980 bought you a below par house in PA, with a median 50% higher.
Median home price (through June 2006)*: $1,395,000
Median home price (through June 2005)*: $1,350,000
Median home price (1990): $457,800
Median home price (1980): $148,900
Median home price (1970): $33,900
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/com_info/by_the_numbers.php
What are the number for other Bay Area cities, like Danville, Fremont, Piedmont, Laffayette, Pleasanton, Los Altos, Atherton, Los Altos Hills, Burlingame, Hillsborough, the Marina district.
My guess is that none of these places match PA appreciation.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Anybody been to back-to-school night yet? Definitely noticed an increase in the number of foreigners judging by the accents. The trend of foreigners buying into the RBA is not a joke; it’s reality. In our school mostly they are from Europe, with some from Asia. There are virtually no Indians.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Ha ha! Those mythical foreigners. Does anybody have any statistics? O yes I forgot, they are coming without visa. Hence no statistics.
Only way you can trace them when their kids go to school and speak in different accent.
For others, who don’t believe in mythical foreigners, there is demographic data.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Anyone seen a less than tactful change of subject? How is back to school night any more related to soaring rents than Chuck Norris? Whatever.
“You seem paranoid. No wonder you’re making up all kinds of twisted interpretations to what I’m trying to say.”
Now my interpretation is “twisted?” In #213 you called it “refined and sophisticated.”
You keep accusing people of ‘twisting’ your words. I suppose from your perspective it may appear that way as we are simply trying to reconcile a whole bunch of contradictory nonsense.
Arguing with you is like arguing with the guy from Memento ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_(film) ).
September 10th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Anon,
Please no Chuck Norris please. “Please respect the forum and the other participants here” and discuss only real estate (and back-to-school night, and Porsche).
September 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Anyone who tells me I can’t discuss music will be beaten with my Mexi-Strat. (That’s the red one.)
September 10th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Mexi Strat or Maxi Pad?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Boy was that clever.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I see your un-clever comment and raise you 3.
“When RE buys real property, real estate agents pay him!”
“RE can overvalue properties with his eyes closed and one hand tied behind his back.”
“The property bubble was created from RE’s incessant parroting that real estate doubles every 10 years.”
“RE can only multiply by powers of 2″
September 10th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I bought a new guitar last month. Now we have 9 of them. Does that answer your question?
Oh yeah, I think your next question is, “But madhaus, why do have nine guitars?”
Because we sold three.
And an extra added bonus, my favorite answer to “How many bass players does it take to change a light bulb?”
One. Five. One. One. Five. Five. One. One.
I can’t wait for a certain someone to explain the answer to that one.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Madhaus,
If you insist…
Here’s a link.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/01/business/main2422489.shtml
The range I’ve read is anywhere from -0.05 to -0.08%. Either way, still a negative savings rate. I first read this story over a year ago. That was back when the economy was in better shape, gas and food was cheaper, and the housing crash hadn’t gone into overdrive. I would imagine that the savings rate has actually worsened since then.
One more thing.You would be the one to suggest that certain people should be moderated. You’re probably about the worst at pushing people’s buttons on here.So I wouldn’t be getting all high and mighty. As you’ve noticed, I actually post much less than I used to, primarily because people bicker and argue non-stop on this forum.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am
RE does not water his own lawn, RE’s lawn wets itself.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
bob you have got to be kidding. I asked you a direct question three times and you ignored it, this time you still don’t answer the question, you just give me a link and expect me to do your work for you.
The answers I was looking for for were:
1. The Commerce Department, and
2. “The savings rate is computed by taking the amount of personal income left after taxes are paid, an amount known as disposable income and subtracting the amount of spending. Since the figure has dipped into negative territory, it means consumers are spending all of disposable income and then some. ”
You must have gotten some interesting comments from your teachers on your report card.
And unlike you, I actually post things here people say they want to read. You’re just 97 verses of “My Old Kentucky Home” or whatever.
So do I have to explain the light bulb joke to you too?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Wait… you guys saw that article is from 2007, right?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Ha ha! Good eye, anon, that story is 18 months old. Well, that’s kind of how they do things where houses only cost a year and a half’s salary.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“Well, that’s kind of how they do things where houses only cost a year and a half’s salary.”
For that, I am jealous. But, alas, it is not the life I’ve chosen.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:23 am
[...] do you determine whether something is overvalued or unaffordable? Did rent soar? What’s the market like near you? [Burbed.com] anon Says: September 10th, 2008 at 9:57 [...]