Some comments from Madhaus
Unfortunately the anti-spam filter is blocking madhaus right now (sigh) so I thought I’d just post this directly as an entry:
Case-Schiller’s out, and the numbers keep on a-goin’ down, down!
San Francisco C-S index is now 151.42, same value last seen in October 2003. Yes you read that right, the SF area resold home index has lost five years’ worth of gains.
Last August was 208.15 so the August ’08 index is down an incredible 27%. If you look at the highest tiered prices (upper one-third), that’s down 13.5% (half the aggregate index) compared to last August. The upper tier’s index of 165.31 compares with prices in January/February of 2005. The lowest tier, however, is down 42.7% and the index of 139.44 is at the same rate last seen in (are you ready?) April/May 2001. Yes, I said 2001.
I don’t know if cream is rising to the top but the crap is definitely sinking.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Depends on what you want to read into the news. madhaus surely must’ve noticed the latest housing report was up, and above expectations; the stock market ran up almost 900 points yesterday, and the fed is about to lower interest rate to 1%.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Another bit of news:
Rents in Santa Clara County up 5.2%
Apartment rents in Santa Clara County rose 5.2 percent in the third quarter compared with a year earlier, hitting an average monthly rent of $1,708, an apartment industry research firm said Wednesday.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:19 am
From the Mercury news:
Lupe Parga and her family must find a house to rent, and soon.
In late June, the four-bedroom home she and her husband owned in San Jose’s Evergreen neighborhood was foreclosed upon. Parga, her husband, their four kids and Parga’s sister’s family are all still living there while seeking a rental that can hold both families. Meanwhile, they’re trying to stave off eviction from their former property.
“It’s really hard. Things are just getting rented right away,” said Parga, an accountant who was recently laid off from her job with a janitorial services company.
Parga said she’s applied for about a dozen rentals in the area since July, and is prepared to pay about $3,500 a month for a house with at least four bedrooms. But she’s had no success yet.
…
The result: It’s a competitive market for those seeking reasonably priced rentals, and it’s a pretty good time to be a landlord.
“The rental market has definitely become tighter in the sense that rents are going up,”
…
Michelle Harris, for example, owns a two-bedroom house near Interstate 280 at the north edge of San Jose’s Willow Glen neighborhood. While she was fixing it up to rent in July, she placed an ad online, asking for monthly rent of $1,800. The volume of responses, and the aggressive tactics of some of the applicants, told her she’d set the rent too low, Harris wrote in an e-mail to the Mercury News. Because of renovation delays, she didn’t rent the house out until September. By then she’d set the rent at $2,300, and still had a list of qualified tenants from which to choose.
“Everyone I showed the house to told me about the tight rental market,” Harris said.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Durable goods number for September is highest in 3 months. I’m not making this up!
October 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Wow! Rents rising again! What a great reason for people to want to come here! Truly, when a basic necessity becomes unaffordable and landlords are telling themselves they’ve set rents too LOW (!!!!), there is only one conclusion: GREED IS ALIVE AND WELL. So glad I moved to Oregon, where rain is vastly overrated and where I’m about to buy (AS IN “PAY CASH FOR”) a 1400 sf, fully restored/remodeled house in downtown Salem (similar to those Willow Glen charmers) for a mere $165K! And it is NOT a fixer. The Bay Area is nothing but Ground Zero for Greed. So glad I left, never to return. BTW, really nice, spacious 1BR apartment here can be had for $800. Why more people don’t move here is a mystery to me. (Oh, I forgot this is the place “where the sun never shines and there are NO JOBS.” Not true. The real world exists OUTSIDE the snobby, greedy Bay Area.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
>>I’m about to buy (AS IN “PAY CASH FOR”) a 1400 sf, fully restored/remodeled house in downtown Salem (similar to those Willow Glen charmers) for a mere $165K!
If a house only appreciated to $165K after 80+ years of existence, is there any hope for its future?
October 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I really like how rents have hardly changed since the dot-com days:
Jul 26, 2001
The RealFacts numbers show the average rent fell $137 to $1813 in Santa Clara County; $159 to $2157 in San Francisco; $54 to $1815 in San Mateo County; …
Recently:
Apartment rents in Santa Clara County rose 5.2 percent in the third quarter compared with a year earlier, hitting an average monthly rent of $1,708, an apartment industry research firm said Wednesday.
We are still $240 short of the apartment rents in the height of the dot-com days. Clearly some people got comfortable with the lower rents in 2003/2004/2005.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Golly gee, RE! With the picture you paint, it almost feels like 1999!
Let’s play with some numbers.
Average rent is $1708 and rent is up 5%. That’s an increase of $85.40. Oh jeez. What’s a poor renter to do? I guess I should light one less cigar with a hundred dollar bill. Shucks.
Median home price is what, now? $600k? So if that’s down 27% in the past year, that’s $162,000 or $13,500 a month. Hmm. Will it keep falling? Who knows. That sure is a lot of money to be throwing away on home ownership. I could buy 5 LCD screens and smash each one with a baseball bat and still be better off than a homeowner who bought recently.
Feel free to correct my numbers on the basis of fact. If I am missing something, please tell me. Otherwise, it looks like the guaranteed depreciation cat is out of the bag.
Oh, and a little reality check: “The upper tier’s index of 165.31 compares with prices in January/February of 2005.” Didn’t you say you bought in 2003? LOL – We’re almost there!
“Durable goods number for September is highest in 3 months. I’m not making this up!”
Hilarious. Guys – stock market has tanked, but shorts are up! We’re cleeeeeeeeared for takeoff! I’m not making this up.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“If a house only appreciated to $165K after 80+ years of existence, is there any hope for its future?”
What? Are you worried it may fall down? For your purposes – you said you intend to leave feet first – the arbitrary amount it would fetch at market is irrelevant.
Why should he be any different?
October 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
In late June, the four-bedroom home she and her husband owned in San Jose’s Evergreen neighborhood was foreclosed upon.
……
……
Parga said she’s applied for about a dozen rentals in the area since July, and is prepared to pay about $3,500 a month for a house with at least four bedrooms. But she’s had no success yet.
…..
…..
“The rental market has definitely become tighter in the sense that rents are going up,”
——-
Oh boy, is that really a convincing story to show rental market is heating up?
If I was the landlord I would not prefer an rental applicant who just got her home foreclosed, unless rental market is really really bad. Today she cannot pay mortgage, tomorrow she won’t be able to pay rent.
Isn’t she laid off? I would be curious to know how she is covering 3X income criteria for $3500 rental.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Pralay says,
>>I would be curious to know how she is covering 3X income criteria for $3500 rental.
Perhaps you can tell us how you do it?
October 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“Parga, her husband, their four kids and Parga’s sister’s family are all still living there while seeking a rental that can hold both families.”
Pralay makes a good point. This sounds like the Brady Bunch. Who would want to rent to them? If I were a landlord, I wouldn’t rent to them – I’d prefer to find 4 “professionals.” (seriously)
Never the less, rents are up.
By the way. The Parga’s home will soon be for sale. Yep, that’s one more home on the market.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
No response to my post, RE? Did the numbers make you dizzy? LOL
October 29th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Perhaps you can tell us how you do it?
——
I don’t rent a $3500 rental property. And I don’t think any landlord would rent $3500 property to family that does not have stable income (laid off janitor). So, she is not getting rental – that’s NOT because rental market is heating up, but because either she does not qualify for those rental properties or landlord does not consider her as a safe and stable tenant.
You posted an case from SJM article to show rental market heating up. But as usual you fails to make argument how this case demonstrates so. Instead you are making silly counter-questions.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
No response to my post, RE? Did the numbers make you dizzy? LOL
——
Unless numbers have lots of 8, it can potentially cause dizziness for an alumni of Alpha College of Real Estate.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
>>No response to my post, RE? Did the numbers make you dizzy? LOL
Jesus, what am I, a real-time web service?
Anyways, ignoring the fact that is area in question is not Real Bay Area, you’re imposing artificial cutoffs. If You look at what the property was worth 10 years ago, you’ll see a very different result. The owner would still be making a large percentage profit. As I’ve always said, real estate is not day trading; these are long term investments.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Whatever, buddy.
It’s nice to see home values crashing.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Whatever?? After you disrupted my work to give you an answer, your response is “whatever”?
October 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
that was an answer?
October 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Anon,
Chuckie is “disrupting” his work for multi-timezone, multi-country, multi-million-dollar mega-project – just to throw jabs and insults to people who never met or know. Please have some humility and receive his jabs and insults silently. Afterall, it is a matter of multi-timezone, multi-country, multi-million-dollar mega project. You don’t want to tank hitech industry with your little “whatever”.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I had to get back to the smashing of LCD screens. So many screens to smash, so little time.
By the way, Chuck, those ‘artificial cutoffs’ are the same ones that are used to create the pseudo-maxim ‘real estate doubles every 10 years’
Work to disrupt? What are you ‘helping’ people on other blogs too?
October 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
anon,
10 years on the average is not an artificial cutoff. 10 years is quite a long time. You may even get promoted in that time!
October 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
What are you ‘helping’ people on other blogs too?
——
You mean Porsche blog?
October 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
It’s not a 10 year window that is inspected. It is an extrapolation from a shorter period of time. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The appreciation rate for real estate is somewhere around 6%. Yes, this in the RBA and in high end neighborhoods. Find me a 10 year period where it actually doubled – either in the aggregate or in a high end area (what you would call RBA).
I know you’re new to the high end real estate game, so I’ll explain this as best as I can. Expensive homes did not see anywhere near the percentage gain that the shit boxes did. In the time that a shit box would appreciate from $250k to $500k, a nice home that was 2mil would appreciate to 2.2mil. That’s a 100% increase vs. a 10% increase. Can you say: “order of magnitude?”
lol…Promoted? From LCD smasher to Picaso smasher? OOOoo that would be sweet. I don’t know if I am ready for the responsibility. Besides, the pay increase from a promotion is inconsequential. The real money is in buying real estate, right?
October 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
>>I know you’re new to the high end real estate game, so I’ll explain this as best as I can.
LOL. This coming from a guy who has never bought a house in his life.
>>Expensive homes did not see anywhere near the percentage gain that the shit boxes did.
Let’s just stop here. How did the “expensive” homes get that expensive? Jeez, it couldn’t have something to do with appreciation, could it?
October 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“LOL. This coming from a guy who has never bought a house in his life.”
Chuck, can you see Russia? Just kidding. Like I said, if you knew what you were talking about there is no way you could disagree with what I write. During this property boom high end homes saw nowhere near the percentage increase that the low end homes. Are you seriously contesting this assertion?
“Let’s just stop here. How did the “expensive” homes get that expensive? Jeez, it couldn’t have something to do with appreciation, could it?”
Yes, Chuck. All homes start with a valuation of 0. The original valuation has nothing to do with the location or size of the land. It further has nothing to do with the quality and size the building thereon and the materials which were used to make it.
How are you such a simpleton?
October 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I’m amazed that no one has complained that the C-S indices are all meaningless aggregate data! But what’s even more amusing is the example of a family who can’t find a rental saying rent is too expensive, and not admitting they aren’t getting the place because… DUH, they’re a credit risk!
Only some of RBA is in SF C-S data because Santa Clara County is not included. San Mateo County is, as is Alameda.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
RealEstater : real estate
a) fox : news
b) drudge : report
c) moral : majority
d) rear : airspace
October 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
But what’s even more amusing is the example of a family who can’t find a rental saying rent is too expensive, and not admitting they aren’t getting the place because… DUH, they’re a credit risk!
But that’s the realtor’s fault… and the mortgage broker who told them what they could “afford”… and the appraiser who said their shitbox was worth $600k even though it sold for $250k a few years prior… and, uh, the Democrats for their housing policies, uh… who have I left out?? Dammit, the world owes them a place to live!
Wow, two families – one is a family of SIX – in one four bedroom house. I wouldn’t rent to them either.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
nomadic,
If madhaus tells you her shitbox is worth $1M today, even though a similar unit could be had for less than $300K elsewhere (e.g. Central Valley CA, Austin TX, LoserVille Tennessee), do you think there’s any deception involved? This is a real world example where the home owner, realtor, mortgage broker and appraiser would all agree it’s worth $1M today.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
LOL nomadic, maybe they can live in their Cadillac escalade
October 29th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
The only real world above is Chuckie taking the opportunity to insult both my house and Fristy’s home state. I’ve never ever called my overpriced shack a sh– box. Chuckie implies I’ve listed it for sale (haven’t), had it appraised for a mil (haven’t) while refinancing (I last refi’d in 2005). So here’s the above post vetted for accuracy; isn’t much left:
October 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Chuckie : RBA ::
a) trophy : wife
b) mega : project
c) Prius : Porsche
d) here : help
e) 95051 : respect
October 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
madhaus – RealEstater is still working on the art of the understated compliment. Or as we previously mentioned, he simply has Tourette.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
madhaus – RealEstater is still working on the art of the understated compliment. Or as we previously mentioned, he simply has Tourette.
The understated compliment. Gotcha, DreamT. Similarly John McCain has underwhelming support, George Bush has unrealized approval ratings, and Sarah Palin has underutilized intelligence.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
madhaus,
When I said I was shopping for an investment house under $1M, you said that I cannot afford your house because it is over $1M. Were you lying then or are you lying now? This is a pretty serious incident, since I told everyone that nobody makes up stuff here.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
madhaus – And now RealEstater is unnerved.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
lol a serious incident on the internet.
sound the alarms.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
RE, if you think houses in Evergreen are worth the valuations they were during the peak, why aren’t you buying them up now that they are at “bargain” prices? You’re giving up instant equity! If you don’t, then why are you making silly arguments and further eroding your nearly non-existent credibility? My little “blame game” was just that; a game.
As for madhaus’ house: I don’t have a problem believing it could sell for around a million bucks. My place sold for that range in 2005 and values haven’t dramatically changed since then. But you don’t see a difference here, do you?
October 29th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
nomadic,
You have a B.S. degree from a 6th ranked engineering school. How the hell can you miss the point?
When that person bought the Evergreen house, it was indeed worth $600K. There was no foul play involved, just as you would agree madhaus’ shack is worth $1M today. However, if some unforeseen event happens (e.g. Pralay’s country attacks our friend Pakistan with nukes) and U.S. economy is shocked, causing the shack to lose a chunk of its value, can you use hindsight to blame the parties involved in the transaction? I’d say that’s totally ludicrous.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
India and Pakistan are neither my friends nor my foes. Keep your possessive pronouns to yourself..
As for shock, shack, chunk, that sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me…. Chuck!
October 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
DreamT,
It’s not a matter of your opinion. The U.S. considers Pakistan a key ally in the War on Terror.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Why did Chuckie make comment #36? It has nothing to do with the corrections made to #30. A number of corrections were made, Chuckie ignored every single one of them, and now is arguing about a fact that was never in dispute.
Why does Chuckie do this? Is he lying in #30 or in #36? A better question is does spoon-counting around Chuckie break the sound barrier before or after he insists upon his honesty? Or to use the cavuto mark:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
You cannot predict or control the market. Fascinating. RE, your ability to parrot fundamental statments and then completely miss even the most basic inferences is quite remarkable.
You can choose not compete with half witted people who create bidding wars using another entity’s money and none of their own.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Chuckie : honesty ::
a) Ann Coulter : sweetness
b) Rush Limbaugh : health
c) Karl Rove : fairness
d) Tonya Harding : sportsmanship
e) Ted Stevens : ethical
October 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
RealEstater – Easy on the capitalizations as well! And thanks for correcting. “The US’ friend” is accurate, “our friend” is not.
Before you try pulling teeth, let me illustrate: “The US declared war on terror” versus “We declared war on terror”. See the difference? Lots of US citizen who disagree with the “war on terror” certainly do.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
As for matter of opinion… Last time you confused fact for opinion and I had to explain. This time, you confuse opinion for fact. We’re running around in circles – cannot wait for the cavalry!
October 29th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
madhaus says,
>>Why did Chuckie make comment #36? It has nothing to do with the corrections made to #30
Sorry for explaining the obvious to those of you who get it. Here’s what she said in #32:
>>This is a real world example where [I put words in] the home owner['s mouth that] it’s worth $1M today.
Here’s my response in #36:
When I said I was shopping for an investment house under $1M, you said that I cannot afford your house because it is over $1M. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
************************************
In summary, I did not put those words in her mouth. She made the statement herself.
madhaus, are you denying you said that?
October 29th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
DreamT,
To save myself some typing, let’s just say the only person who’s confused is yourself.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
You could have saved yourself and everybody else the entire post #49, then.
At least in my opinion (and that’s a fact).
October 29th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
You have a B.S. degree from a 6th ranked engineering school. How the hell can you miss the point?
How the hell can you pretend to be serious with your posts when they keep bouncing off on bizarre tangents?
October 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Why did Chuckie repeat himself rather than address that he’s lying in either #30 or #36? How fast are you counting your spoons? How much did real estate drop today due to Chuckie?
October 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“they keep bouncing off on bizarre tangents?”
The guy hasn’t slept in two days! What do you expect? Between posting on burbed through the night, or getting laid off, what would you have chosen?
October 29th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
nomadic,
What do you mean by bizarre tanget? I merely repeated what you told me.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Damn, I thought I was giving nomadic a compliment!
October 29th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
LOL! Is it just me or is there a comprehension issue here?
RE. Let’s try that again and see if you understand it differently this way:
How the hell can you miss the point?
How the hell can you pretend to be serious with your posts when they keep bouncing off on bizarre tangents?
The context is this thread…not the school reference. That was not relevant.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
a compliment? aww, how sweet.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“LOL! Is it just me or is there a comprehension issue here?”
No it’s only me. Chuckie said I’m the only confused body here, and you haven’t been allowed to be confused – so don’t act as if you were!
October 29th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Chuckie : clarity ::
a) Auror : dementor
b) lookout : abyss
c) monitor : absence
d) community : anarchy
e) pervert : seraph
October 29th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Rents are up, eh? 5%? And prices are down 25% or so?
And everyone still thinks that 120x GRM is never gonna happen, huh?
Sure, you keep thinking that.
At this rate, I think I may go shopping for a house next year after all.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
“A number of corrections were made, Chuckie ignored every single one of them, and now is arguing about a fact that was never in dispute.”
Boy did this statement nail it. This is what’s so great about Chuck. He blows your mind every time.
re to dreamt: “To save myself some typing, let’s just say the only person who’s confused is yourself.”
He’s not, I can assure you.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:49 am
It’s not a matter of your opinion. The U.S. considers Pakistan a key ally in the War on Terror.
——
You mean that infamous Coalition Of Willing? Is Chuckie so dumb? Or acting like a dumb? Key ally? Bush admin poured enormous amount of US tax dollars to Pakistan to fight against terrorism. Let’s see what Obama has to say about those tax dollars:
Key ally indeed! That does not mean it was a hogwash. Once in a while Musharraf rounded up couple of Al Qaeda guys and handed over to Bush company to make them happy and show America that US tax dollar are being used effectively.
Of course India and Pakistan are not friends. What if India attacks? Ooops, those nukes will probably have some “Made In USA” stickers. Too bad!
Bottomlime, in world politics nobody is “Key Ally” or friends – neither Pakistan nor India nor China (who are holding massive US treasury bonds) or Japan or Russia. It’s all about give and take. Hence relations are very complex. And I don’t expect a real estate agent like Chuckie who even don’t understand some basic things of domestic economics will suddenly understands world politics.
Didn’t the same Chuckie talked about having his kids “travel widely” to make them well-rounded? Well, traveling widely with a simpleton parent like Chuckie it’s very unlikely those kids will be well-rounded.
October 30th, 2008 at 1:02 am
“Once in a while Musharraf rounded up couple of Al Qaeda guys and handed over to Bush company to make them happy and show America that US tax dollar are being used effectively.”
“Yep, we’re doin’ more than just line our cronies pockets.” Bush says to the American people.
Create a problem, pretend you solved it, get paid.
October 30th, 2008 at 1:08 am
The guy hasn’t slept in two days! What do you expect? Between posting on burbed through the night, or getting laid off, what would you have chosen?
Round-The-Clock Management Class Guy.
——
October 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
>And everyone still thinks that 120x GRM is never gonna happen, huh?
If that does, Burbed.com might implode!
October 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
““LOL. This coming from a guy who has never bought a house in his life.”
my response: “During this property boom high end homes saw nowhere near the percentage increase that the low end homes. Are you seriously contesting this assertion?”
Sooo, I really don’t understand why Chuck hasn’t responded to this.
is it:
A) Because he knows I am correct
B) Because he believes me to be wrong
c) Because he is too stupid to understand the sentence.
D) Too much of a pig head to admit someone on the internet is correct.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
E) He forgot you asked. Keenly tuned selective memory. Plausible deniability.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
F) He is maintaining a delightful balance of impulse control and making a fool of himself.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
G) He is still puzzling out the analogies above.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
H) He is still goolging Indian college names.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I) Wipro worker bees are in Diwali holidays. So Chuckie can’t answer.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
J) He’s busy pretending to ignore this thread.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
K) He understands the entire internet is laughing at him and can’t bear to show his face.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
L) He’s basking in the attention he gets here. Doesn’t matter if it’s negative attention.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
M) He has been vanquished; confined to the RBA – never to return to burbed.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:21 am
Guys,
I think a few clarifications are in order, to help contain some of the wild imaginations that breaks out here from time to time (e.g. Palo Alto will drop any minute now!).
First, A few folks jumped to conclusions, but I never said I have any business relations with Wipro. Wipro was merely an example.
Finally, India is indeed on vacation this week (although our vendor is not off the entire time). This is the reason you have not seen me here in the wee hours of the morning this week. One has to be pretty bored in life to stay up til 2AM just to chat on Burbed.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:40 am
After this post by Chuckie does anybody has doubt that Chukie’s multi-timezone, multi-country, multi-million-dollar dollar is a fictitious one? Raise your hand.
BTW, I asked the Wipro guy about “24×7 IT infrastructure”. That’s not a mega-project. It’s a fancy name for outsourcing IT department. Nowadays many companies outsourced their IT dept altogether. It is managed by service provider companies like Wipro.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:44 am
Finally, India is indeed on vacation this week (although our vendor is not off the entire time).
———–
Chuckie,
Do you want me to correct above statement? This is the first time I started having sympathy on you.
Let’s forget multi-**** mega-project topic. Let’s talk about RBA real estate market.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:49 am
Pralay,
LOL. The stalker in you couldn’t resist calling up the Wipro guy?
I suggest you carefully read the original post. It was a request for you to educate yourself. I never said anything about my business relations.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:56 am
>>Let’s forget multi-**** mega-project topic. Let’s talk about RBA real estate market.
Now you want to talk about real estate?
I’m still trying to get over taking you for that ride. I knew that as soon as an opportunity is presented, the stalker in your would leap right out!
October 31st, 2008 at 9:59 am
Chuckie,
As you want to drag your multi-*** mega-project farther, here little more correction:
There is no “India is indeed on vacation this week”. There is only oneday holiday for Diwali.
Secondly, why did you ask about “24X7 IT Infrastructure”, unless you are trying to imply that this is something to do with your multi-*** mega-project?
Why did you ask “ever worked with Wipro”, unless you are working with Wipro?
October 31st, 2008 at 10:05 am
This is the reason you have not seen me here in the wee hours of the morning this week.
——–
Question: What does Chuckie do by staying up till 2AM?
My guess: He works for Wipro and responds to service call 24×7.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:11 am
LOL. The stalker in you couldn’t resist calling up the Wipro guy?
——–
Chuckie,
I did not call him. There is something called “email”, you know. And I did not ask him about you either, because there was no doubt in my mind that you are making stuffs up (and there is not doubt in mind that you are NOT an “average hitech guy”). I was just curious about “24×7 IT infrastructure” and that’s why I emailed him.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:12 am
Pralay,
All you need to know is that I am indeed managing such a project. I’ve signed a NDS, and I cannot share more details, especially not to a stalker.
As for your questions, I already answered those in #79.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:16 am
I suggest you carefully read the original post. It was a request for you to educate yourself.
————
What is there to educate myself about an IT outsourcing solution? I don’t roam around with MS Office installation CD in my office.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:18 am
LOL.
Imaginations…get…carried…away… The only imagination that is out of control is Chuck’s.
sending an email = stalker.
“Expensive homes did not see anywhere near the percentage gain that the shit boxes did. ” = “(e.g. Palo Alto will drop any minute now!).”
If the man has a job, it’s because his supervisor pities him and wont let him go.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:18 am
All you need to know is that I am indeed managing such a project.
———–
Now we are CONVINCED!!!!!!!!!!!
October 31st, 2008 at 10:19 am
“Now we are CONVINCED!!!!!!!!!!! ”
LOL
October 31st, 2008 at 10:20 am
Looks like chuck’s got you there. His words dictate reality. If he said it, it is true.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Looks like chuck’s got you there. His words dictate reality. If he said it, it is true.
———–
Anon,
Let’s have some sympathy for a guy who is trying very hard to convince some unknown people in internet (whom he never met or talked and it is very unlikely will meet or talk in person in future) that he has a mega-project.
Kudos to MEGA-PROJECT!!!!!
October 31st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeegaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Yes folks, that’s 10^6.
Maybe he’s building the bridge to nowhere.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:29 am
BTW, looks like information about the project is on a need to know basis. And you don’t need to know, buddy.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:57 am
“Pralay,
All you need to know is that I am indeed managing such a project. I’ve signed a NDS, and I cannot share more details, especially not to a stalker.
As for your questions, I already answered those in #79.”
This is good. Look how clever he is: Oh crap, I’m sorry I can’t talk about i signed a non disclosure statement.
Because nearly every direct employee doesn’t sign one, right?
October 31st, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hell, many places I’ve interviewed required a stinkin’ NDA.
(Never heard it called an NDS before actually. Maybe a typo?)
Pralay – loved the MS Office crack!
October 31st, 2008 at 11:48 am
NDS is an antiquated term. My understanding is that an NDA is between parties, NDS is typically usually a unilateral agreement.
But, hey: you don’t need to understand what something is to talk about it and sound like you know what you’re doing… I’m sure RE would agree with me?
Now, on to the funny stuff:
Right when RE is getting a hard time for staying up late and posting on burbed, he “proves” that he is not up late for the sole purpose of posting on burbed by not posting and then saying he didn’t need to stay up for his project so he wasn’t on burbed.
A classic and well timed RE ‘proof.’ If he is up late posting on burbed, then he is also working. Since he is not up late posting on burbed, he must not be working.
This is called affirming the consequent.
If it’s raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it’s raining.
If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p
October 31st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
This is called affirming the consequent.
If it’s raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it’s raining.
If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p
——-
Another one.
Uncle Sam has goatee beard. Goat has goatee beard. Therefore, Uncle Sam is a goat.
Here Chuckie is using same logic to prove that Palo Alto is a place of “talented people”, therefore he is not stupid.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Yep. Good cite. LOL
BTW, your example is confusing. RE would be able to jump to the conclusion Uncle Sam is a goat simply by virtue of the fact that the word Goat can be found in Goatee. The second premise is unnecessary.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
his is good. Look how clever he is: Oh crap, I’m sorry I can’t talk about i signed a non disclosure statement.
——
Anon,
Are you that stupid that you don’t understand Chuckie’s simple logic? Of course Chuckie cannot give all the details of NDS he signed. But the fact that he signed a NDS proves that his mega-project exists.
Now, are you questioning whether he signed NDS at all? You should not, because you can question existence of only item (and that you did already – about existence of mega-project). You cannot question existence of NDS.
Therefore, NDS exists. As NDS exists, then mega-project exists.
Case closed.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hey I’m trying here cut me some slack.
Looks like everything he says is truth to me!
BTW, if it were really secret, his employment agreement would prohibit him from acknowledging its existence.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
its existence = the NDA/NDS existence
October 31st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
If he told us, he’d have to kill us.
October 31st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
BTW, if it were really secret, his employment agreement would prohibit him from acknowledging its existence.
Actually, Chuckie trying to change the subject and calling Pralay a stalker prove there’s an NDS — because he is in big time shit should his employer find this thread.
Also Chuckie is correct it’s an NDS, because he isn’t trusted enough to sign an NDA.
October 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
This is just great. We have someone from outside the workforce talking about work. Someone who’s never bought/sold a house talking about real estate.
October 31st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
To add Chuckie:
Someone who have never managed mega-project claiming to have mega-project.
October 31st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
If he told us, he’d have to kill us.
——
Don’t scare me. Oh, I forgot its Halloween.
Oops, someone is knocking door already. It seems Fox security is giving a little visit. I doubt they are here for candy.
October 31st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“This is just great. We have someone from outside the workforce talking about work. Someone who’s never bought/sold a house talking about real estate.”
Please note: I am talking about the valuation rather than the acquisition.
Personal attacks aside: The high end market did not see the ridiculous gains that the lower end did.
October 31st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Yeah, here you go. I’m too lazy to look for the newest data, so here’s the graph for last year.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/11/spcaseshiller_home_price_index_for_san_francisco_by_pri.html
I didn’t post it earlier ’cause I wanted to see if RE would actually argue this point with you. He’s too wily to get cornered by actual data though.
October 31st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
well, that didn’t take much work at all – I found the updated data and you can even get it in an Excel spreadsheet:
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_csmahp/2,3,4,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,4,0,0,0,0,0.html
But you realize this too is “useless aggregate data,” albeit divided into three price tiers.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Thanks nomadic.
What’s really interesting is that the top third (by sales) are homes that are $851,480 plus. Certainly, the RBA cannot be had for less than a mil, right? It is probably not too tough of an extrapolation to assume that the top 10% is still appreciating even less than the top third, would you agree?
I guess you don’t have quite as many unsophisticated buyers willing to sign up for toxic mortgage products in these markets. What a surprise.
I like this quote (taken from the article, emphasis added):
“Two things that caught our attention: the divergence in the performance of properties between price tiers in general (which shouldn’t catch anybody that’s plugged-in by surprise); and the time at which the divergence occurred in specific (easy money anyone?).”
Heh. Plugged in. RE said he bought PA in 2003. Who is new to the game?
October 31st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Yes, I’d agree that the top 10% is seeing less appreciation than the top 1/3. In spite of the contention of a certain “expert,” the high end buyers do take out jumbo mortgages. Those are pretty expensive mortgages right now. I’ve been watching and considering a refi. (Mine adjusts 16 months from now.)
I was also perusing the Los Altos listings on Redfin today and saw several for sale at prices around 5-7% higher than their purchase price 3-4 years ago. Break even, anyone? These were a little bit above what could be called entry-level for LA – like the $2M range.
The latest & greatest graph is interesting:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2008/10/august_spcaseshiller_san_francisco_msa_decline_accelera.html
Scroll down to the second graph. The data is for the SF MSA – which doesn’t include Santa Clara county.
Another interesting bit of material:
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/032508_homeprice_webcast.pdf
See page 9. And page 11 for a Halloween scare.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:25 pm
“I was also perusing the Los Altos listings on Redfin today and saw several for sale at prices around 5-7% higher than their purchase price 3-4 years ago.”
5-7% higher… That’s lower than what I’ve been seeing, but seems reasonable. It is certainly not 50% more as the ‘doubles every 10 years’ adage would indicate.
RE slide 11: So the population is linear, wage growth is linear, building costs are decreasing, and home prices went exponential starting around 2000. LOL – BOO! We’ve got 7 years of this mess, I bet. At least.
Perfect amount of time for people to declare bankruptcy and overextend themselves in the next bubble
November 1st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Jim D, 120x GRM is a pretty hollow victory if you achieve that from the RENTAL side of the equation, I can assure you. We had a very low GRM in 1999, but that was because 2 BR apts were renting for $2800/mo. Astonishingly, rental prices are almost back to those levels, and the rental increases are masking the reality. 5% increase over 07 for Santa Clara is market-wide. Most renters don’t see rent increases once they are in a place, preferring to raise rents only on new renters. a 5% increase year over year on top of a 12% increase last June over June equates to 30-35% rent increases on new renters of single family homes. I doubt I will ever rent one of my houses for much under $2500 again. GRMs don’t work for SFHs anyway, and it is more worthwhile to see if you can cover your initial mortgage with rent from day one. If you can you are good for RE investing here.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
nomadic, the amazing thing about that socketsite graph is that I had a personal experience with a house I bought in Dec 2006 appreciating by over 100K by July 2007. That graph indicates no such appreciation occurred. Aggregate data graphs tend to be offbase, but that one is REALLY offbase. I have seen it before btw.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Here are some of the most recent data on RBA sales:
324 Valparaiso Ave, Atherton – Sold for $2.15M. Previous sale: 6/00, $1M
1172 Santa Cruz Ave., Menlo Park (note: a high traffic street) – Sold for $1.65M. Previous sale: 4/97, $67K
161 Eunice Ave., Mountain View – $1.2M. Previous sale: 6/00, $747K
565 Minton Lane, Mountain View – $1.035M. Previous sale: 9/03, $695K
1664 Notre Dame Drive, Mountain View – $1.359M. Previous sale: 9/96, $390K!
881 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto (Note: High traffic street) – $1.25M. Previous sale: 1/04, $886K
2741 Carolina Ave., Redwood City – $939K. Previous sale: 3/93 – $312K
***************
We can go on and on. There’s no doubt real estate in the RBA on the average double every 10 years.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Guys,
Do not waste your time on aggregate data. Real estate is always local. Look at the data above. Home owners on the peninsula are making tons of money, year after year. You cannot get this type of tax-free performance from stocks without invoking substantial risks. You cannot possibly save this much money. Simply, a renter trying to compete with a home owner financially is like a person trying to outrun a car.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Correction:
1172 Santa Cruz Ave., Menlo Park (note: a high traffic street) – Sold for $1.65M. Previous sale: 4/97, $670K
November 1st, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Here are some of the most recent data on RBA sales:
I believe the technical term for this is “cherry picking.” Any bets as to whether RealEstater gave us a representative sample?
November 1st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
WG, re #113 – hence my comment in #108. I’m seeing prices staying fairly flat in my corner of the RBA, which I take as a good thing considering the economy overall.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
What do you think he’s been doing instead of posting? You didn’t actually think he was working on a mega project, did you?
In his cherry picking, he’s found us a nice selection of blue collar homes with price tags that are too high. They will be the next set of homes to fall in value, as there is still much paper money left in the system. With the exception of the Atherton home – which might not even be an anomaly – none of those are RBA homes. And none will be shielded by the RBA’s impenetrable depreciation shield.
A home valued less than 1.8 million right now is not RBA. It’s management class neighborhood and it is going to depreciate.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
“We can go on and on. There’s no doubt real estate in the RBA on the average double every 10 years.”
Isn’t this hilarious? RE uses 10 years during a known property bubble to prove his point.
I don’t know about you ‘guys,’ but that’s enough to convince me…
November 1st, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Guys, this is not cherry picking. If you want to see the entire list of homes that just closed escrow, go to the Palo Alto Online website, and see for yourself.
Sales data for Palo Alto in October (THAT’S RIGHT — OCTOBER), shows that on the average homes sold for higher than asking:
http://www.julianalee.com/reinfo/sold-PA.htm
November 1st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
>>What do you think he’s been doing instead of posting?
You mean, what was I doing on Halloween instead of chatting here like nomadic and madhaus?
We had a really enjoyable experience taking the kids out Trick or Treating all over the neighborhood. Boy it was soooo much fun. The weather couldn’t have been better. I really feel like I can just be in this city all year long without ever going anywhere else and I’d be totally happy. The high prices around here is truly justified. It’s worth every penny.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
You have kids, right?
You’ve seen what people do when the music turns off?
November 1st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
It’s good that you enjoy where you are – people are bracing for the long hall. =)
November 1st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
anon,
Please don’t tell me you don’t have any kids?
November 1st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Can I not speak in metaphor without you changing the subject?
When the music (credit) stops, people scramble to find a seat(home).
November 1st, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Just wondering how a 40+ guy would not have any kids.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:37 pm
anon
I see your point about questioning RE appreciation when somebody uses a known property bubble to prove with data. But remember that many parts of the country, and even parts of ESJ are now selling for levels not seen since 1999. Many REOs are going for 2001 prices, and 2001 was actually a small trough from the 00 peak, because the stock market crash had happened. So looking at data now is not the peak of the mkt in terms of the overall property bubble, it might just be a trough. Things just haven’t fallen in Palo Alto or Mtn View, thats the problem.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
RE, wasn’t it raining up your way on Halloween? It was down here, off and on in the evening.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 am
>>RE, wasn’t it raining up your way on Halloween? It was down here, off and on in the evening.
Only for a very brief time, and it was light. Due to impending rain, the temperature was very pleasant, not as cold as some nights.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“anon
I see your point about questioning RE appreciation when somebody uses a known property bubble to prove with data. But remember that many parts of the country, and even parts of ESJ are now selling for levels not seen since 1999. Many REOs are going for 2001 prices, and 2001 was actually a small trough from the 00 peak, because the stock market crash had happened. So looking at data now is not the peak of the mkt in terms of the overall property bubble, it might just be a trough. Things just haven’t fallen in Palo Alto or Mtn View, thats the problem.”
WG, I agree that things haven’t fallen that much in PA or Mtn View, but I believe there is a reason for this. I keep saying it – there is a lot of paper money in the system.
I can trade my overvalued real property for someone else’s over valued property. On paper it looks like a large sale price but the actual cost (Difference in values) is the only thing that matters.
Put it another way – say I have a car that’s overvalued at 100k and you have one that is overvalued at 120k. I want to buy your car so I sell my car for 100k to joe the plumber, put 20k of my own money in and buy your car.
Now, say the valuation drops for both vehicles. My vehicle is 60k and yours is 80k. I can still go and sell mine, put in 20k of my own money and buy yours, right? What difference does it make how we value the vehicles so long as the delta is the same?
So, in the end who makes out from the high ‘sale prices?’ The slime ball realtors. Anyone think they want prices to drop further – cutting into their 3%?
One more thing: with respect to paper money – why are the lenders ‘working out’ these toxic loans with the borrowers? Because if they can prevent the borrower from defaulting, they can keep the loan on their balance sheet. This prevents the bank from having to ‘take the hit’ on the particular loan until a future point in time.
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
testing-1-2-3 – please ignore.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Boum-pif-paf – please ignore too.
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Guys, this is not cherry picking. If you want to see the entire list of homes that just closed escrow, go to the Palo Alto Online website, and see for yourself.
Sales data for Palo Alto in October (THAT’S RIGHT — OCTOBER), shows that on the average homes sold for higher than asking:
———-
Wow! Chuckie is again touting asking price vs sale price numbers. Although it does not mean much, but let’s look at the numbers anyway. We all know that “hitech gal”‘s the average percentage of list price received is fraud. She does not calculate against original asking price. She does it with the last list price. Did you guys notice sale numbers #11 (2424 Burnham Wy), #14 (762 Gailen Ct), #23 ( 3488 Waverley St) in hitech gal’s chart? All sold after price reduction. If you calculate sale price with original listed price, the listed price vs sale price comes to barely 100 (not101.3%, as hitech gal calculated).
Secondly, let’s talk about “cherry picking”. Chuckie said he does not do cherry picking, therefore he must not be cherry-picking. Ok, when did Chuckie touted sale vs list price last time? Back in the month of May when Cupertino SP/LP became 106 after a typo on a sale price. What happened between May and October? Unfortunately Chuckie’s primary reference “hitech gal” does not keep past data. But as Chuckie is not cherry picking, it must be business as usual, isn’t it? But hey, some other real estate agent has last September SP/LP and not above 100, but 99.2.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
>>Secondly, let’s talk about “cherry picking”. Chuckie said he does not do cherry picking, therefore he must not be cherry-picking.
As anyone can see, a link to the entire data set was provided. Latest October data is called cherry picking?
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
>>But hey, some other real estate agent has last September SP/LP and not above 100, but 99.2.
Pralay is complaining the ratio varies between 99.2 and 101%? This is called complaining when there’s nothing to complain about. Is it over his head to just take an average?
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Pralay is complaining the ratio varies between 99.2 and 101%? This is called complaining when there’s nothing to complain about. Is it over his head to just take an average?
—–
Where did Chuckie find “complain”? I already mentioned that it does not mean much (didn’t read 2nd sentence?).
However, 99.2 makes your statement “on the average homes sold for higher than asking” UNTRUE.
No wonder that you did not tout September number and suddenly decided to mention October number just because it is higher than 100 (well, it is not higher if you count original listed price).
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
>>However, 99.2 makes your statement “on the average homes sold for higher than asking” UNTRUE.
Really? What’s the average of 101 and 99.2? THIS NOT A TRICK QUESTION.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Really? What’s the average of 101 and 99.2? THIS NOT A TRICK QUESTION.
——–
Do you still think 101 is correct number? What is stopping you from calculating based on original listed price? This not a trick question either.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
>>Do you still think 101 is correct number?
Yes I do, and I’m sure of it. You need to look at numers supplied by realtors that specialize in the area, backed by actual sales data for individual transactions. Go to http://www.vivichan.com/. Click on Palo Alto Comps. Click on “Most Current Month” for 94301, 94303, and 94306.
What’s the average of 102, 101, 102?
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
BTW, my numbers are for October 2008, the latest available. Please don’t show us usless aggregate data.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Oh yes, “numers supplied by realtors”, therefore it got to be true. Chuckie says so.
Chuckie,
Can you not do a simple math? Go to the hitech gal’s chart that you provided and calculate SP/LP with original listed price for 20 properties (25 total minus 5 unsold).
If you cannot do this math, ask your well-rounded kids. Hopefully they will do it for you.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
BTW, my numbers are for October 2008, the latest available. Please don’t show us usless aggregate data.
——
Does hitech gal’s chart fall into this category now.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
>>Oh yes, “numers supplied by realtors”, therefore it got to be true. Chuckie says so.
Actually, these results are published in newspapers every week, and are readily available from the County Office. Are you challenging the validity of these transactions? Don’t waste your time going down this path. Realtors don’t control the media; neither do I.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Pralay says,
>>Go to the hitech gal’s chart that you provided and calculate SP/LP with original listed price for 20 properties
Some education is in order here. SP/LP is always calculated with respect to the last offered price. This is the way it’s always been done (except in Pralay land of course).
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Chuckie,
Just calculate the original listed price vs sale price from very website link you provided and tell us if your statement still holds ground.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Some education is in order here. SP/LP is always calculated with respect to the last offered price. This is the way it’s always been done (except in Pralay land of course).
——-
Isn’t that cute?
When Chuckie figured that he is wrong, he just changed the rule. “SP/LP is always calculated with respect to the last offered price”? Who calculated? Any reference? “Some realtors”? I can see not all Realtors do that way. For example, this one.
Or how about this Licensed Appriser’s statement in one forum?
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“Some education is in order here. SP/LP is always calculated with respect to the last offered price. This is the way it’s always been done (except in Pralay land of course).”
Love it. So, a homedebtor can list a home for 20% more than what it would fetch at market and let the listing sit for a year with no buyer. They can subsequently take it off the market, re-list it for 20% less than what it would fetch, cause a bidding war, and then BOOM. Sale for 120% of LP. The moral of the story? None of this matters.
While I believe the is nothing to be gleaned from the ratio, it is quite clear that today’s winner is Pralay.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
>>Or how about this Licensed Appriser’s statement in one forum?
Since when did an opinion posted in an internet chat forum become a source of truth?
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“Just calculate the original listed price vs sale price from very website link you provided and tell us if your statement still holds ground.”
Lol. Chuck. Calculate. That’ll be the day. He has worker bees to do that.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
anon,
Would anyone dare dare to under-price a house in a buyer’s market? Someone would just come buy it at the asking price.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
anon, Pralay,
If you guys don’t understand the conventional usage of a measure and try to invent your own to suit your cause, it’d be a total waste of time to have this debate.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“anon, Pralay,
If you guys don’t understand the conventional usage of a measure and try to invent your own to suit your cause, it’d be a total waste of time to have this debate.”
It’s funny how RE tries to pull me into this. I have no measure, am not interested in the accepted measure, do not believe an accurate measure is attainable and I believe it wholly irrelevant as an indicator of the state of a market.
And yet … he thinks I 1) don’t understand it and 2) have an interest to make my own. Utter hilarity.
” Would anyone dare dare to under-price a house in a buyer’s market? Someone would just come buy it at the asking price.”
What – you forgot about bidding wars?
MH said it best. He’ll so befuddle you that you’ll forget what your original problem was. The problem goes from looking at a market objectively to trying to get a blithering idiot to understand basic facts. Suddenly, by comparison, understanding a market isn’t that tough at all as you are presented with a higher hurdle.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
>>What – you forgot about bidding wars?
OK, I better be direct with someone like you. The under-pricing strategy demonstrates that it’s a seller’s market! If there’s a weak buyer’s market, this would not happen in the first place.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Wow, this thread is still going. And Chuckie is still so utterly indifferent to facts that he claims I was chatting here on Halloween while he took his kids trick or treating. However, I wasn’t posting here on Halloween during TOT time, as anyone who actually posted between 6 and 9 pm could confirm. My kids were out TOTing with their friends, and mr. madhaus and I were playing tag-team on door duty. The sprinkles (not as in cupcakes) limited but did not prevent costumed vistors from collecting the loot we gave out. We probably had about 50 kids in all, definitely down from last year despite Halloween being on a Friday night.
So Chuckie is not only a liar, he is very poor at it. And if he’d lie about something as family-oriented as Halloween and kids and trick or treating, you bet he’d lie about real estate. You bet he’d lie about where he lives, or what he owns, or what kind of car he drives, or what kind of fridge he has, or what he actually does to pay the Internet bill.
The interesting point isn’t that he’s a liar, it’s why. What kind of person is so psychologically damaged that he has to post in a real estate forum about a life he doesn’t have, to people who don’t like him, about stuff he doesn’t understand, in order to show he cannot learn?
It’s that on the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog. It’s that on the Internet, we still know Chuckie’s an ass.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I love it. Chuckie thinks nobody would underprice in a buyers market, therefore if there is underpricing, it must be a sellers market.
Too bad Altos Research has called the entire 2008 selling year, in every RBA city, a buyers market, and it’s been getting more strongly buyers as the year goes on.
Who do you believe, Altos Research, or his lying tries?
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Since when did an opinion posted in an internet chat forum become a source of truth?
——
What is your “source of truth”, Chuckie? Couple of realtors? When you claimed that it is always calculated with last list price, you did not provide any reference.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
madhaus says,
>>And Chuckie is still so utterly indifferent to facts that he claims I was chatting here on Halloween while he took his kids trick or treating. However, I wasn’t posting here on Halloween during TOT time, as anyone who actually posted between 6 and 9 pm could confirm.
>>So Chuckie is not only a liar, he is very poor at it. And if he’d lie about something as family-oriented as Halloween and kids and trick or treating, you bet he’d lie about real estate. You bet he’d lie about where he lives, or what he owns, or what kind of car he drives, or what kind of fridge he has, or what he actually does to pay the Internet bill.
****
Wow, I can see that madhaus would really really, really like to believe my life is fictional. She practically cannot stand it any longer, resorting to drawing one leaping inference after another.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
“I love it. Chuckie thinks nobody would underprice in a buyers market, therefore if there is underpricing, it must be a sellers market.”
Yep, classic conclusion affirmation. LOL
Does anyone think we may get tired of running circles around the poor guy?
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
madhaus,
>>Too bad Altos Research has called the entire 2008 selling year, in every RBA city, a buyers market, and it’s been getting more strongly buyers as the year goes on.
What an total joke! We’ve been talking about this all year long. I even challenged people to find a single property being ON SALE for the longest time, remember? Even anon and nomadic have come out admitting that prices in RBA are not down. Only you and Pralay keep insisting on calling a pony a dog.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Down or not down what difference does it make?
What conclusion is Chuckie trying to assert using “RBA prices are not down.” as a premise?
Any guesses?
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
One more thing:
Down from what? The peak? 2 weeks ago? 6 months ago?
Anyone who thinks that a home (EVEN IN THE RBA) would fetch as much now as it did in the bubble when money was practically free is nuts.
Moving around in the upper echelons typically requires sale of a property. So, one must sell one overpriced asset to buy another overpriced asset. No big deal.
It is in the ‘starter home’ category where money only (not equity) enters the system. This is why it is first to fail, and why a reduction in price there will ripple up through the price ranges.
No more unlockable equity means lower price tags on move up homes. If homeowners don’t have to move, they won’t. This is what causes price stickiness.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
anon,
Let me repeat my consistent message: I do not care if the market is up or down. I’m only speaking to the facts based on the ground. I showed links to the most recently released October data, which clearly shows RBA is not impacted by the national downturn. Just trying to stay neutral here, and dispelling the misinformation backed by biased agenda spread by the likes madhaus.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Now Chuckie is changing his argument and going vague. In post #121 this is what Chuckie said:
“on the average homes sold for higher than asking”
And it is NOT true.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Wow, I can see that madhaus would really really, really like to believe my life is fictional.
——
Yes, we were convinced that Chuckie’s mega-project is not fictional, because he signed a NDS.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
>>It is in the ’starter home’ category where money only (not equity) enters the system. This is why it is first to fail, and why a reduction in price there will ripple up through the price ranges.
We hear a lot of this kind of imagery:
- The East Palo Market will spread across the freeway into Palo Alto.
- The outlying areas will gradually infect the areas next to them until RBA catches cancer.
All I can say is, let’s bring out the sound affects!
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Heh.
Chuck said neutral.
At least he preceded it with the word ‘trying.’
Anon’s new maxims:
1) The RBA did not appreciate like the shacks did, and it will not depreciate like the shacks will.
2) If property is RBA then it does not double every 10 years.
Contrast those with Chuck’s consistent message: “I do not care if the market is up or down”
Whose statements are objective (neutral)?
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“All I can say is, let’s bring out the sound affects!”
Good idea. If you weren’t deaf, you’d hear a vacuum being formed in the price ranges from 800k-1200k.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Modification:
- The East Palo Market will spread across the freeway into Palo Alto like a wild fire!
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
- madhaus making some noise with her guitar.
- Pralay yelling Fire! Fire!
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Just trying to stay neutral here, and dispelling the misinformation backed by biased agenda spread by the likes madhaus.
Staying neutral!!!!!!!!! Probably that’s another fictional aspect of Chuckie’s life.
———-
Let’s read some staying neutral posts:
#1
That’s sounds like neutral salesman.
#2
That sounds like a neutral used car salesman.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
BTW, I love when Chuckie says “everything I’ve been telling you guys is true” (link in previous post).
Does anybody has doubt that he is telling the truth? Poor guy! He keeps saying he is telling the truth, but nobody agrees. Real Poor Guy in Real Bay Area!
What is that famous quote? If someone has to keep repeating that he is honest, he is NOT – something like that?
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Pralay,
Can you deny that you missed one hell of a big party? or does it hurt too much to admit it?
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Can you deny that you missed one hell of a big party? or does it hurt too much to admit it?
——
Chuckie,
When you change the subject with irrelevant questions, I take it as compliment.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
You should. It means you won.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
But don’t forget Chuckie has mega-equity and mega-project.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Sometimes it hurts to hear or see the truth. The sales data I posted from October don’t lie.
If I simply propagate the misrepresentations given by the bubble bloggers, would I be adding value here?
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Chuckie’s new argument:
- Sale data of October is not a lie.
- Therefore, his interpretation “on the average homes sold for higher than asking” is not lie either.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 pm
If I simply propagate the misrepresentations given by the bubble bloggers, would I be adding value here?
——-
As long as Chuckie entertains here, “adding value” is not necessary.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Pralay,
It’s only an “interpretation” if you don’t understand basic math.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Pralay, do you also find it comical that Chuck’s statement: “If I simply propagate the misrepresentations given by the bubble bloggers, would I be adding value here?” presupposes that his posts ‘add value?’
After reading the above statement, is there any question in your mind that he does not know what ‘added value’ is?
Here’s logic, a la chuck:
If I didn’t know what I was talking about, would I be posting on a blog?
November 4th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Ha ha! I asked Chuckie to calculate, but he gave that work to his kids as part of “basic math”. But his well-rounded kids went to bed without finishing the jobs. Now Chuckie is in trouble!
November 4th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Black is white, up is down, lies are truth and buyers market is sellers market in Chuckieland.
95002 is 94301 in Chuckieland.
Camry is Porsche in Chuckieland.
High-tech gal’s misleading statistics are Industry Standard Terms in Chuckieland.
Minimum Wage Wal-Mart greeter is trophy wife in Chuckieland.
ADHD kids who watch 8 hours of TV a day and take remedial reading and math are well-rounded early readers in Chuckieland, too.
The best thing about Chuckieland is only Chuckie lives there. Even Mrs. Chuckie, Chuckie Jr. and Chuckette live in Reality Bay Area. They are not ashamed of who they are and where they live, and don’t try to impress screen names on blogs. They wish he’d get help and despair that he won’t.
ps – Chuckie is too ignorant to know the difference between affects and effects. The loud noises with my guitar are sound effects. Also the guitar is supposed to be loud. When I want to play quiet guitar I use my acoustic.
So here is today’s lesson for those playing the home version.
The affects demonstrated by Chuckie indicate Realty Envy.
ZIPdomania affects the victim by causing fantasies of owning property s/he doesn’t really own.
Pretending to live in Palo Alto does not effect a lifestyle change.
The effects of Internet pretense are minimal without care, preparation, and skill.
Usage note: Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of “to influence” (how smoking affects health). Effect means “to bring about or execute”: layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
madhaus,
Even though I don’t agree with your views, I don’t try to convince myself that you don’t live in 94087. As you recall, I never bothered to state where I live until you asked for the info, so if you want to pretend you never asked, I agree to help you maintain that belief (as usual, I’m here to help).
anon,
I find it comical that you’re seeking support from a “low hanging fruit”.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:51 am
After reading the above statement, is there any question in your mind that he does not know what ‘added value’ is?
——-
Considering the fact that Chuckie could not do some simple additions and divisions with sale and list prices, there is no doubt that he won’t be able to add value anywhere.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:04 am
As you recall, I never bothered to state where I live until you asked for the info, so if you want to pretend you never asked, I agree to help you maintain that belief (as usual, I’m here to help).
——-
Poor Chuckie! He never bothered to state where he lives until Madhaus asked for the info. Once in a while he talked about his prestigious zipcode, but you can ignore those comments because they don’t exist (well, they exist, but that’s because someone hacked burbed.com and added those comments in Chuckie’s name).
November 4th, 2008 at 1:06 am
I don’t see chuckie anywhere. I just see some Real Estater guy.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:12 am
“anon,
I find it comical that you’re seeking support from a “low hanging fruit”.”
Huh? To whom is RE referring to? I said that in reference to his election to respond to bob’s easily rebutted statement rather than mine.
Can he not tell that I enjoy Pralay’s posts?
November 4th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Chuckie not only gets no respect, those disagreeing with Chuckie get stroked, making Chuckie even sadder. So more pretend possessions arrive in Chuckieland to compensate.
The Chuckie Dream House already has prestigious zip code, high-salaried Trophy Wife, well-rounded early reading Highly Accessorized Children, Sub-Zero refrigerator and Porsche plus two SUVs on the driveway.
Now anon, nomadic, Pralay and madhaus keep tossing low-hanging fruit.
Solution!
1. ChuckieChildren now both on Chuckieland Honor Roll.
2. Extra Bonus just received for exemplary work on super megaproject!
3. Investment Property in RBA identified and offer made! Not anyone else’s business where since property only exists in Chuckieland, and broker lives there too.
5. Chuckie’s portfolio up 23% due to amazing market picks! Portfolio is in Chuckieland, and priced in CLDs (Chuckieland Dollars).
6. Some of you silly detail-oriented bottom-dwellers may have noticed there is no item four on this list. You losers will insist this is proof Chuckie makes shit up. But in Chuckieland, lists need not include all numbers, or bigger numbers can be less than smaller ones.
3. Numbers can be reused in Chuckieland too. That’s because Chuckie acquired his own airline. In Chuckieland.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:59 am
That post is pretty funny. Chuckieland sounds like a nice place to visit.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Chuckieland. Where wishes are
horsesSUVS, and beggars canriderespect high price walls.November 4th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Hey Madhaus, if you have dials that go to eleven, do those affect your effects?
They seem to on my mexi-strat
November 4th, 2008 at 2:46 am
That danged amp that goes up to eleven is a Marshall amp. I have Fender and Vox amps. No elevensies.
YOUR Strat goes to eleven! Neither of mine do. Maybe I need a YugoStrat.
Hey, I have a great idea! I bet Strats in Chuckieland go all the way up to 94301!
November 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I heard that there is Prop 1333 in Chuckieland to ban home price depreciation.
November 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Wow, a bunch of guys staying up late to chat about me again!
November 4th, 2008 at 10:05 am
And now you know why he keeps coming back. He will have a smile all morning while the rest of us struggle to wake up.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Good thing I live in the Real Bay Area instead of Chuckieland, and there are only 12 propositions to vote against.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:41 am
[...] Some comments from RealEstater Some comments from Madhaus [Burbed.com] [...]