The bottom has been reached in the Palo Alto Real Estate market
50 Roosevelt Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306 South Palo Alto MLS# 80841270 – Property Details
$1,050,000
* Status: Active
* Bedroom: 3
* Bathroom: 2
* Year Built: 1951
* Lot Size: 6372
* Square Footage: 1198
* List Date: 10/21/2008
* Garage Spaces: 1
* MLS#: 80841270
Just Reduced $100K. A best buy with a great location. Sunny and bright 3BR/2BA contemporary charmer sits on a 6000 lot. The bath rooms have been updated. It also has a bonus sun room/enclosed patio (about 10′x20′) with tile floor, patios on both sides. fenced backyard with mature trees. lawn, and garden path. Near Mitchell Park, library, schools, shopping and major commute routes.
Thanks to Burbed reader Pralay for this find. There you go folks. The bottom has been reached! $100k? Come on! If you thought there would be steeper reductions, you’re crazy. Frankly, I think you’re just lucky that they didn’t say “Just Increased $100k.” – because once Spring Bounce comes around, that’s what all the ads are going to say on a weekly basis in The P A.
You have been warned!
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
OK, enough of this cherry-picked house. Let’s look at some November sales data across various RBA cities:
Palo Alto
880 Sycamore Dr – List price: $995K. Sold Price: $1.1M
351 Oxford Av – List price: $1.25M. Sold Price: $1.355M
626 Wellsbury Wy – List price: $1.28M. Sold Price: $1.4M
Menlo Park
2070 Sterling Av – List price: $975K. Sold Price: $1.153M
Los Altos
1142 Lisa Ln – List price: $1.29M. Sold Price: $1.33M
175 Galli Dr – List price: $2.395M. Sold Price: $2.438M
Mountain View
855 Jefferson Dr – List price: $999K. Sold Price: $1.035M
Sunnyvale
910 Fairwood Av – List price: $429K. Sold Price: $439K
1171 Kelsey Dr – List price: $1.08M. Sold Price: $1.125M
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
I find the school performance graphs in that real estate listing very amusing. The graphs make it look like the schools have been improving tremendously, but that’s because the real estate agent chose the Y axis very carefully. If those graphs weren’t “optimized”, the school performance would basically have been a flat line.
I would consider living in that house, it’s a bit dated but seems to have lots of natural light. I would not pay $1M to live in it, though.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
That house has all the charm of a doublewide yet lacks the affordability.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:58 am
RE,
I went to a car show last weekend. I saw all the offerings from Cadillac, their nicest most expensive car being the lovely 2009 XLR-V at $109,000. The sales lady let me sit in it, flip the hood, and take a look over. According to her, the things were selling as fast as GM could make them.
Yet today GM and Ford are pleading with congress to give them money to avoid going bankrupt. Moral of the story: Some “good” news might exist out there in real estate la la land, but the picture is still overwhelmingly sick. Good. Some folks bought some houses. A lot more DIDN’T.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 am
>>find the school performance graphs in that real estate listing very amusing.
Also look at the population by education level. Almost half of the residents have graduate degrees.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
It seems this is an Eichler house, which arguably may help the price a bit (I wonder why this was not mentioned in the listing, though).
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
I went to a car show last weekend. I saw all the offerings from Cadillac, their nicest most expensive car being the lovely 2009 XLR-V at $109,000. The sales lady let me sit in it, flip the hood, and take a look over. According to her, the things were selling as fast as GM could make them.
And you believed her? That’s like believing our resident troll is here to help.
That said, I can’t find any reports on volume being higher than expected, lower than expected, or anything.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
I didn’t ask her to back up her claim. Its a fairly low volume, almost hand built car, and at that price range, I’m sure there are niche buyers. But whether she was right or not, the comparison still works. Wishing for anecdotal tidbits to reflect the overall picture isn’t very scientific. Thus the same is with a few picked home sales in the RBA. No difference.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
OK, enough of this cherry-picked house.
…and on to these cherry-picked houses…
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Come on now, professor.
Don’t let one
applecherry spoil the bunch.December 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
The
applecherry doesn’t fall far from thetreebunch.December 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
OK, enough of this cherry-picked house. Let’s look at some November sales data across various RBA cities:
——–
LOL! Our Roger The Brickster complains about cherry-picking, then he himself starts picking cherry.
Doesn’t it look like most of the homes, if not all, are selling over listed price at PA? Apparently so, alteast from Roger’s three example.
Ok, let’s look at PA sale data from hitech gal’s website.
Total home sold: 23
Number of homes sold over listed price: 8 (two of them are marginally above listed price).
And our Roger picked only three from out of those 23. How should we term this? Ramdom-pick or cherry-pick?
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Total home sold: 23
Number of homes sold over listed price: 8 (two of them are marginally above listed price).
And our Roger picked only three from out of those 23. How should we term this? Ramdom-pick or cherry-pick?
Those 23 homes?
Useless aggregate data.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Houses in the “Circles” like the one listed always sell for less and take longer to sell – I don’t think you can tear them down, since they are almost all 1 story Eichler’s and a 2 story house next door would be able to look into everyone’s windows. There are a few 2 story remodels there, but they are old and look to have been done in the 70s.
Since you can’t tear them down, the flipper/builders avoid them and they sell for less. Compare this house with 3500 South Court – its only a few blocks away, but it sold for $1,150,000 just a few weeks ago.
Also, 50 Roosevelt backs up to East Meadow and is only 1 block to Alma – its got to have tons of traffic and train noise.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
It is a common tactic to offer a price above list, then include “credit for closing costs” of $10K, $20K, even $100K. Most often the credit is used for points to buy down the buyer’s interest rate. So the seller actually nets less than list price, but for some reason feels better about it
I don’t know why this works, but it does.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Those 23 homes?
Useless aggregate data.
——-
Yes, and while inventory is way up while number of sale is lowest in last eight years – that’s useless aggregate data too.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
>>Also, 50 Roosevelt backs up to East Meadow and is only 1 block to Alma – its got to have tons of traffic and train noise.
That’s been explained to Pralay, but he maintains that the noise won’t reach the house. Must be due to some secret firewall technology that he has
!
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Pralay says,
>>The Brickster complains about cherry-picking, then he himself starts picking cherry.
Does it not look like there are quite a few cherries to be picked? How can this even happen when the U.S. economy is so bad? Does such condition exist in other states?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
That’s been explained to Pralay, but he maintains that the noise won’t reach the house.
——
Shouldn’t Roger provide the link where I “maintain” so?
I disputed Roger’s “next to it” term. Not noise.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Speaking of bottoms, it looks like the bottom has been reached in the stock market. There is resilient support at the 8000 level for the DOW. Each time the market dips to that level, there’s a bounce back. We’re seeing that happen again today.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Pralay says,
>>I disputed Roger’s “next to it” term. Not noise.
That’s an idiotic argument. Why would anyone care about the definition of “next to” in this context? Obviously, noise is the real issue; you were trying to side-track it because you don’t have a valid point.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Does it not look like there are quite a few cherries to be picked? How can this even happen when the U.S. economy is so bad? Does such condition exist in other states?
——–
LOL! First Roger The Brickster complains about cherry-picking.
Then he picks cherry himself.
Then he admits that he did so.
US economy irrelevant in this context, isn’t it? Unless there is a “full blown depression”, RBA housing market won’t be affected. Atleast that’s what our average hitech guy told us. Then why are we talking about US economy and comparing RBA market with “other states” anyway?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Obviously, noise is the real issue; you were trying to side-track it because you don’t have a valid point.
——
I am not sidetracking the issue. You are side-tracking from your original claim that I “maintain” that noise don’t reach in this home. Link where I said so?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
“Speaking of bottoms, it looks like the bottom has been reached in the stock market. There is resilient support at the 8000 level for the DOW. Each time the market dips to that level, there’s a bounce back. We’re seeing that happen again today.”
Now, is that because of real or perceived value? My assertion is that it is because people cannot comprehend that it is actually worth less than half what it was at the peak. If it drops below 7500, it’ll drop significantly more.
Think its coincidence that it has been teetering around half what it was at the peak?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
anon,
The speculators are in and out, but the investors of the stock market are buying up cheap stock now. The current recession should be over by the end of next year, so between now and then is a good window to buy stocks (and houses).
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Speaking of bottoms, it looks like the bottom has been reached in the stock market.
“Six Zero Bravo, cleared for takeoff, contact Bay Departure one two zero point niner.”
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“Six Zero Bravo, cleared for takeoff, contact Bay Departure one two zero point niner.”
- Pilot Knifecatcher
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Hmmm. Seven fat bubbly years are usually followed by seven lean years of famine. Joe the
Plumbernon-Egyptian said so.December 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“anon,
The speculators are in and out, but the investors of the stock market are buying up cheap stock now. The current recession should be over by the end of next year, so between now and then is a good window to buy stocks (and houses).”
Cheap stocks, huh? You would know.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Oops I can’t link. Guess whose not a tech guy!
Here’s the link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7XsZc_xbKpM
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Oops I can’t link. Guess whose not a tech guy!
That’s because the Internet is not for amateurs.
I love that phrase: lack of entrepreneurial testosterone. It basically says that we are in this mess because a bunch of quant guys on Wall Street were playing a giant game of ¡¿Quien Es Mas Macho?!
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
It seems that the price has been falling ever so slightly in Palo Alto, Cupertino areas…
http://www.altosresearch.com/research/CA/PALO+ALTO
But I’m hoping that they will fall even more. At least, I don’t see any outrageous condo prices in Palo Alto anymore. I remember someone paying nearly 1 million dollars for a 1200 sqft condo before this crash. I think a condo like that costs not much more than 700k now. He must’ve lost a ton of money.
My realtor was almost coercing me into purchasing some stupid houses early this year. I’m real glad I didn’t jump in.
Even if housing prices don’t fall significantly in these areas, does anyone really think that there’ll be any more significant appreication any time soon? Housing boom is all over! I don’t see any reason to rush in from now on.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
prices…double…ten years……………
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
anon, just read the article you posted a few spots up. This sentence has the most disturbing implications for the RBA, in my opinion:
Cheap financing won’t be available once the government is finished intervening in the credit markets, which will reduce corporate earnings, Gross wrote.
That’s going to put a damper on venture capital, and for the fortunate new companies who are making money it puts a very large strain on their cash flow. Debt service is really tough on a new business, or even mature small businesses.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
VC is all about equity, not debt. More expensive credit does not matter much to VC.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 am
That’s going to put a damper on venture capital, and for the fortunate new companies who are making money it puts a very large strain on their cash flow. Debt service is really tough on a new business, or even mature small businesses.
——–
Sequoia Rings the Alarm Bell: Silicon Valley Is in Trouble
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
It seems that the price has been falling ever so slightly in Palo Alto, Cupertino areas…
The most expensive areas always fall last.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
pshaw! Things are fine. Industry is just continuing its healthy shedding of dead wood:
Non-farm private employment fell by 250,000 jobs from the previous month on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the ADP National Employment Report.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/03/news/economy/ADP/?postversion=2008120309
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Non-farm private employment fell by 250,000 jobs from the previous month on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the ADP National Employment Report.
——
Useless aggregate data. Silicon Valley “management class” is doing just fine while they are cleaning out dead woods from worker bees. 10-15-20% layoff? Oh that’s just as usual number. They do it ALL the time and media never reported it. Only this time doom and gloom media is reporting it to make Silicon valley look bad.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Jesus. All this doom and gloom is even getting me down.
RE, would you please post something bearish? I’ve had just about enough reality for the week.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
I mean bullish. All this doom and gloom has got me bass ackwards.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
RE, would you please post something bearish? I’ve had just about enough reality for the week.
—–
Roger The Helper should be here to “help” pretty soon.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
He must be out on lunch. I’ll fill in.
I just read a report yesterday that said that house prices are going to rebound in 2009 big time. All of you fence-sitters are fools and will be sorry you weren’t as smart as me. My house will be worth 2 million bucks and NONE of you will be able to afford houses here! ( wait a minute if nobody can afford them, then nothing will sell) but oh well! it’ll happen- you’ll see!
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The economy is going gang-busters! I saw all these empty storefronts today. I can only assume that the old tenants were kicked out so national retailers could come in and pay quadruple rent! And they will all be buying houses! Big expensive ones! People who work at Circuit City and Mervyn’s are well-paid top employees!
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
anon,
If you hang around negative individuals, any day is a gloomy day. Here’s some food for thoght: Take a look at the stock market. If this is really the end of the world, would anyone be around to fuel support at the 8400 level?
So far, we see lots of predictions on what might happen to the VC’s and the housing prices in Silicon Valley, but those predictions are just that. Personally, I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of the doom and gloom. To me, it’ll present a lot of great opportunities. However, everday I keep asking, why is it still not here?
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
why indeed? why why WHY WHY WHY WHY?!?
This was my contribution of the day. Thank you.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
All of you fence-sitters are fools and will be sorry you weren’t as smart as me. My house will be worth 2 million bucks and NONE of you will be able to afford houses here!
You forgot “…and your worth as a human being will therefore be greatly diminished.”
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
However, everday I keep asking, why is it still not here?
——–
Come on! Shouldn’t this guy be in “on-going party” and buy RBA properties left and right? Instead he is giving all kind of excuses (vacation, holidays etc) for not buying it and then asking why why why!
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
No predictions going on here RE. Its actually happening.
Anyhow, Doom and Gloom is good for me since I have no vested interest in Real Estate and as such, doom and gloom means lower prices, which is actually beneficial to me. So the worse it gets, the more giddy I become.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
why indeed? why why WHY WHY WHY WHY?!?
———-
I know the answer of “why”. RBA real estate market does not get affected unless there is a “full blown depression”. I concluded it after doing all kind of research and knowing all the nuts and bolts of Silicon Valley and US economy.
But even after knowing all these, I ask myself why why why.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
aw, poor anon is on negative overload. On the bright side, if you have cash and need to make a major purchase, you’re in the driver’s seat! I won’t go so far as to say everyone should go buy a new car they don’t need, but if you actually need to replace yours, the timing couldn’t be better.
I got a good deal on a new server for the office yesterday!
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Bob says,
>>No predictions going on here RE. Its actually happening.
Plenty of people are still buying houses in Silicon Valley right now. For example, go to mlslistings.com and do a search for Sunnyvale. You’ll find the following homes are in sale pending status:
837 Bremberton Dr. – Listed for $1.1M
551 Crawford Dr. – Listed for $1.015M
1626 Heron Ave. – Listed for $950K (recent listing)
1583 Patridge Ct. – Listed for $935K
813 Gail Ave. – Listed for $825K
445 E McKinley Ave. – Listed for $815K
991 Sutter Ave. – Listed for $725K
1070 Morningside Dr. – Listed for $719K
194 Anaheim Te. – Listed for $718.9K
Ramon Dr. – Listed for $716.85K
1060 Marigold Ct. – Listed for $650K
850 San Mateo Ct. – Listed for $599K
Plus 19 more houses under $560K. That’s a lot of houses being sold in what’s supposedly a “doom and gloom” environment. All these people have got money on the side lines, and none of them are discouraged by the so called lack of available credit despite the pathetic stories we keep hearing in the SF chronicle.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Pralay says,
>> I know the answer of “why”. RBA real estate market does not get affected unless there is a “full blown depression”.
Actually, just look at the post right below that one. Do you see houses in madhaus’ neighorhood (94087 CUSD) selling at a discount? How long has it been now? How about 20% off like you see at Macy’s? If so, I’d like to see madhaus to back up that claim by putting her house on the market for $800K. I will pay full price for it. Otherwise, I’d like both of you to stop spreading doom and gloom propaganda.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Cherry picked houses doesn’t change the overall median. The fact remains that the median overall across the region is down. Most areas of SV ( but agreed that not all) are down. Those remaining are flat. I’ll bet they will be down next since that’s how the dominos are falling.
In any regards, when I turn on the nightly news and hear ” How awful” it is that boo-hoo- home prices are down and still losing value, that’s music to my ears. Makes me sometimes irritated that the story is never skewed for those who waited out the boom or are now first time home buyers. It should go more like:
” More good news! Home prices are down even more so young couples and families can afford more home for less!”
Either way, this bust isn’t going to bottom out in the foreseeable future. Good! Great news for people like me.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
That’s a lot of houses being sold in what’s supposedly a “doom and gloom” environment.
—–
Any of them is foreclosed property?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Otherwise, I’d like both of you to stop spreading doom and gloom propaganda.
Ahhhh! I’m melting! Ahhhhh!
(music)
Ding-dong real estate’s dead, the RBA and SV too, overpriced houses comin’ down, real estate is dead-dead dead-dead-dead!
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Actually, just look at the post right below that one.
——-
LOL! Our Roger The Realtor guy claimed the victory by posting the last message in thread. There was no fiasco there. Only change of rules by Roger The Realtor in the middle of game – “oh that house in close to freeway” “that house close to busy street” kind of stuffs.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Yesss…
p-lease stop spreading all those WICKED lies… How dare you suggest that housing prices and sales are coming down? It will wreck havoc with my plans to reap the huge reward of over-speculated home appreciation!
Wah-ha ha ha! You are powerless as your equity slides out from underneath you. Nothing can stop it!
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Pralay says,
>>Instead he is giving all kind of excuses (vacation, holidays etc) for not buying it and then asking why why why!
Guys,
The most amazing, most classic excuse on Burbed is the one we hear repeatly from Pralay:
“I am not even looking!”
Yes, he’s not even looking. He’s just here 24X7 tracking useless sales data.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Bob says,
>>Wah-ha ha ha! You are powerless as your equity slides out from underneath you.
The most amazing thing about this downturn is that while other places are going down, the area I live in is not. That makes me relatively more wealthy even if my home does not appreciate by a cent.
If the “predictions” come true, my cash on the sidelines will just become that much more powerful. This is why I truly do not have a vested interest in the direction of the economy or the housing market. Either way I will be able to benefit. It’s a no-lose situation.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Let me ask you a straight-up question RE. Its fairly obvious to me that you really, really want real estate prices in the RBA to go up, and you aggressively promote it non-stop even if the overwhelming body of stats regarding its success indicates otherwise.
So what’s your personal reason for doing so?
is it:
A: You want your own home to be worth lots of money, hence portraying Real estate as the perennial,perfect financial investment would somehow hopefully get some of us to believe it and buy… hence what I assume would add to your cause.
B: You really and truly believe that Real estate never-ever fails, that the last boom is perfectly normal and expected to resume anyday.
C: Or that you’re screwed unless your house goes up in value… which sort of goes back to A.
D: Some other reason I’m not aware of.
I’ll even go first and be blunt that first of all, I have no interest in the RBA because it ain’t my style and I don’t particularly like the area and secondly, the prices are silly. Its like a big joke to me. If they go up to 2 million on average, I don’t care, because again- I’m not going to live there and likely not this state in the long term. Secondly, I believe corrections are healthy. Its happening nation-wide and every place I’ve visited is in a state of denial.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
You will only become ” more powerful” if you sell your house for what you think its worth. Then what? Buy another, even more expensive home?You gain nothing.
I can almost guarantee that what I am saving annually over what your house is appreciating at currently is probably signifigantly more.Ironic isn’t it? The difference is that I don’t have to sell anything to get to it. Its in my bank.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
And let me reiterate. I’ve been to Nashville, Atlanta, New Mexico, and Raleigh this year. They ALL said the same thing…
” everywhere ELSE is going down in value… but not MY house”…
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Bob, the answer is likely C.
But I wouldn’t say screwed, more like stretched thinly for no reason other than a hope for appreciation.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Probably right Anon. Why else would you come on here and act like a real estate agent? If you’re really doing just fine and dandy whether your house goes up or down… then why put so much emphasis on sales, prices, non-related news stories, and non-stop spin?
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Uh… Because one may get their rocks off by pissing people off?
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
bob: If you’re really doing just fine and dandy whether your house goes up or down… then why put so much emphasis on sales, prices, non-related news stories, and non-stop spin?
anon: Uh… Because one may get their rocks off by pissing people off?
Yes, but Roger’s rocks have his name engraved on them.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I’m guessing it doesn’t actually piss you off though.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
nomadic, don’t go counting up the number of people who are actually pissed off. That’s useless aggregate data too.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Guys,
Let’s look at the facts, not the predictions.
What we have right now is an environment of low interest rate, low tax rate, low gas prices, low car prices, and increasing home affordability. Life is giving us a break right now. It doesn’t get better than this!
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Yeah, I know. Mr. Big Head would get all excited if he thought we actually cared enough to get angry though.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Bob,
The answer to #61 is in #60, but to summarize, real estate is a great long term investment if you follow the right guidelines. I’m not going to cover those things all over again, because I’ve already talked about them before. There’s no such thing as “never-ever fails”, because there are ways to fail anything if you don’t have proper knowledge.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Pralay says,
>>Only change of rules by Roger The Realtor in the middle of game – “oh that house in close to freeway” “that house close to busy street” kind of stuffs.
Madhaus’ shack is not next to the freeway or busy street. Why is it not selling at 20% off? If you can’t answer this basic question, it’s time to shut up and stop talking crap.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Bob says,
>>Probably right Anon. Why else would you come on here and act like a real estate agent?
Let’s not bring up this fabricated charge over and over again, because we already covered this topic multiple times. Real estate agents care about transactions, not price. I already showed you that agents in the area are promoting the “sell now before it gets lower” message, in order to drum up sales volume. Do you see any similarity with my postings in any way, shape, or form?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
That’s right (#74), only panicked homedebtors are obsessed with price. And the formerly “priced out forever but want a house” folks.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Bob says,
>>I can almost guarantee that what I am saving annually over what your house is appreciating at currently is probably signifigantly more.
The amount you are saving is a fraction of what I’ve already made in equity.
The amount you are saving is taxable, while the amount I am putting into the house is tax deductible.
The amount you’re saving is through getting up every morning to go to work. The amount I have in equity is gotten simply by living in the house.
Which route is better? This is one of those “duh” type questions.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Bob says,
>>And let me reiterate. I’ve been to Nashville, Atlanta, New Mexico, and Raleigh this year. They ALL said the same thing…
>>” everywhere ELSE is going down in value… but not MY house”…
Let me reiterate. Only in the RBA, is this statement actually true.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The most amazing, most classic excuse on Burbed is the one we hear repeatly from Pralay:
“I am not even looking!”
Yes, he’s not even looking. He’s just here 24X7 tracking useless sales data.
———-
He he! Atleast I did not claim that I am an investor and then give all kind of excuses why I don’t look or sound like investor. And our Roger The Fake-Investor couldn’t even tell how many investment property he has. Zero?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I find it unbelievable that the Treasury is considering a plan that could drive the mortgage rate down to 4.5%. It that were to happen, I think it would seriously over-stimulate the market in the Bay Area. Already we are seeing mortgage applications double as a result of the 5.5% rate. If it falls 1% lower, everybody would be re-financing, and home prices will make another advance.
Such a scenario would really suck for Bob, as he will be earning nothing in interest on his savings, while home owners will be getting an effortless windfall. The bargain homes WG has been buying will not be as cheap anymore, once again pricing out the entry level folks.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
That’s right (#74), only panicked homedebtors are obsessed with price. And the formerly “priced out forever but want a house” folks.
——
And self-proclaimed real estate
investorinvesting-advisor.December 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
The better route, RE is to make money without a liability, which whether you want to admit it or not, is exactly what a house is. And I’d kind of doubt you’ve “made” more on your “equity” than what I’ve saved either. The fact that you are so entirely focussed on your home’s value tells me that you’re like so many people around the Ba Area, hanging by a shoestring, who bought only for the hope of appreciation. Now that it isn’t working, you’re grasping at straws.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Once again, I need to reiterate my claim that the government is on the side of homeowners. If anybody has a vested interest in real estate, it’s the U.S. government.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The amount you are saving is taxable, while the amount I am putting into the house is tax deductible.
—-
NOT true.
———-
The amount you’re saving is through getting up every morning to go to work. The amount I have in equity is gotten simply by living in the house.
———
NOT true.
Do I have to explain Roger The Well-Rounded Brickster why they are not true?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Bob says,
>>And I’d kind of doubt you’ve “made” more on your “equity” than what I’ve saved either.
Let’s cut to the chase. How long have you been working? From what you shared before, you were still working in a retail store back in 2003. In effect, you’ve been working 5 years max. Jeez, let’s see. How much do you save each year? Let’s say it’s 50 grand after taxes (which is giving you a lot of credit). OK, you’ve saved $250K. LOL, that’s your retirement money?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Once again, I need to reiterate my claim that the government is on the side of homeowners. If anybody has a vested interest in real estate, it’s the U.S. government.
——
Guys,
Don’t look at real estate crash, foreclosures and all the doom and gloom news. US govt in your side. Just close your eyes and
buy homejump off the cliff.And don’t forget that it is coming from a guy who is neutral in this matter and does not have vested interest in it. You got to trust this guy – TOTALLY neutral.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Pralay,
Let me ask you about the crash. Is it crashing anywhere you’d like to buy? Where is it exactly? Are you able to convince madhaus to take just 20% off her shack? I’ll cover her crash.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Yes, but Roger’s rocks have his name engraved on them.
———
And I heard the size of the rock doubles in 10 years.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Pralay,
Back to talking about rocks and bricks again? Still trying to avoid the issue?
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“The amount you are saving is taxable, while the amount I am putting into the house is tax deductible.”
The amount you put into the house is NOT tax deductible, until you sell. The amount you pay as interest on your mortgage is immediately deductible – but it does NOT go to your equity.
So either you’re equating your house and your mortgage bank, or you’re advocating flipping.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Let me ask you about the crash. Is it crashing anywhere you’d like to buy? Where is it exactly?
—–
LOL! This question is coming from a guy who changed himself from his position of “overbidding is everywhere” or “over-bidding is the norm here” (and bragging about SP/LP) to cherry-picking mode with three homes in heart of RBA within six months.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
RE, sure, let’s cut to the chase. We save more than that amount you mentioned per year. Additionally, my and my Wife both have been saving and investing way before that. I’ve been saving pretty much all my life. So has my Wife. We’re both frugal people. So yes, without being rude and specific, we’re doing pretty well for people our age. And again, the wealth is instantly portable.No house to sell.Just old-fashioned saving and working, which I don’t have a problem doing.
We’re actually looking at property in the Austin area as we speak and the average house- a nice one at that- hovers around 150-200k there and in the style and size we like. So given what we’ve saved and what we will be paying, we will have plenty leftover, zero debt, and living in an area that’s growing quite rapidly.
Again- I don’t buy the whole housing=wealth mantra. The outcome in investing in real estate is to extract wealth. But this can just as easily, if not more easily be done with old fashioned savings. I’m proof of this. Thus why I think its stupid that so many people put so much emphasis on their house as their primary money maker.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
The amount you put into the house is NOT tax deductible, until you sell. The amount you pay as interest on your mortgage is immediately deductible – but it does NOT go to your equity.
——-
Come on DT! This explanation was not required for well-rounded person. Do you have any doubt that a person who is living in prestigious zipcode with enormous equity cannot be well-rounded or talented to understand it? What world are you living? No wonder you live in real gray area.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Pralay,
I’m still waiting for you to answer #86. Are you really stumped now? See, you can’t even answer some basic question.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Back to talking about rocks and bricks again? Still trying to avoid the issue?
—-
Come! We are talking about special rock and special brick – with engraved names on them. We did not even know they exist until someone told us. They are as special as RBA.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
’m still waiting for you to answer #86. Are you really stumped now? See, you can’t even answer some basic question.
——
LOL! Someone demanding answer for a silly question! And #90 explains why it is so.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Pralay – Rather than an explanation, this was a question to RealEstater. I’ve no doubt that he’s writing an answer at this very moment to correct the unfortunate effect his “approximation” made on this board.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
DreamT says,
>>The amount you put into the house is NOT tax deductible, until you sell. The amount you pay as interest on your mortgage is immediately deductible – but it does NOT go to your equity.
Not sure what you’re talking about. When I sell, I don’t expect any tax deduction from the sale.
The interest does not go toward my equity, but the amount that goes toward the principle does, as well as the appreciation, which is where the game is won. In first half of a mortgage’s life cycle, majority of the money goes toward interest, which means majority of the money you put into your house is tax deductible. Meanwhile, the appreciation is not taxed until you sell, and even then $500K is tax free for a couple.
In summary, what you put in to keep the house is tax deductible. What you get out of it is mostly tax free.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Pralay,
One more time. What’s the answer to #86? Don’t die on me now.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I’ve no doubt that he’s writing an answer at this very moment to correct the unfortunate effect his “approximation” made on this board.
——–
Yes, in a convoluted manner, pretending that he never paid any interest and the whole “amount he is putting into the house” is still in the house. Poor banks.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
RealEstater – You don’t make sense.
“When I sell, I don’t expect any tax deduction from the sale.” You should, as in capital gain on a primary house’s sale not being taxable under half a million. This half a million limitation is still too low for some folks who own multiple properties and decide to sell them one year at a time, as a result.
“majority of the money goes toward interest, which means majority of the money you put into your house is tax deductible”
Dude. The money that goes toward interest is NOT going into your house. Repeat. The interest you pay is NOT going into your house. Repeat.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Pralay,
One more time. What’s the answer to #86? Don’t die on me now.
———
RE,
How hard it is to read #90? It’s not in korean (like you posted once).
And I am not dying. But it is apparent that you are losing yout TV.
What happened? No more equity to buy TV?
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Pralay – You gotta give me credit. He was writing his answer at that very moment.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Pralay – You gotta give me credit. He was writing his answer at that very moment.
—–
Ok. As you wish. In the market of credit crisis I am giving you 100 credits – reluctantly.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Dude. The money that goes toward interest is NOT going into your house. Repeat. The interest you pay is NOT going into your house. Repeat.
——–
I guess that’s where RBA is special. Banks are forced to put interest amount into house. Poor banks. They gained nothing from the mortgage.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
The interest does not go toward my equity, but the amount that goes toward the principle does…
“I like a man who sticks to his principals.” —Flann O’Brien
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Uhm, *cough*
Where did A lewis go? Drowned by RE’s BS?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Or by RE’s dishonesty? Or RE’s utter mental confusion? Mystery it is – mystery it will remain.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
RE. #97.
As I said before, why don’t you take advantage of that tax deduction, sell your house, buy another? Use the tax law, man! Max out that $500k tax-free gain.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
DreamT,
It appears it was your utter mental confusion that led to your incoherent outbursts above. As noted by prof Bleen, it was clearly spelled out which goes into what.
I repeat:
There is no “tax deduction” when you sell. You’ll get taxed if you make more than $500K, but there is no deduction to speak of! If you’re talking about the $500K as a “tax deduction”, you’re using the wrong terminology.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I just love a good mystery. In this one we find a corpse at the bottom of a cliff, under water, hit over the head with engraved brick and a mouthful of personalized rocks. Even a silver bullet gunshot.
The mystery is: does anyone care how he died or who did it? Yes its the Murder of Roger Ayckroyd.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
RE, the Prof wasn’t supporting your silly statement. He was making fun of your choice of “principle” instead of the correct word “principal.”
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
nomadic says,
>>As I said before, why don’t you take advantage of that tax deduction, sell your house, buy another? Use the tax law, man! Max out that $500k tax-free gain.
You are learning. That’s what move up is all about.
Looks like many of you are worried about exceeding a $500K gain. Can you imagine gaining that kind of money via any other method? Bob would probably have to be saving until he’s dead; DreamT’s start up would have to yield him $1 million in stock options gains (50% of that goes to taxes). Only the real estate route requires no work.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
RE, the Prof wasn’t supporting your silly statement. He was making fun of your choice of “principle” instead of the correct word “principal.”
———-
Nomadic,
Another example of well-rounded personality from prestigious zipcode.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Pralay,
Are you still choking on that question?
DreamT,
Perhaps you can help him. Is your house crashing?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Use the tax law, man! Max out that $500k tax-free gain.
——-
Don’t forget that US govt in homeowner’s side.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
You are learning. That’s what move up is all about.
LOL – I think I’m insulted… I feel dirty.
I’m going to sleep!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
RE – No but my backyard tree crashed onto my roof a little while back. No damage fortunately.
As for your rectification or lack thereof… ‘Peut mieux faire’ (I think in America you call this a D minus, unless you call this a B plus since standards can be lackadaisical at times)
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Pralay,
Are you still choking on that question?
—–
LOL! Just because the well-rounded personality of prestigious asking same question again and again pretending that he did not read #90 that does mean that I have to repeat #90 again and again.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
All right Roger, I’ll give you a B flat for your efforts.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
nomadic, you can’t go to sleep. You have to stay up late and worry about your tax deductions. And whether you have any principles left. Not to mention principal.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Bob,
Here are some reasons why saving money to riches is stupid:
1. Money you saved is eaten up by inflation over time.
2. Saving money gives you no leverage.
3. Interest rate you earn is low.
4. Savings is after tax money, and you get taxed again on the tiny amount of interest you earn.
5. Saving does not help you build up your credit history.
Finally, saving is bad for the economy. Part of the reason there are so many strikes against saving is because the government is against it. It is the stupid man’s way of suriving, and you’re guaranteed to not be wealthy.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
nice try, madhaus
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
All right Roger, I’ll give you a B flat for your efforts.
—–
Wow! Another achievement since having name engraved on brick.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
DreamT,
For a personal so anal about English, you do not understand the difference between exemption and deduction?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
DreamT,
For a person so anal about English, you do not understand the difference between exemption and deduction?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Pralay,
It’ll be a major achievement when you can identify one house that is crashing in an area you would consider buying.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
And whether you have any principles left. Not to mention principal.
——-
Our school principle did not have principal. So what? He was still a principle and used to give us long lectures about the virtue of principal ethics.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Shall we give Pralay a B for Bull-shitting?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Where can we find that 20% pre-crash discount, Pralay?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
A B-flat? That’s all? I demand to hear all the notes he gets too. Because if we’re jamming in B-flat I’m going to keep hitting that vi ii V turnaround, and everyone knows that the V of B-flat is the best one for Roger.
An F.
I swear I am not making this up. Also the iii would be another good one for Roger’s brick collection.
Yup, it’s a D-.
Really, any jazz musician will swear this is true!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
So far, we have heard the following:
DreamT’s tree was crashing, but he’s house is not.
Madhaus’ shack is still worth a million bucks.
Nomadic is still above water.
RE’s area is holding solid.
Now, mystery of the month: Where is the crash zone Pralay is talking about?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Please enlighten us, Pralay. Don’t die on us now!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
It’ll be a major achievement when you can identify one house that is crashing in an area you would consider buying.
——–
Doesn’t our Roger The Realtor’s desperation about telling us how things are going well in RBA (e.g #70; and advises about how saving is bad etc etc) tells us that things are not so well in RBA?
If Roger The Realtor have to keep repeating “things are great here, things are great here”, it is NOT.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
“For a person so anal about English, you do not understand the difference between exemption and deduction?”
What’s important here is what they have in common!
In both cases, a certain amount of dollars was in your hands and, due either to the reason you got them (such as the exemption mentioned above), or the use you’ll make of them (as in deduction for interest payments), these dollars will not be taxed.
The fact that you failed to see why I linked these two and instead chose to bury yourself halfway in the logic is a rather frightening testament to your management skills.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Still beating around the bush? Your lack of answer says it all.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I swear I am not making this up. Also the iii would be another good one for Roger’s brick collection.
——
And that would be well-rounded (not a block) brick with full of principals.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Still beating around the bush? Your lack of answer says it all!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
DreamT,
I expected more of you. I did not think you would stoop to the level of defending what was clearly an error. Ask any tax person — is tax exemption the same as tax deduction?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Pralay says,
>>Doesn’t our Roger The Realtor’s desperation about telling us how things are going well in RBA (e.g #70; and advises about how saving is bad etc etc) tells us that things are not so well in RBA?
Let’s say India has a lot of poverty. 90% of the people make a living as street vendors. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It depends. You can get your car fixed for cheap. You can hire maids. You can get a lot of services you cannot afford in the RBA.
OK, let’s break here. Are you learning?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Let’s say India has a lot of poverty. 90% of the people make a living as street vendors. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It depends. You can get your car fixed for cheap. You can hire maids. You can get a lot of services you cannot afford in the RBA.
—–
Hmmm. Looks like Roger is in teaching mode.
90% poverty is bad no matter what – even if that translates to cheaper maids and car service. But yet Roger The Realtor says “it depends”.
No it does not depend. Poverty is bad. Period.
Just another example of Roger The Realtor’s well-roundedness.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
“is tax exemption the same as tax deduction?”
post # 134 clearly states a key difference between the two.
D minus, sir.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Pralay,
I think you’re not understanding that there are two separate questions:
1. Is it bad?
2. Is it bad for you?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Pralay,
I think you’re not understanding that there are two separate questions:
1. Is it bad?
2. Is it bad for you?
——
LOL! This question is coming from a guy who is pissed off because some poor people from neighbor city come to PA and occupy BBQ tables.
Secondly, RE, instead of “you’re not understanding” may be you should rephrase your original question “Is that a good thing or a bad thing?”. Unfortunately there was “for you” in the question.
Either way, “for you” or without it – poverty is bad for society (and society includes “you”). That makes your twisting the question futile.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
You know RealEstater I only arose from my slumber to point out an overly approximate sleight of hand. But your bad faith is increasingly tiresome, revealing and disappointing. Have fun waiting for your 2am call.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Have fun waiting for your 2am call.
—–
He does not need to. Thursday is holiday in some part of India.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Correction in #143: Unfortunately there was NO “for you” in the question.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
DreamT,
Sometimes admitting a mistake is better than defending it. You’re fired!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Pralay says,
>>LOL! This question is coming from a guy who is pissed off because some poor people from neighbor city come to PA and occupy BBQ tables
Going on another tangent? What does this have anything to do with BBQ tables?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Another example of Roger The Realtor’s well-roundedness. First he does not understand the comment. But then he cannot resist and replies it anyway.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
BTW, #149 refers to #147.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Going on another tangent? What does this have anything to do with BBQ tables?
—–
“Are you learning?”
Come on! Do I have to explain more?
Poor people coming from EPA and occupying BBQ tables. “Is it bad for you?”
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
RealEstater – ROGER THAT!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Pralay says,
>>Come on! Do I have to explain more?
Actually, you do need to explain your confused logic. What exactly are you trying to say?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I think he’s trying to say “lick my nuts”
That’s what I read, at least.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Oops, just realized that “you’re fired” strikes a sensitive nerve.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Actually, you do need to explain your confused logic. What exactly are you trying to say?
Why don’t you answer the question in #151:
—–
Poor people coming from EPA and occupying BBQ tables. “Is it bad for you?”
Now, let’s assume 90% people in bay area live in poverty and they all coming to your city and occupying your BBQ tables because they don’t have their own parks. Does it sound like India?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I think he’s trying to say “lick my nuts”
That’s what I read, at least.
——
Anon,
Do you have still doubt that this guy is definitely not in the league of “management class” managing megaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-project? It takes five posts to explain him.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Like I said, he presents like a guy who has no use but cannot be fired.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Like I said, he presents like a guy who has no use but cannot be fired.
——-
You mean he is a “dead wood” but cannot be removed? What is that? Lumber?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:18 am
I was thinking more like…Bean Counter and telephone call initiator/receiver.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:21 am
“OK, let’s break here. Are you learning?”
Good one.
Before one teaches, one must learn. Before one learns, one must be open to the possibility that they do not know something.
Good luck teaching anyone anything.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I was thinking more like…Bean Counter and telephone call initiator/receiver.
—–
Come on. Even bean counter requires some basic math skills.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
>>Like I said, he presents like a guy who has no use but cannot be fired.
>>You mean he is a “dead wood” but cannot be removed?
>>I was thinking more like…Bean Counter and telephone call initiator/receiver.
Shame on you. You guys are priced out by a dead wood/bean counter?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Well, they could give him a pile of beans and a lever to press for every bean. Since he can type, we know he is capable of pushing buttons.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Pralay says,
>>Now, let’s assume 90% people in bay area live in poverty and they all coming to your city and occupying your BBQ tables because they don’t have their own parks.
This is totally idiotic example. If 90% of the people in the bay area live in poverty, then you would not be priced out forever, and you would certainly not be on this site venting your frustration on someone trying to help you.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Well, they could give him a pile of beans and a lever to press for every bean. Since he can type, we know he is capable of pushing buttons.
—–
Shame on you. He is managing mega-project. Not mega-tons of beans.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:37 am
LOL a mega ton of beans.
No wonder he’s up so late.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Well, they could give him a pile of beans and a lever to press for every bean. Since he can type, we know he is capable of pushing buttons.
—–
Anon,
But bean or not, he is definitely dead wood. Did you notice that I gave the example of 90% provery in bay area with “let’s assume”. Roger The Deadwood missed it.
Needless to mention that I was just giving analogy with Indian poverty. Poverty makes city bad. Poverty makes not having parks in city. And that makes people going to neighbor cities and occupy their BBQ tables. With that analogy it is safe to say that poverty is bad – whether it is in EPA or India. But yet our Roger The Deadwood says “it depends”!!!!!!!! :O
IdioticDeadwoodotic?December 4th, 2008 at 12:40 am
LOL a mega ton of beans.
No wonder he’s up so late.
——
24×7
ITInfrastructureBeancounter project.December 4th, 2008 at 12:46 am
BTW anon,
Our helper is here to help. We are saved. We are saved.
“Beware the glib helper who fills your head with fantasies while he fills his pockets with fees.” – Warren Buffett
December 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Pralay says,
>>Needless to mention that I was just giving analogy with Indian poverty. Poverty makes city bad. Poverty makes not having parks in city. And that makes people going to neighbor cities and occupy their BBQ tables. With that analogy it is safe to say that poverty is bad – whether it is in EPA or India. But yet our Roger The Deadwood says “it depends”!!!!!!!!
Once again, it’s an idiotic example that actually makes the opposite point.
Assuming there is that kind of poverty in the Bay Area, homes would be totally cheap, and YOUR PROBLEM IS SOLVED! Don’t you get it? You might even be able to hire maids. It’s all good.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Yes.
Pralay, do you know what make the south bay better? A greater differential between haves and have-nots.
Think about it – I think you’ll find his to be a ‘fact.’
December 4th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Pralay, do you know what make the south bay better? A greater differential between haves and have-nots.
——
May be it’s time for Roger The Deadwood to move to some third world country so that he can afford a maid. It’s all good. It seems his trophy wife is refusing to do laundry.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:10 am
There are a lot of people with money in the Bay Area. That is a good thing. Pralay should agree — poverty is bad, so wealth is good.
However, look at it from another angle. There is intense competition for limited resources. You have to pay a million bucks for a shack that is not in Palo Alto. Is that good or bad?
In conclusion, the key phrase of the night is: It depends .
The key concept of the day is: “Is it good?” is not equivalent to “Is it good for you?”
December 4th, 2008 at 1:17 am
In conclusion, the key phrase of the night is: It depends .
——-
LOL! After posting messages like a clueless, now Roger The Deadwood is posting “key phrase”.
Our Deadwood is here to help.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:34 am
No no. The conclusion drawn, as usual, is wrong.
it is:
Therefore buy RBA property.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:37 am
LOL
Deadwood, the Brickster
Bean Counter, Extraordinaire
December 4th, 2008 at 1:38 am
, the third.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Here are some reasons why saving money to riches is stupid:
1. Money you saved is eaten up by inflation over time.
-Hence why some of it is put away into mutual funds and 401k’s for retirement. I’m young and the economy will go through several up and down cycles like it always has. As mentioned by any scholarly economist, the market performs well 70% of the time. I could easily say the same for you and your house. Its very likely that your house has either lost value, or at the very best situation staying flat. If its flat, you’re losing money via inflation at a rate of 3-6% annually. I recognize inflation also occurs with cash. But the same is true with houses as well.
2. Saving money gives you no leverage.
- Wrong again. Saving money is going to allow us to buy a pretty nice house in either Austin, Nashville, Atlanta, or some other city for cash. We will then have very little liabilities other than saving for additional retirement and the occasional used car once our old ones finally bite the dust. Leverage is what your buying power is. As I previously mentioned, we are well-fortified with out buying ability, mostly through saving money. Its funny that saving money these days is almost seen as what “losers” do. Its what people used to do in the past: Save and buy what you can afford. If most Americans followed this line of thought, we’d be in much better shape financially.
3. Interest rate you earn is low.
See number 1.
4. Savings is after tax money, and you get taxed again on the tiny amount of interest you earn.
see no. 1
5. Saving does not help you build up your credit history.
… which is why I have one credit card that I occasionally buy some stupid item with, wait a few months, then pay it off. It takes very little to get good credit. I have an excellent credit score.
Finally, saving is bad for the economy. Part of the reason there are so many strikes against saving is because the government is against it. It is the stupid man’s way of surviving, and you’re guaranteed to not be wealthy.
I don’t really give a flying fu#k about helping the economy, the government,or the financial problems that currently exist.I took no part in what caused this recession. The economy is screwed because the country is full of retarded dip-shits who over-spent beyond their means and ran us into debt up to our eyeballs.Its not my responsibility to be concerned for them or their financial situations.Regardless of what you are saying, the outcome for me has been good. Its as simple as that. We are in an excellent financial position and we didn’t have to jump through any hoops that people like yourself have been brainwashed to do. Of course the government wants you to go into debt. They want you to buy that super overpriced house, the fancy car, and the exotic vacations and do it all with credit cards and complicated bank loans.
In that regard, you seem to be the perfect shining example of what the government wants us all to do.Act like lemmings and fulfill our duty to compensate for our lack of actual production of consumerable goods by willingly extracting our personal capital in the form of procuring ” The American Dream” that has been ironed into people’s heads as an absolute status symbol.So in the meantime,I’ll let people like you save the economy. I guess “stupid” people like me and my Wife will just buy the things we want and live our lives without being of any use the gobermint’.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Guys,
Long time no see. Just wanted to read current status of you guys. Seems like same old. The only guy tooting the real estate trumpet and rest of your bears. Tell you what, I made good money by buying put options on GS, MS, LEH etc. in last 3 months or so. Actually I’ll still take loss this year since I decided to keep some longs. Anyhow, I greatly reduced my losses.
After a long while, I will something that will support perma bull RE here. It is time to buy certain stocks. Heck even index for next ten years does not look bad. You could wait for real estate till next year because it’s always slow when it declines. But by next August, it should be down sufficiently. Even banks will start getting rid of the foreclosures then. It will be a mega sell event. Not a financial advise, you are responsible for your own trades.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Austindweller,
Actually, I have some Austin questions for you. We’re thinking of coming out there to look around. I’ve been looking online. While Austin itself isn’t dirt-cheap, areas immediately outside it are pretty reasonable. I’m thinking of renting a car and driving through the following communities:
New Braunfels, Lockhart, San Marcos, Taylor, Sequin, Caldwell, Georgetown, Phlugerville, Boerne, and possible Round Rock even though I’ve heard RR is basically a overbuilt suburb for rearing children. All of these areas seem to be hovering around the 125-250k price range.
Are you familiar with any of these areas or are there others you’d recommend? Our budget is nothing over 200k. Additionally, It appears that TX has a weird property tax situation that changes from town to town. One area can be a lot more than others depending on how new the area is and how many kids live there ( schools). But there’s apparently no income tax?
One last question: How’s the economy doing and how much has the housing market slowed?
Sorry for all the questions, but since you live there, I figured it’s be good to hear from someone ” in the know”.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Bob,
I am not a know-all in real estate in Austin, but here is what I think. Austin has a hugh variation of prices. There are areas where you can pay a million for a house which is valued at 300k in other. Each has their pros and cons. For example, westlake (Eanes school district) community has houses priced at the higher end of the spectrum(for me), usually between 500-750k for a 3500 sq ft. Frankly did not think much about it since it’s beyound my budget.
I know about Round Rock Schools District homes, where I currently rent. You are right Round Rock is mainly for families with kids. But a hugh variation there too. Here is a brief compilation of my understnading of RRSD areas:
There is spicewood springs neighbourhood which has exemplary schools which has prices ranging from 300-500k. Again you could find a unkept, built in 1975 house for 180-220k there. Then there are areas such as brushy creek where schools are average to good and prices between 250-350k for a 2500 sq ft house. New construction is going on at Avery ranch, Walsh Ranch where the schools are not rated since they are new. You might want to look at them. The comes areas like Pflugerville where schools are really below average – average. So home prices are really cheap (like 120k – 150k), there could be little more crime too. But these are 1800-200 sq ft houses, brand new and you get really a good deal. Never go in proper Austin, east of mopac because of high crime rate.
As for taxes, they range anywhere from 2.2 – 2.8 in RRSD. I am yet to see a proeprty tax rate less than 2.2. Also no income tax in TX. Plus everything looks cheap to me, may be beacus I moved from CA. Surprisingly, milk is the only costly grocery item. But again there is costco which discounts it by a $1.5. As for the selling the houses, they go very slow. typical times for selling house is 6-9 months in Austin. That’s how it has been. The national trend of RE craze was not felt in the same propertion here. My prdiction is that house will come down even further especially in areas it has gone up by 30-50%. Dell and quite few have done lay offs. It may take a while to find another job here. So thats going to translate in bad RE market.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Austindweller, Thanks for the info. We don’t have children, nor plan on having them. So schools aren’t a concern of ours. As such, we’re specifically looking for areas that are a bit more in the outlying areas, as in 15-30 miles out and not attached to schools or their performance. We’re not interested in cookie-cutter suburban sprawly areas. More like less populated, older areas.
That brings me to the next question: How bad is the traffic? We drive 45 miles each way and it takes us about an hour to get to and from work. Hour and a half is there’s a wreck. I can’t imagine its as bad in Austin, hence we’re willing to live a bit further out.
Anyhow, sorry for all the questions. We’re indeed coming out to look around. But its good to hear from someone out there already.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:18 am
A few observations on #182:
1. Buying any kind of real estate in Austin is like getting into quick sand. You can get in, but you can’t get out. The market is slow, and the supply is ever expanding. You’ll never gain through appreciation.
2. The good areas are not cheap. $500-750K for Austin? You can buy a house in some decent parts of the East Bay, such as San Ramon, Pleasanton, Dublin. Why bother sweating it out in Texas?
3. Bob’s budget will only get him into an area with crime.
4. No mention of jobs.
5. No mention of energy costs.
6. Bunch of “ville” type towns cropping up all over the place. Can’t imagine there’s any life around there, or any smart people.
7. Sure, ignore school districts, and end up in a place with only retired people, blue collar laborers, and illegal aliens. Don’t forget, you can get in, but you can’t get out. It’s a roach motel.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
RE,
You’re a dumb ass. You don’t know one damned thing about Austin, so stop wasting my time. Yes- Austin has some pricey areas. So does Nashville, Detroit, Indianapolis. So what.All cities do.
Here’s an example of what you can get in Austin, in Round Rock- which is where Austin Dweller rents: http://austin.craigslist.org/reo/941468971.html
That’s right, a restored 1930′s Craftsman in a nice neighborhood. For 109k. The same would be 7-800k in anywhere Bay Area.
Or if I wanted to buy cookie-cutter, how about this?
http://austin.craigslist.org/reb/944173782.html
Sure- its ugly, but not as ugly as most of the million dollar homes on this site. There are TONS and TONS of these all over Austin.
Jobs? Do you think I’m stupid? Of course we would find jobs first. But given our situation, only one person would actually have to work, and it wouldn’t even have to be a wildly well-paying job either.
Let me make this very clear to you: I don’t give two shits about “housing appreciation” like you are. Unlike you, I actually have a retirement plan and money saved up for it. We plan on buying and living there for the rest of our lives. Why is that such a hard thing to accept?
And again- we’re going to visit it. Who knows? Maybe it sucks. Maybe its wonderful like a lot of people I know who moved there. If its bad, oh well- there’s probably at least another 5-6 cities on my list to look at. ANY of them would be better than staying here and wasting all my money on some overpriced POS and running the rat race.
Either way, you sound like an incredibly narrow minded, ignorant person. Stop responding to my posts because you don’t know what you’re talking about. period.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am
HELLOOOOOOO
Do you guys realize there is a pink house to comment on? Why are you wasting time over here?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
6. Bunch of “ville” type towns cropping up all over the place. Can’t imagine there’s any life around there, or any smart people.
“Dumbass” (or Deadwood or Brickster or Hamster) does need smart people around, because otherwise his kids will be just as dumbass as him, even after all the extra academic courses to make them well-rounded.
——-
December 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Oh yes Anon, I forgot. I’d say this pink house has a sort of…. salmon flavor to it, wouldn’t you say?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Do you guys realize there is a pink house to comment on? Why are you wasting time over here?
——-
Considering the fact that this house is sitting on market for more than six months, I bet it will stay for a few more months and we are going to have enough time to comment about it. May be our self-proclaimed real estate
investorinvestment-advisor will buy it in “Spring buying season”.December 4th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“Oh yes Anon, I forgot. I’d say this pink house has a sort of…. salmon flavor to it, wouldn’t you say?”
Yes, I think it would be quite tasty between two bagel halves and some cream cheese.
“Considering the fact that this house is sitting on market for more than six months, I bet it will stay for a few more months and we are going to have enough time to comment about it. May be our self-proclaimed real estate investor investment-advisor will buy it in “Spring buying season”.
”
I think you’re wrong! This house is lucky, pink, and in San Francisco. Which is..really real real bay area. Overbidding is just around the corner, Pralay. You could even hold your breath.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Bob,
Will you try to be civilized? “You’re a dumb ass” will not win you many debates. The points I raised are valid points. Why are you so afraid to face up to them? I don’t see you providing many answers. It demonstrates you haven’t done your homework.
Buying real estate is not the same as buying a refrigerator, which is how you’re treating it. With the $100K house you showed me, you’re buying into a $100K demographics. The house may look just fine, but what’s around the house? If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. From the price, you can tell the desparation of the seller. After you buy it, you will inherit his desparation.
When you go to Texas, you want to buy into a newer community. Because new communities are so abundant and cheap, nobody will buy into an old community unless they are very poor.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Bob,
Consider one additional point. When you buy into a $100K neighborhood, paying all cash, acting like King of the Hill, you’re forgetting that everyone around you are actually at a level where they are financing 80-90% of their homes. In other words, you’ll find plenty of people in the neighborhood with may be 10-20 grand net worth, living at poverty level. They will not be into the same things you’re into. Many will not be college educated. They’ll be talking about how so and so went back to jail, got sent to Iraq, or how the drug dealer next door smuggled some stuff from South of the border. When you drive home in your truck, they’ll think you’re rich, and try to steal some parts off of it. Again, consider what will be your lifestyle. You’re not just buying a house, even though you’d like to think that.
I know a guy who bought a $140K house in Texas. When he tried to sell it due to a job transfer, there were 4 other for sale signs on the same block. After a long time with no takers, he ended up just locking it up.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
RE,
You forget that I grew up in a very poor, rural area. That said, the people there were some of the nicest people I’ve ever known. You find that in general in areas where there is less wealth.
But that’s not the issue with the houses I’m showing. You seem amazed that a decent house could be 100-150k. Yet that’s the real story in the majority of the US. It sounds like you’ve only ever lived in California. Perhaps if you traveled around, you’d see how most of the country lives. You seem to forget that in most of the US, there is such a thing as a middle class, where people making reasonable salaries pay reasonable prices for reasonable homes. Lastly, home prices in TX aren’t as nutty as CA because of their property tax laws. While there is no income tax laws, the fact that they have a progressive property tax law discourages runaway property values. It works out nicely. That’s what you get without protective laws like Prop 13.
So it isn’t that the houses are cheap because they’re in the ghetto. Its because they’re in a part of the country that isn’t insanely overpriced. So I’d simply be buying into a normal area much like much of the RBA is actually a ‘normal’ area but one with extremely overpriced real estate that doesn’t match the quality of the house.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
bob, for your own sake, don’t waste the keystrokes.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Bob says,
>>You forget that I grew up in a very poor, rural area.
Actually, you have lived in the Bay Area for more than a few years now. You’ve gotten accustomed to many conveniences that you’re taking for granted. It will be an adjustment to go back to live in those 3rd world states, believe or not.
It would not surprise me if after you move to Texas for a while, you start to miss the great weather here, the chatter around Yahoo layoffs in the BA cafe’s, and the million dollar neighborhoods. It would also not surprise me if you decide to come back here to finally restart your life, like several people I know.
Don’t think that it will not happen. It has happened to many people. I’m trying to save you the round trip, the time wasted, and the lesson learned that there is no shortcut in life.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Bob,
One suggestion I have for you is to consider moving out to the Central Valley of CA. There, you’ll find communities rooted in their rural and farming backdrop. Home prices are almost as cheap as fly-over country, yet you have the option of driving back to see the Bay Area every now and then to catch a breath of the Web 2.0 civilization.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I’m going against Nomadic’s wise advice and continuing to feed the troll here… but RE, Believe it or not, whenever I visit my parents or relatives in TN and NC, its actually very refreshing.I actually find myself NOT wanting to come back after my stay there.
Sure- there some great things about the Bay Area. But there are also great things about other areas.
In my own home state for example:
1: Being able to leave the house at rush hour and drive to another city and see that “rush hour” is like Christmas Day in the Bay Area traffic-wise.
2: The food. Oh my god- I LOVE Southern food. Of course its bad for you, but nobody in the BA does it right. I’ve seen a few “gourmet” Southern places that claim to be authentic… but nope! Not the same thing.
3: The people. I’m not saying they’re better then they are here. But they’re nice, and when I mean nice, the last time I was home, we went to a resturant, a guy we didn’t know opened the door and asked us how we were doing. People do that a lot. Genuinely friendly and outgoing even if you’re strangers.
4: The mountains and national parks. More specifically, national parks almost devoid of people. See, its a good thing being healthy and ‘outdoorsy’ in the South because in that case, you’re the minority. If you go to a park in California, good luck finding parking since EVERYONE is outdoorsy. Forget camping too. Last time I was home, we spent the whole day in a park full of waterfalls and natural stone arches. Hiked 20 miles, saw ONE couple the whole day. Lovely.
5: The music. I love bluegrass, Americana, Alt Country, and Appalachian instrumental. There are festivals all the time. You could go to one every week if you wanted.
6: lastly, the cost of living. You have your choice in most of the Southeast even now. City, country, or somewhere in between. It is all reasonably affordable.
Additionally, many of the things you claim as being uniquely Californian are becoming more common in that region. There is now a couple of fine wine shops, 2 craft breweries and brew pubs, and a lot of various ethnic fine dining experiences popping up in many of the areas I grew up in. There are lots of new people moving in bringing it with them. Its sort of exciting to see the change.
So to answer your question, yes- I’ll miss some of the area, but I’ll also NOT miss the traffic, high prices, general snotty attitudes, and overly-liberal, self-righteous attitudes.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I am wondering which will happen first:
A) Roger buys RBA investment property
B) bob moves out of Bay Area
C) Aaron Lewis comes back to us
D) Mortgage rates drop to 4.5%
E) Dow hits 5000
F) I can play YYZ
December 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Here goes the rebuttal for RE:
A few observations on #182:
1. Buying any kind of real estate in Austin is like getting into quick sand. You can get in, but you can’t get out. The market is slow, and the supply is ever expanding. You’ll never gain through appreciation.
There are areas in Austin where houses can be sold quickly much quicker. Only thing is you have to price the house appropriately. But “on an average” time for sale is higher than CA. Then of course I am comparing it with the time to sell in CA during boom(when I was there). Who knows what it is now. Best way is to comepare average days to sell in bothe markets now.
2. The good areas are not cheap. $500-750K for Austin? You can buy a house in some decent parts of the East Bay, such as San Ramon, Pleasanton, Dublin. Why bother sweating it out in Texas?
There is a hugh difference between the kind of house and lot you get for that price in Austin and Bay Area. In Austin you get a mantion of 4500 sq ft on a lot of 13000+ sq ft. with all kind of stuff you could possibly imagine. These are houses I don’t want to live in because they need a lot of work in addition to being priced higher.
3. Bob’s budget will only get him into an area with crime.
I guess bob could get a good house even in that budget since he wishes to stay away from the crowded areas. Unfortunately I lack in knowledge of those areas.
4. No mention of jobs.
Forgot. There are quite a few companies like: Dell, Samsung, IBM, Intel, HP, …
5. No mention of energy costs.
I stay in an aprtment. Energy costs are not a problem for me. My bills are less than Ca bills most of the time.
6. Bunch of “ville” type towns cropping up all over the place. Can’t imagine there’s any life around there, or any smart people.
Don’t know whether they are smart or not. But yes Pfluggerville has ville in it.
7. Sure, ignore school districts, and end up in a place with only retired people, blue collar laborers, and illegal aliens. Don’t forget, you can get in, but you can’t get out. It’s a roach motel.
I don’t mind satying with them as long as they are safe. East part of austin’s crime index is still less than my previous location Fremont,CA.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Bob, #197 is an awesome post. I’m curious: Have you ever shown up to work in overalls? =) That would be hilarious.
Moreover, why is nobody pointing out the fact that RE’s arguments, reasoning, and writing abilties have demonstrated time and time again that he is barely a “300k person?”
December 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
My money would be on “B” if I were a gambler:
B) bob moves out of Bay Area
December 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
were. was. I meant was a gambler.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
>>why is nobody pointing out the fact that RE’s arguments, reasoning, and writing abilties have demonstrated time and time again that he is barely a “300k person?”
I would put you, Pralay, and Bob at about the same level. The primary difference being he admits to being at that level, while you guys pretend to be better than him.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Might actually be E first because we’re planning on hiding out in the BA until the recession turns around. Who knows how long that’ll be.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
nomadic, DreamT, and madhaus are in the next higher group. Anybody disagree?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Bob,
As a bystander, I see that you’re looking for excuses to stay here. You wouldn’t move if you can actually afford a house here.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Regarding #198, I see A as guaranteed, and B as the least likely.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
RE,
I’ve got a timeline but I’m also a realist. It makes no sense to move with the economy as it is and current guaranteed job security. Doesn’t hurt padding the savings a bit more anyhow. And for the upteenth-billionth time, yes- I can afford a house here if it was my goal, which it isn’t.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
RE,
I get it- you don’t want me to move because it would mean less people to buy houses which goes back to your grand plan to inflate property values. Too bad. You can count me out as soon as things turn for the better.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“I would put you, Pralay, and Bob at about the same level. The primary difference being he admits to being at that level, while you guys pretend to be better than him.”
I never claimed otherwise.
My only claim involved your demonstrated lack of sophistication.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
RE,
I think right now is the picture-perfect time to be buying investment properties. You should go out and buy one. I heard the housing market will be right back like its 2005 by this time next year. Better hurry up. Now go and buy!
December 4th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“My only claim involved your demonstrated lack of sophistication.”
well counterbalanced by an abundance of hypocrisy, dishonesty plain bad faith, sexism and racism
“My money would be on “B” if I were a gambler”
“if I were” is correct
December 4th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Bob says,
>>RE,I think right now is the picture-perfect time to be buying investment properties.
There’s not a lot of good inventory in the RBA market during the holiday season. Most of what you get are leftovers that didn’t sell because there are issues with the house. In addition, I don’t want to be looking for a tenant during Xmas time.
However, for you, it’s a different story. Outside of the RBA, there is abundant inventory at affordable prices. It’s picture perfect for you, since you would be buying for yourself and don’t need to rent it out.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“nomadic, DreamT, and madhaus are in the next higher group. Anybody disagree?”
still busy ranking people in a way that places you on top? if I were to rank people by any random character-based value criteria, you’d be closer to the sewage than the apex.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
DreamT says,
>>still busy ranking people in a way that places you on top?
Where did you see I ranked myself at the top?
>>if I were to rank people by any random character-based value criteria, you’d be closer to the sewage than the apex.
What’s with all the hostility? Do you not like to be in the same group as madhaus and nomadic?
December 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
An observation about #199:
If you noticed, Austin Dweller has become quite mellow in her “rebuttle”. I don’t see any major disagreements from her regarding the points I brought up. If she were not in Texas, and having lived it, I would expect her to react in a way more like Bob.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“What’s with all the hostility?”
see post #212 for a comprehensive list of reasons, to which you can now add the fact that you even asked
December 4th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
DreamT says,
>>well counterbalanced by an abundance of hypocrisy, dishonesty plain bad faith, sexism and racism
You gotta shake off some of that bad vibe. I see too much negativity. It’s not healthy for you. Loosen up man.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Glad you agree these are all negative character traits. So explain again how I can shake you off, O unhealthy one?
December 4th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
austindweller beat me to it, but I’ve got a couple of statistics s/he forgot to mention.
1. Buying any kind of real estate in Austin is like getting into quick sand. You can get in, but you can’t get out. The market is slow, and the supply is ever expanding. You’ll never gain through appreciation.
Suppose Bob wants to move to Austin and stay there? Suppose he wants a place to live?
2. The good areas are not cheap. $500-750K for Austin? You can buy a house in some decent parts of the East Bay, such as San Ramon, Pleasanton, Dublin. Why bother sweating it out in Texas?
Second what austindweller said. Beats me what a childfree couple would want with a 4500 sq.-ft. mansion, unless they plan to run a day care out of it. The missus and I own a 2300 sq.-ft. house, and we each have our own office, and we have a guest bedroom, and we still have more space than we’ve been able to fill.
3. Bob’s budget will only get him into an area with crime.
Crime index for 2006, according to city-data.com (higher = more crime, US average = 320.9):
Round Rock, TX : 142.7 (ZIP codes 78664, 78680, 78681, 78682, 78683)
Palo Alto, CA: 188.8 (ZIP codes 94301, 94302, 94303, 94304, 94306, 94307, 94308, 94309, 94310)
(BTW, East Palo Alto = 496.0)
Median home/condo prices, same source:
Round Rock, TX: $163,200
Palo Alto, CA: $1,392,062
5. No mention of energy costs.
Lowest and average gasoline prices by zip code, courtesy of autos.msn.com:
78664: Lowest $1.669, Avg. $1.769 (includes stations in Round Rock)
94301: Lowest $1.879, Avg. $2.059 (includes stations in Menlo Park, Mtn. View, PA, Redwood City, Los Altos, Stanford)
Given that bob plans to commute 30+ miles, this would make a huge difference.
6. Bunch of “ville” type towns cropping up all over the place. Can’t imagine there’s any life around there, or any smart people.
If by “life” you mean “street gangs,” I’m inclined to agree. I’ll just be that bob is willing to drive to spend time with smart people, just live everyone else does who doesn’t live in a faculty neighborhood.
7. Sure, ignore school districts, and end up in a place with only retired people, blue collar laborers, and illegal aliens. Don’t forget, you can get in, but you can’t get out. It’s a roach motel.
In other words, “those people.” The snobbishness is leaking right out of the screen onto my keyboard.
Also see #1 above.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Oops—I may have to concede point #3 above. The difference in crime index between Round Rock and PA might be accounted for by non-PA undesirables sneaking in to the city park, which shouldn’t be counted against PA.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
why is nobody pointing out the fact that RE’s arguments, reasoning, and writing abilties have demonstrated time and time again that he is barely a “300k person?”
Not sure this classification is valid. What do you think George W. Bush’s housing budget is?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“if I were” is correct
Thanks DreamT. Just goes to show you shouldn’t go back and change your answers (just like a test).
bob is willing to drive to spend time with smart people, just live everyone else does who doesn’t live in a faculty neighborhood.
Prof, you aren’t getting a little elitist in there, are you?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
aha – #222. The answer is approximately $2M.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aYrR1zZ_hyrg&refer=us
December 4th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
F) I can play YYZ
Woohoo, madhaus’s and my musical tastes overlap after all! But if you’re trying to fill Geddy Lee’s shoes, forget it. : )
December 4th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Re #223: Sorry—the ghost of RE must have possessed me for a second.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Any of you suppose Bernanke’s reversal on the urgency of working out bad loans is because he’s trying to get Obama to keep him on? I don’t recall off-hand how long the Fed Chairman’s appointment is, or if he serves at the pleasure of the Pres.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/12/04/bernanke-foreclosures-lockhart-markets-bonds-cx_md_1203markets28.html
December 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Don’t worry, Prof. Bleen, while I may be trying to play keys and guitar at the same time, the bass is beyond me.
As to being ranked with nomadic and DreamT, that’s mighty agreeable company. Now what exactly am I being ranked on? And I’m also with DreamT in agreeing that no matter how we rank ‘em, Roger belongs under water since he jumped off the cliff way too early.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
found it:
Currently, the chairman is Ben Bernanke, a Georgia macroeconomist nominated by George W. Bush and sworn into office on February 1, 2006, for a term lasting until 2010.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
nomadic, Bernanke’s term expires in 2010.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Nooooo RE,
Actually right NOW is the perfect time to be buying. The only reason that there’s no inventory is because all the smart investors already bought up all the houses. The trap has now been set and anyday now, prices will be going up at 15-20% per 6 months. Better buy now, right during the holiday season while you still can. Buy Buy Buy! Not buying is not doing your duty to help the economy, the government, and so on.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Prof. Bleen,
Thanks for hunting down those crime stats. Pretty interesting. Anyhow, when we go, I’ll report back and describe the area. I’m sort of looking forward to it. Never been there before myself.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Responses to Prob Bleen:
>>Suppose Bob wants to move to Austin and stay there? Suppose he wants a place to live?
Suppose after he bought, he realizes it’s not quite the house or neighborhood he wants, and wishes to move again? Can he get out?
>>Second what austindweller said. Beats me what a childfree couple would want with a 4500 sq.-ft. mansion, unless they plan to run a day care out of it.
In #182, what austindweller wrote was 500-750k for a 3500 sq ft. Not sure where the 4500 comes from. In any case, my point is that for $850K-$950K you can get the same house on the East Bay.
>>Lowest and average gasoline prices by zip code, courtesy of autos.msn.com:
78664: Lowest $1.669, Avg. $1.769 (includes stations in Round Rock)
What about the cost to cool down a 3500 sq. ft. house all summer? Do these houses all come with solar panels?
December 4th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
>> If you noticed, Austin Dweller has become quite mellow in her “rebuttle”.
Your attempt to know my gender will be successful since I don’t wish to keep that info. private. Just thought I should deprive you of the happiness of ‘how I fooled this person to open up his gender by making a witty comment’. Such means are all too common. I am a ‘he’. I have mellowed down ? Yes. Move to austin has done it. If you want to know, I have also taken up a couple of my hobbies for which I couldn’t have for the CA life style.
>> I don’t see any major disagreements from her regarding the points I brought up. If she were not in Texas, and having lived it, I would expect her to react in a way more like Bob.
So this disappoint should surprise you into thinking ‘was I wrong about Austin?’.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
If Bob moves to Austin, I would actually encourage him to rent instead of buy. When home prices depreciate like a car, there’s no point in owning.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
RE,
What do you think I’m going to do? Go there and IMMEDIATELY buy a house? No. We plan to live there and rent for at least a year or two, explore all the areas in detail, pick an area we really like, and then move there. That’s what anyone who relocates should do.
Its sad to me that the only reason you seem to find for buying a house is to re-sell. As Prof Bleen indicated, We plan to live in the house long term, as in several decades at the very least. By then it’ll be worth more than what we paid and thus functions the way homes should, which is by furnishing long-term shelter with the added convenience of gradually inflating in value over a long period. Thats how it works my friend.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“When home prices depreciate like a car, there’s no point in owning.”
Then why aren’t you following your own advice?
December 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
No way to edit the posts for typos, spelling mistakes. Shouldn’t there be a spell check ? I guess not, it’s quite an informal talk.
BTW, I have seen some 4500 sqft house listed for 400k and some 3500 sq ft for 600k in Eanes School District. I believe just square footage is not the only factor. The condition, age, improvements, lot size, plan of the house everything gets factored in.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Lastly in response to:
“In #182, what austindweller wrote was 500-750k for a 3500 sq ft. Not sure where the 4500 comes from. In any case, my point is that for $850K-$950K you can get the same house on the East Bay.”
Dude.. did you NOT read my previous response? You can totally get a house like that in Austin for 200-250k. 500k is the extreme upper end there
December 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
“Not sure this classification is valid. What do you think George W. Bush’s housing budget is?”
Not sure what you mean, Bleen. Are you suggesting that one’s intellect / human value are not correlated with the value of their home?
““When home prices depreciate like a car, there’s no point in owning.””
Hilarious, RE. Hilarious.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Bob says,
>>As Prof Bleen indicated, We plan to live in the house long term, as in several decades at the very least. By then it’ll be worth more than what we paid and thus functions the way homes should
Point #1: As you will learn, plans can change. Life is not always predictable.
Point #2: Home prices in Texas has a long history of not appreciating, and history has a way of repeating itself.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
austindweller, nice to see you again and I hope you will keep dropping in. I’ve missed your posts.
As for Roger the
RealtorMEGAAAAAAAA Project ManagerProperty InvestoryName-Carver, don’t mind him. He often gets people’s gender wrong and then insists they must have misled him. All part of the little troll’s charm!December 4th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Point #2: Home prices in Texas has a long history of not appreciating, and history has a way of repeating itself.
—–
Yes, history repeats itself…but only in Texas. Not in RBA.
BTW, can anybody provide some info what happened to RBA in early 90s? Why the owner of this home bought it for $2.4 million in 1990 and then sold it for $1.6 million in 1993?
Probably he hated money.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Pralay don’t be stupid. that home is on a busy street. It stands to reason that it would depreciate. You could probably buy it for 500k or so now.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Pralay, in the early 90s real estate fell 40% here. It was a sharp and drastic correction but it was much worse than what we have today. The years heading up to the crash, especially 1989 had incredible real estate appreciation, literally a doubling of home prices in 2 years in some places. Houses in los altos tripled in the 80s. The bay area in this bubble didn’t have as huge of a runup and therefore less to fall. I think madhaus was around at that time and can probably comment also. As a renter in the 80s I found the real estate market then to be highly depressing. I was single and could not afford to buy and the market was running away. there was no way to get in. With these siv’s and exotic mortgages, many people have been burned but some things have been opened up that should have been opened up years ago. Back in the 80s when houses were doubling there was a strict rule of 30% of your income to mortgage. That needlessly locked out hundreds of young childless couples who could have paid more to get in. Legislation has consequencies too.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Pralay don’t be stupid. that home is on a busy street. It stands to reason that it would depreciate.
———–
So based on the sales history of this home can I conclude that in 1990 University Ave was a non-busy street and name was Palo Alto Stock Farm-house Road and only horses were allowed? No car. Then before 1993 it was named to University Ave and cars were allowed to use it.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
>>Yes, history repeats itself…but only in Texas. Not in RBA.
Sure it does. RBA keeps doubling every 10 years.
>>Why the owner of this home bought it for $2.4 million in 1990 and then sold it for $1.6 million in 1993?
Because real estate is not a short term investment. How much do you think it is worth today?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Sure it does. RBA keeps doubling every 10 years.
—–
Damn! Looks like we are back on early 90s.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Because real estate is not a short term investment. How much do you think it is worth today?
—–
LOL! First Roger
The Investorargues agaist Bob’s “long term” argument in post#241 with Point #1, then he makes the same argument.December 4th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
It’s almost as if he’s just shitting words.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:03 am
How much do you think it is worth today?
—–
BTW, as the property was pulled off from the market after sitting on market for more than six months, I bet there are people “waiting to settle down the dust”. You would know how much it worth after dusts settle down.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Yes, WG, I fully remember the property prices climbing in the late 1980s and the fallback, although I don’t think it hit 40% in all places. Probably not in south Sunnyvale, maybe 25%.
I also remember my place of work offering a class on buying a house with just one income, attended by many of the singles. And the example the banker lady gave was a salesdroid buying a townhouse — this hypothetical person earned almost twice what everyone in the room made, and all he could get was a townhouse.
We practically tarred and feathered her.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:06 am
It’s almost as if he’s just shitting words.
——
Come on, anon. Please respect him. He is here to help those “who need the most”. We are so fortunately!
December 5th, 2008 at 12:12 am
I think Pralay is right. That house sold for more in 1990 than 1993 because the street got busier in 3 years. Also PG&E built some power lines nearby. And don’t forget the train tracks!
Someone clearly jumped off a cliff in 1990 and when they landed in 1993, the water level had lowered. Good thing they bought in RBA and weren’t underwater.
They just broke every bone in their body. Dang dam impellers!
December 5th, 2008 at 12:20 am
That house sold for more in 1990 than 1993 because the street got busier in 3 years. Also PG&E built some power lines nearby. And don’t forget the train tracks!
——
More reasons:
- Transient guests of certain racial group started coming in from EPA crossing 101 and commit all kind crimes. University Ave was their favorite gateway entry.
- Marginal property.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Pralay says,
>>He is here to help those “who need the most”. We are so fortunately!
You’re darn right. It’s people like me who’ll pitch in to save the country when it’s going down. It’s people like me who donate to the school and to the local library. By comparison, you’ll not even donate a few bucks to Burbed when offered a match from…the same guy who is helping the economy.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Hey, Pralay, can I borrow your irony meter? Mine just busted.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Real estater’s getting all self-righteous.
How cute! Truly a pillar of the community.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:58 am
A pillar of the night, at least. He’s so excited that he’ll be posting until 5am.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:00 am
He’s singlehandedly propping up the internet.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Awesome. Last post of the night. I shall sing you all to sleep with a lullaby.
“Amazing Real Estater, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me….
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.
Come on, Pralay, sing with me buddy.
T’was Real Estater that taught…
my heart to fear.
And Real Estater, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Real Estater appear…
the hour I first believed. (in rba properteeeee)
Bob, you too! I know you know this one!!1
Through many dangers, toils and snares…
we have already come.
T’was Real Estater that brought us safe thus far…
and Real Estater will lead us home.
Ok, that’s enough of that. Tomorrow I shall conclude with ‘ode to real estator’