32% of Mountain View renters overpaid
Mountain View Voice Mountain View Voice: Housing report: City is ‘jobs rich’ (April 24, 2009)
Kicking off the housing discussion is a new report on the city’s housing needs from Bay Area Economics. Among numerous issues, it points out that the city is becoming increasingly “jobs rich,” while housing development has not kept pace. It says jobs increased by 19 percent since 2003, while housing units increased by only 3 percent since 2000. Mountain View’s population has increased 10 percent since 1990, to 72,932.
By comparison, the county has grown by 23 percent since 1990 and had three times less job growth on average.
To meet its “fair share” of the county’s unmet housing needs, the Association of Bay Area Governments has calculated that Mountain View needs to accommodate — perhaps through zoning — another 2,123 units by 2014, including 467 very low income units. That goal may be difficult to achieve in a slow housing market: Permits for only 99 units were approved last year, while 377 units were permitted in 2007.
The report also points out that high land costs and public opposition to dense housing development have hindered housing production.
[snip]
For many years Mountain View has been known as a city with a relatively high ratio of renters. The county shows the opposite trend, with about 40 percent renters and 60 percent homeowners, according to the report.
The report cites other concerns. About 19 percent of the city’s multi-family apartment buildings are not built to withstand a major earthquake, it says, noting that of the city’s 584 apartment buildings, 111 have a “soft story” design where an “open wall condition” on the first floor can lead to “seismic weakness” in an earthquake.
Reflecting county-wide trends, the report says 32 percent of Mountain View renters “overpaid” by spending more than a third of their income on rent, compared to 36 percent county-wide. Seniors overpaid the most: In 2000, the report says, 50 percent of seniors overpaid for housing and 26 percent “severely overpaid.”
The report adds that there are no assisted living facilities affordable to low income seniors in the city. It says the city has placed a 180-unit cap on small apartments — also known as “efficiency studios,” like the ones at San Antonio Place — so only 62 more can be built.
Mountain View’s median income for 2008 is slightly lower than the county median of $81,246, according to the report. Per capita income, however, is higher: $46,644 versus $37,470.
Congrats to Mountain View on these amazing stats!
Remember, the more you spend on housing, the cooler you are. Go Mountain View!
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Sleazy use of the English language. They did not overpay (i.e. paid more than the value they got). They under-earned (i.e. paid more than 1/3 of their income). The use of “overpay” has an undercurrent of entitlement – i.e. they “should” have paid less for the same shelter.
The Mountain View Voice is stooping to new lows to bring in some readership, even though they did put quotes around their first use of “overpaid”.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Right on, DreamT! I can’t “overpay” for a house in the hills with a view of SF Bay, so someone better rent me a nice place based on what I can afford.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Leave to some old dudes to sum up the financial problems so succinctly:
Munger, Berkshire’s 85-year-old vice chairman, said a combination of factors caused the financial crisis. He said the nation tolerated way too much debt, immorality and stupidity, and now it’s paying the price.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/03/AR2009050301627.html
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
At the end of the day, the financial crisis is a man-made problem, so there’s got to be a man-made solution. The country was essentially heading down the road to deflation, with most of the major asset classes dropping in value. This is reason the Fed was so bold to inject huge amounts of cash. In effect, it’s fighting deflation with inflation. What we can observe at this time is that the panic of a few month ago has subsided, replaced by relative calm in the market place, and even some surprising results in home sales. The worst is clearly over, and chances are we have seen the bottom.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm
The worst is clearly over, and chances are we have seen the bottom.
BWAHAHAHAHA
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
don’t mind him, tyrone – he’s brain dead.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:04 am
check out this one – http://www.zoyzoy.com/realestate/ofheo.php?msa=41940
yeah, it’s macro level meaningless data (according to RE), you will see upto 2000 income and house prices tagged along pretty well.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Oh, it’s funny. #4 is a pretty reasonable post. I think it’s a bit optimistic, but I’d be willing to say ‘there’s a chance we have seen the bottom’, if by the bottom you mean the decline in GDP, as opposed to housing prices in the RBA.
I think the question is will there be a recovery, a period of significant growth in GDP (more than 2% annual), or will we have stagnation for a long time.
I think we may be in for some stagnation. It’d be nice if the home balance sheet were repaired during this time, but while individuals who hold on to the jobs may find a new prudence (and end up with very sound personal finances, and a new appreciation for the danger of debt), on average it’ll probably be worse b/c of how many people lose jobs and homes.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I don’t think I’ve seen anything from the government’s economists forecasting any actual growth in the economy until early 2010. Just a deceleration in decline until then.
So, MAYBE a bottom in the Dow if people stay optimistic and the economic realities have already been priced into the market. But a bottom in GDP? Doubtful.
My 2 cents.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:06 am
What you’re likely to see is the economic picture improving and better than expected numbers, including housing. This is what happened again today, and this is the reason the market is rallying:
Two new economic nuggets added to demand for stocks. Construction spending rose unexpectedly in March after five straight declines, and pending U.S. home sales rose more than expected.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:54 am
If you’re hoping to buy a house or invest in the market, the time to act is not when there is strong consesus that the economy has turned the page. It would be too late by then, because those elements would be priced in. Certainly you assume some risk by acting ahead of the curve, but by this time you should know there’s no “falling knife”, and the general direction of the market is toward recovery.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:01 am
lol… moron ^^
May 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am
If you’re hoping to buy a house or invest in the market, the time to act is not when there is strong consesus that the economy has turned the page.
———
LOL! RealExcreter’s new “right time to buy”.
He is saying it for more than one year – as listed here and here.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
At the end of the day, the financial crisis is a man-made problem, so there’s got to be a man-made solution.
—–
Definitely, but how can we test this theory? How about RealEstater goes to the roof of a ten story building and jump? Now that’s a man-made problem. RealEstater is a “man enough”, as he claimed. And jumping from 10 story building is a problem. Therefore, it is a man-made problem.
So, if this is a man-made problem, there got to be a man-made solution before RealEstater hits a the ground.
RealEstater, don’t worry. Every man-made problem has man-made solution. And the solution is going to save you before you hit the ground.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:46 am
The worst is clearly over, and chances are we have seen the bottom.
———
Come on, RBA hit the bottom in last Jaunary.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Yeah, I just can’t say your track record encourages me to trust your advice on when the economy, or housing is going to go up, RE.
But congratulations on your latest bold prediction. I’m sure Pralay can evaluate it for us 6 months from now.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
A.,
I’m the only person here with a consistent track record. I liquidated my stock portfolio in Jan 2008. I called the stock market bottom in 2009 as it happened. I bought real estate back in 2003 when the market was about to take off. I own in the only Bay Area zip code that was still up in the last Mercury News report.
Don’t listen to the clown who has never conducted any real estate transaction in his life and who does not even bother to go see open houses.
You said it yourself that #4 is a pretty reasonable post. I’m not sure how it became a “bold prediction”.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Regarding #17 – that’s a pretty big resume for a proven pathological liar.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I think everyone would agree you are consistent (in your own way), but I don’t mean to bait you. Or Pralay.
Here is what you wrote that I called a bold prediction:
“The worst is clearly over, and chances are we have seen the bottom.”
Note I used subtly different wording in #8:
“there’s a chance we have seen the bottom”, followed by some not-as-bold caveats. People who don’t add caveats are bold.
Fair enough. We can look back 6 and 12 months from now and see how you did.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
A.,
It’s the same pattern over and over. I would make a call, often very specific. The same fools would jump out with the inane attacks. A few months later, my assessment is proven to be correct. They come back with a last ditch attempt to discredit it; e.g. “He really doesn’t live in 94301″, “He really didn’t sell in Jan 08, he sold in Mar 08″, “He really didn’t buy at Dow 6500″, “He lives in a trailer park in Minnesota”, blah blah blah. You can wait 6 to 12 months if you like. The same thing will happen again, and that’s not a “bold prediction”.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Fair enough. We can look back 6 and 12 months from now and see how you did.
——–
LOL! Even a broken clock shows right time twice a day. If broken clock is showing 12:00, do you think you need to stay up till 12 midnight to check if it showing correct time or not? A broken clock is broken clock. Let’s read RealExcreter’s another bold prediction in Semtember 2008:
Note the words:
- I am right all along
- No recession
- Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem solved
- Market all clear to take off.
Just like a broken clock, if RealExcreter keeps giving his “bold prediction” of positive outlook for next 10 years, someday he is going to be right.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
A few months later, my assessment is proven to be correct.
——
Yes, “we’re all clear for take-off”.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
A.,
The basis for my credibility is that the calls I make are given in advance.
Regardless of whether you choose to believe I liquidated my stock porfolio, I did make the announcement in Q1 2008.
Regardless of whether you choose to believe I live in 94301 or a trailer park in Minnesota, I did specifically mention this zip before the Mercury News posted the article saying this is the only zip being up.
Regardless of whether you choose to believe I bought at Dow 6500, I did make the case that buying at this level is a “no brainer” at the time when everyone else thought the sky was falling.
In other words, regardless of whether you believe the claims about myself (which I can care less about), the calls I made were valid. This is precisely the reason the trolls here get so frustrated, and come out to attack at every opportunity, hoping that eventually they might find something to latch onto.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I would make a call, often very specific.
—–
Ok, let’s check out one call RealExcreter made seven months back when DOW was ~8500:
Strong recovery (and that was seven months back)!!!!
Easy money!!! What is DOW today, after seven months?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Yes, RE, sometimes I make jokes suggesting you’re from Minnesota. They’re pretty silly, right? And everyone knows that.
But Pralay brings up a great example – in black and white, in September of 2008 you said “there is indeed no recession”. Which many other folks were also saying at various times in 2008.
Well, there is INDEED a recession. Declared formally by the NBER in Dec. 2008, that it started in Dec. 2007 and has yet to end. So sometimes you’re wrong. Along with many other people. So you don’t have so great a track record.
As an aside, one of the big differences between the Obama and Bush administrations, is the Obama administration is willing to admit that sometimes it is wrong.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
In other words, regardless of whether you believe the claims about myself (which I can care less about), the calls I made were valid.
—–
May 4th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
So you don’t have so great a track record.
—–
But how could be possible? He himself is saying “I’ve been right all along” and “I’m the only person here with a consistent track record”! As he is claiming so, it got to be true, right?
Oh, I forgot, he is liar.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Another cute little prediction by RealExcreter ONE YEAR back:
Analysts were all wrong. Only RealExcreter is right all along.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Pralay,
The points you brought up have all been responded to before. Haven’t you noticed that, with the exception of the occasional new comer who did not follow previous conversations, no one is silly enough to be stirred by your charges?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
A. Lewis says,
>>Well, there is INDEED a recession. Declared formally by the NBER in Dec. 2008, that it started in Dec. 2007 and has yet to end.
There was no recession by the conventional definition of 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline. The retroactive declaration by NBER was arbitrary, and wasn’t true for the Bay Area.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
The points you brought up have all been responded to before.
——–
Example of “all been responded”?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
The retroactive declaration by NBER was arbitrary, and wasn’t true for the Bay Area.
—–
LOL! “There is indeed no recession” changes to “there is indeed no recession for the Bay Area“.
What’s next? No recession for your bedroom?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
There was no recession by the conventional definition of 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Pralay says,
>>Example of “all been responded”?
Post #33 (already responded in post #30).
May 4th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Post #33 (already responded in post #30).
—–
May 4th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Another example of RealExcreter’s prediction. In September he says “there is no recession” and gives bold prediction “clear for take-off”.
Then, you know what, recession arrives.
As a result, after five months of “clear for take-off” statement, RealExcreter changes his tone:
No recession? Opportunity. Easy money.
Recession? Opportunity.
Then who needs RealExcreter’s prediction? Either way it is win-win.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
If it’s predictions you want…
DOW 3800 at bottom.
Preeepare yourselves.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Predictions? I predict a DOW reverse split. 17,000 is the new 8,500!
May 4th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
liquidated my stock portfolio in Jan 2008.
What inspired you to do that?
What was the signal? Is this some kind of technical trading?
May 4th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Pralay says,
>>Another example of RealExcreter’s prediction. In September he says “there is no recession” and gives bold prediction “clear for take-off”.
This is getting old. Anybody who’s been here knows this point has been explained over and over, yet you keep repeating the same crap hoping to land a new comer who fall for it. No takers so far
May 4th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
DreamT says,
>>Predictions? I predict a DOW reverse split. 17,000 is the new 8,500!
That’s the difference between my predictions and yours. Mine are given before an event happens; yours are given after the fact, sort of like the retroactive recession.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
did I miss the reverse split?! Frightening!
May 4th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
DreamT,
You’re missing out on the retroactive recovery, which NBER will be announcing next year.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I guess you didn’t understand the joke (again). It was a sarcastic observation that anybody remotely familiar with stocks splits and reverse splits understood.
As for your post #42, none of it makes sense (again). Please elaborate.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“That’s the difference between my predictions and yours. Mine are given before an event happens; yours are given after the fact, sort of like the retroactive recession.”
WTF? can you read?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
DreamT,
I guess you didn’t get the joke in #42. Hint: Read #25 or 30.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:16 am
how do #25 and #30 apply to me?? I’m not A. Lewis last I checked
May 5th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Anybody who’s been here knows this point has been explained over and over, yet you keep repeating the same crap hoping to land a new comer who fall for it.
—-
Anybody? Who?
LOL! RealExcreter’s as usual position – he explained everything in past. Then, again, he is a proven liar.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Mine are given before an event happens;
—-
Sort of like “we’re all clear for take-off”.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Guys,
Despite all the retroactive recession that’s supposedly been going on for over a year, the RBA market is still a tough place for an average tech guy with a $1M budget. It’s not enough to get anything decent in my vicinity (e.g.Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Los Altos). The best I can do is something like madhaus’ shack some 25 minutes away. The guy who’s “not even looking” would never understand the true market condition. The places that matter have not gotten cheaper by any meaningful amount. Those fire sale deals are always in the future, or in Steve’s imagination.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Fascinating, as usual, RE.
Whenever one of us tries to get specific, you claim, “That’s been answered in the past.”
Well, I for one am not satisfied with your past explanations. You didn’t win those past arguments, you just changed direction and started off on some tangent, never addressing the original issue. You never do.
The consecutive quarters of GDP decline condition has been met (3q08, 4q08, 1q09, and counting). And that’s not the only definition of recession, which you should know if you want to go talking about recessions.
Unemployment in the Bay Area has skyrocketed.
You’re ridiculous – you spend months denying the recession, then in various posts, like the one Pralay quotes in #36, you tacitly admit there is a recession, while never saying “OK, I was wrong before.” Now you are back to denial. Or a strange version where there’s no recession in the Bay Area.
I see by post #49 that now you want to limit the definition of recession to ‘have housing prices dropped in the best part of Palo Alto yet?’. Well, that’s convenient for you.
I was nailing you for saying ‘there is no recession’. If you want to talk about Palo Alto housing prices, that’s a little different.
And it’s strange how your grammar starts to lose it in some posts. You’re writing too quickly for your own good (happens to the best of us), and were you drinking last night at 1:15am? C’mon, you can tell us – we’re your blog buddies.
You get really incoherent in that post #49.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I think the joke in #45 is that a mega-project manager has the reading comprehension skills of a fifth grader.
Or, as A. suggested, he was drunk.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:18 am
in all honesty I also thought he was drunk when he wrote #45. seems like there’s a consensus building here.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Oh! I know! He wants to change his screen name to “non sequitur” – it’s far more apropos, yes?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:53 am
The places that matter have not gotten cheaper by any meaningful amount. Those fire sale deals are always in the future, or in Steve’s imagination.
——-
Let’s see what our only consistent guy said so far.
April 2008:
No evidence of price drop in RBA. Simply impossible.
October 2008:
No evidence of falling price in RBA. Simply impossible.
Finally, in Jaunary 2009 RealExcreter admits that there is a “decline” in RBA.
But he termed the decline as “modest”. He denies that 20% decline is possible in RBA. Simply impossible.
Then, when Steve shows him an example of price drop in Palo Alto in March 2009, RealExcreter admits ~20% “real drop” (steve’s comp is post #25 in very same thread):
So, this is the example of a person “with a consistent track record”.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:03 am
That reminds me Ryan Jessup from Sacremento suburb Oak Park. nyc_to_rba posted it sometime back.
First Ryan Jessup denies that price decline is possible in his neighborhood.
Then he admits price decline in market, but he claims that it is “modest”, especially in good neighborhoods like his own.
Then when his Oak Park home is under water, he walks away.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
fools.
every last one of em.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
All,
My sentiments regarding the recession expressed yesterday is echoed by Fed Chairman Bernanke’s comments made today.
From CNBC:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Tuesday the three-year U.S. housing bust may be near a bottom and that he expected the recession to end this year barring a relapse of the financial crisis.
“We continue to expect economic activity to bottom out, then to turn up later this year,”
May 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
A.,
I think your confusion stems from reading Pralay’s postings out of context. I’ve brought up this point before: You can’t read old newspapers and then say it doesn’t jive with current events. Each posting has a shelf-life associated with the date. I’ve not made any inaccurate statements if you consider the timestamp.
Let’s do a few spot checks:
>>There’s no evidence to substantitate that lower prics are coming to the RBA.
Absolutely valid statement as of 4/2008.
>>What I can say is that any decline in the RBA will be modest compared to non-RBA areas.
Totally valid even today.
>>If you believe prices are falling and homes are not selling in Palo Alto, let’s hear it.
A simple request for comment that was never addressed by pralay since 10/08.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
>>There’s no evidence to substantitate that lower prics are coming to the RBA.
Absolutely valid statement as of 4/2008.
—-
LOL! RealExcreter admitting that his 4/2008 comment is no longer valid.
Why would someone trust RealExcreter, who calls others clown and amateurs all the time, cannot even see what is coming in next three/four months? But yet he claims that his predictions are correct all the time.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
>>What I can say is that any decline in the RBA will be modest compared to non-RBA areas.
Totally valid even today.
——–
This one is gem. While accusing me for quoting him out-of-context, he himself started quoting himself out-of-context. Isn’t that cute? Let’s put words in context:
What is the definition of “modest” to RealExcreter? If other places fall 100%, does that mean that 50% fall in RBA is “modest”?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
>>If you believe prices are falling and homes are not selling in Palo Alto, let’s hear it.
A simple request for comment that was never addressed by pralay since 10/08.
——-
Still in doubt (in 04/2009) that prices are falling, RealExcreter?
May 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I think your confusion stems from reading Pralay’s postings out of context.
——
Quoting out-of-content – that’s politicians’ (some of them are damn liars – just like RealExcreter) familiar phrase. I thought RealExcreter is an average hitech guy! All the quotations have links pointing to original posts (posted by RealExcreter, to be precise).
May 5th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I’ve brought up this point before: You can’t read old newspapers and then say it doesn’t jive with current events.
—–
Actually your posts are different from newspapers news. News in newspapers provides facts – something that already happened in the ground. What you are spewing here are not facts. Those are your opinions and predictions based on distorted facts. For example, take your 04/4008 statement:
There were evidence. You just didn’t accept it by labeling them “useless aggregate data” or “meaningless anecdotal data”.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
My sentiments regarding the recession expressed yesterday is echoed by Fed Chairman Bernanke’s comments made today.
—–
Looks like RealExcreter and RealBernake are twins.
In March 2007, RealBernanke said: Recession unlikely.
In February 2008, RealBernanke predicted: USA will avoid a recession.
Oh, I forgot, RealBernanke was talking about RealUSA.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Pralay,
If the entire basis for your argument is that you are more qualified than Fed Chairman Bernanke to comment on the direction the of the conomy, then I have no further comment. I’ll let the readers come to their own conclusions (after they stop laughing).
May 5th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Pralay says,
>>Still in doubt (in 04/2009) that prices are falling, RealExcreter?
Go to mlslistings.com, and search for Sunnyvale, You’ll find 54 listings priced at $990K or higher. Are you taking advantage of these fallen prices?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
RealExcreter,
As others stated already, you have serious comprehension problem. I never claimed I am more qualified than Bernanke. If I did, show me the post. I am pointing out some facts where Bernanke’s predictions are proven to be wrong.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Go to mlslistings.com, and search for Sunnyvale, You’ll find 54 listings priced at $990K or higher. Are you taking advantage of these fallen prices?
—–
LOL! RealExcreter just confirmed Lewis’s following comment in #50.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Are you back-peddling, Pralay?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
More on Bernanke. In May 2007:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Wow… this is getting pretty heated. Isn’t it time for some cupcakes and yogurt?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
back-peddling? surely you did not graduate high school.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Burbed,
No problem. Except for some clarifications, I don’t really have any issue here. I can understand and respect your call for calm.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Real Instigator, you’re a douche.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
back-peddling? surely you did not graduate high school.
—–
Blame it to public school.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Guys,
Can we cut down on the personal attacks and focus on rational discussions as Burbed proposes?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Uh oh someone hit “reset” on real estater.
Was it pralay or burbed?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I’m getting into this conversation a bit late, but I can’t let people make horrible mistakes about economics.
In post 4, we have This is reason the Fed was so bold to inject huge amounts of cash. In effect, it’s fighting deflation with inflation.
Inflation and deflation do not cancel out. What we have right now is inflation of the currency supply and price deflation. The government is printing massive amounts of money which are being used to prop up bank losses and are sitting in banks as capital reserves, ready to lend. On the other side, people are losing their jobs and starting to pay down debt and save money, which means that they are spending less. Over the last few years, vast amounts of goods were overproduced, and the production pipelines slow down very slowly. So, we have a surplus of goods, a shortage of buyers, so prices are falling for many goods, housing included. Once the economy settles at a healthy level, people will be more willing to borrow, they will borrow from banks that now have these huge inflationary reserves and so more money will chase fewer goods. There will be massive price inflation.
Both deflation and inflation suck for the economy, and we have both.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Can we cut down on the personal attacks and focus on rational discussions as Burbed proposes?
———
Does that mean that you are going to stop calling others as “clown”? That would be so uncharacteristic of RealExcreter!
May 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
“Uh oh someone hit “reset” on real estater.”
No, he’s just back-peddling.
* FAIL *
May 5th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Bernanke’s comments are mostly useless because it’s his job to play the optimist. If he actually stood there and told the truth, he would be removed from his position.
Government officials (and, yes, I’ll consider the Fed a government agency for the sake of argument) are overly optimistic about the state things whenever they are in charge, and overly pessimistic when they are not.
Why? Because that’s how they stay in power. If Bernanke were telling everyone that GDP is going to drop another 10%, that housing is going to fall 20%, and that we’ll see 15% unemployment, it would harm consumer confidence. Consumer confidence is, by far, the single greatest component of any economy.
If you want real wisdom, look at what knowledgeable investors are doing. They sure as hell aren’t buying real estate.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Aren’t you guys in denial? Bernanke wouldn’t say something that would be proven wrong just a few months down the road. You can look at the stock market or housing; the signs of stabilization and recovery are already at play.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Bernanke wouldn’t say something that would be proven wrong just a few months down the road.
—-
He already did. Read #64 and #70.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
steve’s imagination here:
after 3 weeks on the market, this lovely menlo park home has entered contract. I wonder what will close at?
2607 ALPINE Rd
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Mar 28, 2009 Listed $1,495,000
Jun 02, 2000 Sold $1,650,000
and this excellent Los Altos home (check the neighborhood!) just closed. Not sure of the final sale but there is no way it touched $1.6M
158 Coronado Ave
Los Altos, CA 94022
LAST SALE: $1,755,000 (06/19/2007)
carry on…
May 6th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Pralay says,
>>He already did. Read #64 and #70.
We got the message. He’s wrong, and you’re right. We should turn off the TV and read your brilliant forcast on Burbed instead.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Piece by piece, the recovery is taking shape:
U.S. private-sector job losses slowed much more than expected in April, hitting their lowest since November last year, according to a report by ADP Employer Services on Wednesday.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am
I would not be surprised if by early next year, NBER announces that the recession ended in May 2009. The trend is established, and the signs are there.
If you’re an aspiring home owner, just remember the saying, “The early bird gets the worm”.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:15 am
#87, your tactic is very much like when Bush used to mention 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence – to tie two unrelated things together in people’s minds.
You are attempting to say that if the recession ends in May ‘09, that would be the time to buy housing, presumably before housing prices rise – which you assume they will b/c the recession ‘ended’.
I hope that aspiring homeowners are not dumb enough to fall for this kind of thinking.
An increase in GDP, or an increase in employment do not automatically equate to an increase in housing prices.
The housing market can go up or down during a growth period for the rest of the economy. Sometimes housing is what leads us out of recessions (the ‘01 recession is the perfect example), but it’s not required, and frankly, I think it’s obvious that housing is going to be about the LAST sector to recover in our economy this time.
So the aspiring homeowner should wait a long time AFTER NBER declares, retroactively, that the recession was over.
And I think their declaration will state the end was in 2010. There’s a chance it will be in Fall ‘09, but that’s very optimistic.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Lewis, let’s leave RE here to play with himself.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:05 am
#89 – Agreed, I’m out. He can have the last word if he wants. In past threads, I think he tends to just make my points for me.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:19 am
nomadic,
I was out back in #73, but got dragged back due to subsequent comments by others.
If you #87 objectionable, then please address your point in rational manner, as A. Lewis did in #88. Otherwise, you’re the one who’s “playing” and causing unnecessary trouble.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am
A Lewis,
Your whole point is the following:
>>An increase in GDP, or an increase in employment do not automatically equate to an increase in housing prices.
Howcome you didn’t make the same argument to the perma-bears? Does drop in GDP, decrease in employment, and recession automatically equate to drop in housing prices? That’s what they’ve been arguing all along. You can’t have it one way but not the other. If you truly believe in your own logic, then you should make it clear to everyone that you believe economic conditions don’t have correlation to home prices.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
RE,
increase in GDP causes house prices to go up w/o a doubt
decrease in GDP causes house prices to go down
however, there are other factors besides gdp that influence house prices. for example, employment, rent, inflation, interest rate, and existing house prices
so, even if GDP stabilizes, other factors will drag prices down.
note – Bernanke may be telling the truth, but he just like all of us, does not know the future.
also, he said GDP may level off this year. He didnt mention recovery.
and he specifically said unemployment will be on rise till next year.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
sv_newbie,
Getting back to my original point. As economic conditions improve, majority of those factors you alluded to will become more favorable to housing than they are today. If you wait til the lottery numbers are announced on TV, you can’t win the lottery any more. Therefore, if you aspire to own a home, now is as good an opportunity as ever. The combination of home prices and record low interest rate presents a very reasonable entry point.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
did RE just compare buying a home and playing the lottery? wow
May 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
We got the message. He’s wrong, and you’re right. We should turn off the TV and read your brilliant forcast on Burbed instead.
——-
Another comprehension problem. I never claimed I am giving brilliant forecast. I am just saying that Bernanke’s prediction proven wrong many times, therefore his forecasts should not be taken in face value.
RealExcreter,
You are the only guy who is trying to sell his dubious predictions with phrase “consistent track record”. So, if anyone is here is guilty of giving “brilliant forecast”, that’s YOU.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Piece by piece, the recovery is taking shape:
U.S. private-sector job losses slowed much more than expected in April, hitting their lowest since November last year, according to a report by ADP Employer Services on Wednesday.
———
LOL! It’s still “job loss”. It just slowed – nothing more, nothing less.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Howcome you didn’t make the same argument to the perma-bears?
—–
Before picking one line and trying to make a straw man argument, you should have read following paragraphs of his post.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Therefore, if you aspire to own a home, now is as good an opportunity as ever.
——-
Another “right time to buy”.
List of previous “right time to buy” (in more than one year).
More right/best/perfect time to buy.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Pralay,
>>I am just saying that Bernanke’s prediction proven wrong many times, therefore his forecasts should not be taken in face value.
Your position is basically, “He’s been wrong before, so he’s wrong now. Don’t listen to him.”
If this is not your point, then what is your point?
May 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Pralay says,
>>Another “right time to buy”.
Clearly, Pralay disagrees with the above. In other words, his position is that now is the wrong time to buy; i.e. the best time to buy is when the economy and the housing market are strong. Does anyone agree with that?
May 6th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
More “right time to buy” from RealExcreter:
In March 2009. RealExcreter is in full user car salesman mode – trying to exploit a soon-to-be-dad’s emotions.
More in March – you got to be buy this year. Don’t wait for next year.
April 2009 – strong consensus.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Your position is basically, “He’s been wrong before, so he’s wrong now. Don’t listen to him.”
If this is not your point, then what is your point?
——
You got it in the first part of first sentence, RealExcreter. That’s quite improvement in your comprehension skill.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Clearly, Pralay disagrees with the above. In other words, his position is that now is the wrong time to buy; i.e. the best time to buy is when the economy and the housing market are strong. Does anyone agree with that?
—–
Actually my posts do not say that either. They merely quotes your past “right time to buy” comments. You keep saying “right time to buy” all the time. That makes you an used car salesman.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Pralay says,
>>Actually my posts do not say that either.
You can’t refute a point without a counterpoint, unless you’re a pointless troll. I’m trying to save you from that label.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
You can’t refute a point without a counterpoint, unless you’re a pointless troll. I’m trying to save you from that label.
—-
Another comprehension problem. My point of #104 is that you are an used car salesman. Because you say “right time to buy” ALL THE TIME.
Now it is your turn to refute that point with counterpoint, unless you are really an user car salesman (or Realtard). I’m trying to save you from that label (wow! RealExcreter learned a new word from Madhaus and DreamT).
May 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Pralay,
It’s not about me. I already promised Burbed not to respond to your personal attacks.
The point that matters is whether it is a good time to buy at the start of a recovery vs. when the economy has already recovered. I think our positions have already been made clear so let’s see what others think.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
It’s not about me. I already promised Burbed not to respond to your personal attacks.
—–
LOL! Are you serious? It’s unfathomable that RealExcreter won’t call clown as clowns, amateurs and amateurs, morons as morons.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
The point that matters is whether it is a good time to buy at the start of a recovery vs. when the economy has already recovered.
—–
And as I showed, in more than one year you argued “right time to buy” all the time. Only the rational behind it changed.
- Market is great? Right time buy now. Don’t get priced out.
- Recession? Right time to buy.
- Recovery started? Right time to buy.
- Someone is becoming dad? Right time to buy.
- Someone died? Right time to buy.
- It’s raining outside? Right time to buy.
Basically, you are an used car salesman. Therefore, your argument behind “right time to buy” is nothing but a bullshit.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Must….stay….strong…..Must….not….respond…
May 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
[Emperor Burbed decided this was too baiting-ish and removed the comment.]
May 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“As economic conditions improve, majority of those factors you alluded to will become more favorable to housing than they are today. If you wait til the lottery numbers are announced on TV, you can’t win the lottery any more. Therefore, if you aspire to own a home, now is as good an opportunity as ever.”
Fool.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
So this is how the Emperor’s scissors look like. Even censorship is sophisticated on this site.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
anon, you’ve become rather succinct.
lol
May 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Quote from article above:
“….the report says 32 percent of Mountain View renters “overpaid” by spending more than a third of their income on rent,….”
Does anyone know if this “one third of their income” was based on net or gross income? Either way, its way too high to save $ unless the renter has no utilities and eats very very little.
One thing:
I am currently looking for a rental: 2BR/2BA/2-car garage. Prefer Sunnyvale, SC, Cupertino, PA, (Los Altos, obviously), open to SJ, depending. Want something avail mid-May or end-of-May. Am looking on CraigsList. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Because we want to continue to save for a home of our own, we are deliberately living below our means, and as such, we have limited ourselves to $1700 or less. XLNT tenants with FICOs in the high 790s. Thanks.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Wow, after Pralay attacked me personally, me asking him to go have a Yogurt is considered baiting?
#112 is acceptable? WTF?
May 6th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
#117 – well, Justice is blind and may have tripped on her way to the offensive post. Or not.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Wow, after Pralay attacked me personally, me asking him to go have a Yogurt is considered baiting?
——-
Do you care, RealEstater? Either way it was an useless post anyway – just like your other posts.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
SB123, I am a landlord and honestly I think $1700 is too low for a house anywhere. You might get a decent condo or townhouse is that ok with you? I own 10+ rentals and the nice parts of San Jose incl Campbell are going for low-mid $2K’s. Like this one (not mine) not exactly high living for $2600.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/apa/1153854693.html
May 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I think we’ve seen the bottom also. the bottom in the really low end properties like Stockton happened a while ago (like 2007/early 2008) but at this point it seems to have rippled through.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Hi WillowGlenner:
We aren’t really looking for a house, just a townhouse or a multiplex. Generally as rentals, houses have too many problems with pests, termites (dry wood & subterranean) in fences and at foundations, that sort of thing. Townhomes & condos tend to be better cared for – as a general rule with us. Others may have different experiences, which is OK too.
On CL, I’m seeing a number of rentals in my price range, a couple of 2-car garages, however, most are single-car garage. Areas with positive rentals tend to be SC, Sunnyvale, Pruneridge, LG. One in particular is going for $1750 for a 2-car townhouse.
You are right though, most are in the $2k range which is OK, but we want to be homeowners and saving for a down is key.
One thing: rents are coming down. I’ve been watching SV rentals for about 1 year and due to the economic downturn, rents have dropped (generally) anywhere from $200 – $400/mo.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Wanted to add that 3BRs/2BA tend to be in the $2k+ range, but that isn’t what we’re looking for.
Wanted to add that what I meant to say re the condition of rental townhomes & condos is that we find them to be in better condition than houses when we have our first showing. Houses also tend to have leaky pipes under the kitchen sink with water damage to the particle board (although we have replaced those with 4-6 plywood).
Sometimes LLs are not aware of what’s going on with their property especially if they’ve had tenants who have not been paying attention.
Here’s my CL ad:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/hou/1158239603.html
Thanks
May 7th, 2009 at 8:23 am
WG: I agree stockton has bottomed, being cash flow positive, but the RBA is nowhere close to that. I don’t know why you say the effect has “rippled” through, defaults on jumbos are just starting to tick up now, and entry level PA (at $1M+) remains as strong as ever.
SB123: Your math baffles me. You want to pay, say $1700 for something that usually goes for $2100 to save for a downpayment. That’s $400/mo, or about $5000/year. Given that the average downpayment is $200,000, it will take you 40 years to save up at that rate. I know the math is off here as you’re saving extra, and already have some saved, but how much if an extra $5K/year *really* going to shave off your time?
May 7th, 2009 at 9:40 am
But zanon, once the “average” house in Silicon Valley costs $500k he’ll only need a $100k down payment, cutting your 40 years down to just 20.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
NOMADIC: I thought SB123 was female. Anyway, if prices fall to $500K, it makes even less sense to scrimp and save and live in a trailer. Falling prices will do more to help you make your downpayment than saving $5K/year in terrible living conditions.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention to gender.
On your point about prices, you’re right. I was just joking around.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“WG: I agree stockton has bottomed, being cash flow positive, but the RBA is nowhere close to that. I don’t know why you say the effect has “rippled” through, defaults on jumbos are just starting to tick up now, and entry level PA (at $1M+) remains as strong as ever.”
Simple Zanon. The guy has no idea what’s going on in his own neighborhood, much less the rest of the bay area.
Every single person I know who lives in Willow Glen understood that it was not the Starbucks on the corner that was closing. That is, every single person except WG.
If the guy doesn’t even know what’s going on in his own neighborhood, how can one think he’ll know what’s going on elsewhere?
May 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“anon, you’ve become rather succinct.”
Why thank you, sir.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
that almost makes you the anti-A (Lewis). Bravo.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I can’t help it. Newton’s 3rd law.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
anon,
Every single person I know who lives in Willow Glen understood that it was not the Starbucks on the corner that was closing. That is, every single person except WG.
WTF are you talking about? I mean really, what is it? I think its probably the fact that I came back here and proclaimed the market appears to be recovering here and that pissed you off, thats it isn’t it?
I’m obviously older than most who post here being over 40. I live on Newport in WG with my family, and I haven’t been downtown in months. Maybe the post college uber hip and broke crowd who spends 30 hrs per week in Starbucks knew some phantom SBUX “next to peets” was closing, but I can assure you that most over 40s who rarely go to starbucks anyway assumed the closure was the big location on Minnesota and Lincoln. But this begs the question, WHO CARES? Like I said, what you’re really pissed about is that real estate is recovering, I suspect.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Yeah, totally recovering. LOL
By the way, the uproar was when the second Starbucks went in.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
SB123, ah I see, good strategy. Yes rents are coming down and its hard to see what will change the direction in the near term, so no rush. Personally I wouldn’t buy a townhome but to rent, a different story! Townhomes are GREAT rentals. They are usually new. Truth be told, these days with a lot of the in-town neighborhoods and the houses on small lots, and people adding on and building practically out to the lot line, I don’t think the experience is that much different in many houses vs townhomes. the garage is the key difference there.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Of course, if rents are falling, the price to rent is getting *even worse*.
gasp
May 7th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I am female
zanon: the savings is larger than I’m indicating here based upon what folks in our income range tend to rent ($4500/mo).
imo, renters pay way too much of their income for rent, that is, IF they want to save for a down or for retirement.
I would go into more detail about what we’re saving by not over-renting, but its in the neighborhood of $20k a year and not $5k (although $5k/yr is more than many buyers have put down in recent years and every little bit helps. all you renters: $5k over 5 years = $25k).
Yeah, WillowGlenner: more LLs may want to do the townhome thing – alot less maintenance.
Only problem is many HOA members will not like you (LLs). We have had to work to gain the acceptance of homeowners to get Associations to maintain the work they are contractually obligated to do for our LL. (I could work for the UN, lol.)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
SB123: I remember you!
I don’t know where you came up with the $4500. My family income is very healthy, and we have a sweet 2BR/2B in Palo Alto/Los Altos for ~$2000. Our rent will be going up this year though — by 2%. (RED HOT! — Sorry WGer, could not resist).
Since you can get great places in great locations for a little north of $2K, I don’t see why you should fight with rats at $1700. The savings from $1.7K to $2K are puny compared to down payments in this area. The tradeoff strikes me as not worth it. Your living standards will be dramatically worse, and it won’t get you to your goal of home ownership appreciably faster.
Even $5K/5years, $25K, is piddling compared to a down payment for $200K. It’s just 10%. At that rate, you’d need to save for about 40 years, there really is no point.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Like I said, what you’re really pissed about is that real estate is recovering, I suspect.
I have no idea what is happening at the very low end, but the $1.5M market is a train wreck and there in no hope of it improving before Fall (and, more likely, until next spring).
May 7th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Yes, steve, I think the biggest problem in that price range is loan availability. Some people have a tough time with 20% down, tighter rules and/or the related higher interest rates.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
and, as you have mentioned, the fact that they have no equity on their trade-up sales. seriously, I can’t believe what is happening in los altos and menlo park.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
right, because in a normal trade-up, 20% down shouldn’t be a big deal.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“I have no idea what is happening at the very low end, but the $1.5M market is a train wreck and there in no hope of it improving before Fall (and, more likely, until next spring).”
Before fall? lol – try 2012!
May 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
mid-range, 800k to 1M houses aren’t moving this past month in my area. But then IMO they’re all priced like it’s 2007. And the folks that are buying are _only_ looking for what they perceive as bargains, so far this year anyway.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I don’t see RE recovering, I’m looking at listings in my price range <$400k in the mid-peninsula and seemingly every month the choices are better. There are a lot more options, and better options, in Foster City now than there were 6 months ago at that price range. And this is a lower price range than the houses you were talking about. I can tell you locally in Belmont a lot of stuff that was listing in the 800s last year is now listing in the 700s, but it is eventually selling, these are all condos or townhouses so it is easy to compare them. One townhouse down the street from me had been a short sale for a long time, is now a REO, the listing price is below the ‘04 sale price, they first listed in ‘07 in the 800s, then last year in the upper 600s, went down to 625 eventually after relisting, and now it is listed at 608k. I am certainly not seeing a recovery here, East Bay prices are more stable though.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:27 am
nomadic says,
>>I think the biggest problem in that price range is loan availability. Some people have a tough time with 20% down
For people looking to buy a $1.5M home, the problem is not the 20% down. Most will put $500K down. The problem is how they’re going to get a bank to loan them the remaining $1M.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:31 am
DreamT says,
>>mid-range, 800k to 1M houses aren’t moving this past month in my area.
Of course not. The very high end of any particular area is not moving. That’s true even for the peninsula markets. The smart home buyers should shy away from buying the most expensive home in the neighborhood, or on a particular street.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:57 am
cardinal2007 says,
>>I’m looking at listings in my price range <$400k in the mid-peninsula and seemingly every month the choices are better. There are a lot more options, and better options, in Foster City now than there were 6 months ago at that price range.
SFH in Foster City are virtually all above $1M. You’re talking about condos with high HOA fees that aren’t moving.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:20 am
RE: $500K down on a $1.5M house gives you 50% LTV. Banks will lend to that (check out TheFrontSteps for good info on mortgage markets).
The problem really is the $500K down. There is no move-up equity, so those buying outside RBA hoping to move into RBA are SOL. There are no 0 down loans. But prices are still assuming there are. Result: no movement.
If rents are going down, even in RBA, then price/rent, which is *terrible* is getting even worse. This means that the price adjustment needs to become even more dramatic to bring that back inline.
East Bay prices have stabilized becomes investment properties are cash flow positive (or at least, neutral-ish). For that to happen in RBA, there needs to be price armageddon.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:58 am
zazon says,
>>The problem really is the $500K down. There is no move-up equity, so those buying outside RBA hoping to move into RBA are SOL.
If down payment is the problem, then the buyer has no business buying a $1.5M property. The system is now back to normal, such that a buyer without sufficient money is disqualified before the purchase rather than foreclosed afterwards.
Your statement assumes the only money people can ever have is from trade-up equity. That is clearly not the case at a place like Silicon Valley.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Your statement assumes the only money people can ever have is from trade-up equity. That is clearly not the case at a place like Silicon Valley.
Exactly! With new IPOs happening every week, the VC floodgates wide open and QQQ soaring to new heights, the housing market is ready for lift-off.
Oh, wait. The only part of this 1999 fantasy we are going to re-live anytime soon are the prices.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:26 am
#145 – $800k is not very high end in a Santa Clara, at least not yet. See recent listings sold: http://www.trulia.com/sold/Santa_Clara,CA/#sold/Santa_Clara,CA/price;d_sort/
May 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Oh, wait. The only part of this 1999 fantasy we are going to re-live anytime soon are the prices.”
that is, of course, only until after we see 1996 prices…
May 8th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Hi zanon:
You posted:
“I don’t know where you came up with the $4500. My family income is very healthy, and we have a sweet 2BR/2B in Palo Alto/Los Altos for ~$2000. Our rent will be going up this year though — by 2%. (RED HOT! — Sorry WGer, could not resist).
Since you can get great places in great locations for a little north of $2K, I don’t see why you should fight with rats at $1700. The savings from $1.7K to $2K are puny compared to down payments in this area. The tradeoff strikes me as not worth it. Your living standards will be dramatically worse, and it won’t get you to your goal of home ownership appreciably faster.
Even $5K/5years, $25K, is piddling compared to a down payment for $200K. It’s just 10%. At that rate, you’d need to save for about 40 years, there really is no point.”
In my view, its that viewpoint that trips up a lot of potential savers: trade up here and there a little, upgrade to this-and-that and the result is little bank. Its the big and little things here and there that add up to whether one is saving or not – that’s our experience.
Of course, if you have children and you need to live in a certain public school district, that will definitely make saving difficult but not insurmountable. Even if you can save $500/month that is still money on the table that many people don’t have and won’t have for at least 5 years (factoring in all the recent foreclosures/bankruptcies) – those folks are persona non grata as far as getting a good rate on a loan any time soon.
Does your PA rental have a garage? Or a carport? Or on-street parking? We could afford to pay for a PA 2BR/2BA w/a 2-car but we don’t want to because we want to own a home someday….and, we won’t necessarily buy in the BA; possibly in Newport Beach/Santa Barbara County/Ventura County.
I found a beautiful 3BR/3BA (1754 sq ft) in Newport Beach facing Big Canyon for $435k. How about *that*??? big smile!
May 8th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
anon says,
>>that is, of course, only until after we see 1996 prices…
That is what I call fantasy. What catalyst is there for prices to drop from here? Is it the soaring Dow? Is it the better job numbers? or is it the postive forecast by Cisco? Don’t you realize the bottom has already blown past you?
May 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
SB123: Look, I’m a math guy, I cannot understand “a little here, a little there”. Help me understand your situation: by how many months is an extra $5K/year going to shorten your time to downpayment? For example, if you’re $100K away from your downpayment, and are socking back $10K/year towards it, this shortens your time from 10 years to 6.6 years, a 3.4 year savings. May be worth it.
PA rental has 3 car garage, car port, orchard, and on street parking for when we have big parties in our huge back yard (next to the orchard — no I’m not kidding).
I’m afraid I don’t know where any of the places you mentioned are. “Big Canyon” sounds picturesque, but so does “Mountain View” ; )
(Just googled Newport Beach. It seems to be in Southern California. Heck of a drive from Los Altos!)
May 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
steve, Yeah I don’t know. Down here a house just sold around the corner from me – a sort of half maintained house on a good street that RE agents claim was remodeled but really was not (it was just PAINTED, big difference you know), for $940K. I don’t think that would have sold last year, so it seemed like things were improving. But in WG a $940K house is a pretty nice house, although that is low end elsewhere in the mid-pen, so maybe not indicative. The cheap houses that I buy bottomed last year pretty early on, but those are investment properties. Not like those are appreciating or anything, just there are more bidders.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
zanon,
I think the deal you got is somewhat unusual. Still, paying a lot in rent is throwing money away. SB123 is doing the right thing. Every little bit counts.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
That is what I call fantasy. What catalyst is there for prices to drop from here? Is it the soaring Dow? Is it the better job numbers? or is it the postive forecast by Cisco? Don’t you realize the bottom has already blown past you?
——
Better job number? Job loss 540K instead of 700K is technically “better”, but not a good job number by any means when unemployment is 25 year high. Only RealEstater can spin those number this way.
DOW soars? LOL! It has been more than six months of from the point of “easy money” and after six months RealEstater is standing in very same point.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“That is what I call fantasy. What catalyst is there for prices to drop from here? Is it the soaring Dow? Is it the better job numbers? or is it the postive forecast by Cisco?”
*cough* which of these are actaully happening? lol
“Don’t you realize the bottom has already blown past you?”
Don’t you realize that the bottom is irrelevant to my circumstances?
May 8th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Anon,
He is calling bottom every month. If every bottom is a different one, theoretically he is correct – some of the bottoms are indeed behind us. But again, there will be more bottoms in coming months – next month, next to next month, next to next to next month…..
May 8th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Just to set the record straight, I’ve only called one bottom, and that’s when the Dow hit 6500.
Yes, I understand the bottom is irrelevant to those who are already at the bottom.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Just to set the record straight, I’ve only called one bottom, and that’s when the Dow hit 6500.
—–
Really? Show us the post.
May 8th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
lol excreter, you are so stupid.
May 8th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I’m new here, but already turned off by some of the junk posts. At the bottom of the heap is this stupid Pralay guy. I can appreciate a good debate but this is not it. I think Real Estater is talking a bit like a sales guy, but at least he sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.
Anyways, on the question of when is a good time to buy, it depends on many factors besides the economy, such as what stage you’re at in your life. If someone is saying now is not a good time to buy, I’d sure like to hear some coherent arguments. I did hear the other point of view explained pretty clearly.
May 8th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
#163 – If RE knew what he was talking about, I wouldn’t have to write #150. He feeds Pralay (and many others), not the other way around. Notice how Pralay does not go after anybody else. Your appreciation of RE’s swagger speaks rather lowly of your ability to gauge people’s worth.
As for when is a good time to buy (a primary residence), anybody with an ounce of common sense knows it depends on what you’re buying, where you’re buying, and what your personal situation is. The general economy, job loss numbers, stock market, current interest rates, etc. should not be a factor in the equation. Therefore, RE’s advice that it’s always a good time to buy is as empty as the converse advice. In any case, his past behavior on the site has proved times and again that he is here not to give advice but to insult anybody who does not own at least $1M worth of assets.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
#163 – Startup_99: welcome to Burbed! There are lots and lots of threads that discuss at length why it might not be a good time to buy.
We might tend to avoid repeating ourselves if we think the point was made successfully in the past, and won’t be different until enough price changes have occurred to make our previous analysis method show a different conclusion.
So perhaps some of those points haven’t been re-iterated in detail in the last few weeks.
Perhaps Pralay could spend some of his google time finding links to some of my incredibly long posts, which might have had a few good points of analysis in there to support my positions. Or maybe someone else’s.
And by all means, go and read some of RE’s past posts, and judge his advice for yourself. I don’t need to say anything – he gives you more than enough to judge by.
Enjoy!
May 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
A. – Don’t beat around the bush.
“Pralay, will you be my secretary? I need an index.”
“Ohhh yes A., I’ve always wanted to.”
“I formally declare you a professional couple!”
PS: for the dirty minds out there
May 8th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Startup_99,
I’m always OK with fair and objective criticism. I’m glad you’re able to see right through the false charges. My position above is basically that it’s better to buy at the start of a reccovery than waiting until the economy has gained full strength.
As for the salesman charge, if you stick around a bit you’ll agree that I’m really just an average tech guy
May 8th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
DreamT says,
>>If RE knew what he was talking about, I wouldn’t have to write #150.
You wrote #150? You’re using a second alias (zanon)?
May 8th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
zanon wrote #147… is it some new kind of twisted trolling? Or do I get a non-censured version of the threads?
May 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
zanon:
Here’s the math: $20k per year for 5 years = $100k
$100k X 10 years = $1M
As posted, we save more than $5k per year (although maybe you put $5k away and that’s OK, not being critical here).
I encourage all renters to save whether its 1k or less, 5k or more etc. It all helps.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I think Real Estater is talking a bit like a sales guy,
—-
LOL! He does not call himself “sales guy” (or used car salesman). He calls himself helper and investor. And BOTH ARE LIES. Because he is a proven liar.
Now you have two options – either you can believe in his lies and refer himself as “helper”/”investor” or you can keep calling him “sales guy”. I don’t think RealEstater will be happy if you opt for later one.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Anyways, on the question of when is a good time to buy, it depends on many factors besides the economy, such as what stage you’re at in your life. If someone is saying now is not a good time to buy, I’d sure like to hear some coherent arguments.
—–
Come on! “Stages of life”? What the heck are you talking about? It’s ALWAYS good time to buy. Want proof?
Right time to buy – ALWAYS.
Great/perfect/best time to buy – ALWAYS.
Absolutely right time to buy – ALWAYS.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
As for the salesman charge, if you stick around a bit you’ll agree that I’m really just an average tech guy
——–
And people who are visiting burbed for long time agree that RealEstater is not a salesman.
One problem. RealEstater just can’t name ONE of them.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
And as RealEstater cannot answer #161 to backup his statement, that’s one more LIE.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
RE: As far as I know, I’m the only zanon on this board.
SB123: As far as I can tell, you’re planning to save up for 50 years. “$20k per year for 5 years = $100k $100k X 10 years = $1M”. Good luck with that! Although, in 50 years, a $1M house will cost $32M in RBA so you’re $31M short. No matter, maybe by renting a $1500/mo place you’ll get there!
RE says “Your statement assumes the only money people can ever have is from trade-up equity. That is clearly not the case at a place like Silicon Valley.”
I’m baffled. Do you buy in RBA by buying outside of RBA, getting appreciation, and then buying in RBA? Or do you scrimp and save because “every little bit counts”? Or do you get lucky and join Google at the right time?
May 8th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
zanon, are you having fun with SB123’s savings plans or do you really not understand her simple point?
*
RE says “Your statement assumes the only money people can ever have is from trade-up equity. That is clearly not the case at a place like Silicon Valley.”
Don’t bother with that one. It flies in the face of all of his previous posts preaching that the way into the RBA is by building equity and moving up. I’d say that’s how 99% of people get there. The other 1% hit the start-up lottery (or have trust funds).
May 8th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
zanon says,
>>Do you buy in RBA by buying outside of RBA, getting appreciation, and then buying in RBA? Or do you scrimp and save because “every little bit counts”? Or do you get lucky and join Google at the right time?
There’re surely different ways to achieve the same result. My answers to your questions shouldn’t be a surprise: I believe in buying RBA. The short term sacrifices you make will be worth the long term rewards. Forget Google. Too many cars in the parking lot at 7PM.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
All the people I know who live in Los Altos upgraded to it from another city (ex: Mountain View). The reason is rather simple: in normal times, people don’t spend the equity they accrue as readily as they spend their savings. The disciplined savers are the exception to the norm.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
All the people I know who live in Los Altos upgraded to it from another city (ex: Mountain View).
Well I can say the same thing about all the people I know in Santa Clara…
May 8th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Perhaps Pralay could spend some of his google time finding links to some of my incredibly long posts, which might have had a few good points of analysis in there to support my positions. Or maybe someone else’s.
—–
I just googled. All the results are long posts. So I am confused which one you are referring.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Pralay – Avoid the credibly long ones.
May 12th, 2009 at 9:35 am
#181 – ouch.
#182 – the credibly long ones are fine, it’s the INcredibly long ones that you should avoid.