May 19, 2009

What does a Saratoga house buy you in Port Washington

As mentioned on Sunday, we’re going to have a shoot out between two tony areas: Saratoga, CA and Port Washington, NY. Today, we wrap up with Port Washington:

60 Beacon Hill Rd, Port Washington, NY 11050 | MLS# 2176980
60 Beacon Hill Rd Port Washington, NY 11050
Price: $1,089,000

1588391750-60
Beds: 4
Baths: 3
Sq. Ft.: -
Lot Size: -
Property Type: Residential, Detached
Style: Split
Year Built: 1955
Community: Beacon Hill
County: Nassau
MLS#: 2176980
Source: MLSLI
Status: New
On Redfin: 20 days
Bright, Spacious Beacon Hill Fieldstone And Brick Home Set On Beautiful Property Offers 4 Br, 3 Bths, Renovated Kitchen. Beach & Tennis Rts. W/ Assoc. Fee. Convenient To All.

(Just as a note, in this region, it doesn’t seem to be custom to provide the square footage of the home. I don’t understand that. Also, the lot is 12,314 sqft feet.)

Now, at first you might say… “Gosh, yesterday’s Saratoga house seems to be a bit overpriced, considering that it is the same price and is a tear down”, but once you see the demographics of this neighborhood, you’ll understand why that kind of thinking is wrong:

The median income for a household in the CDP was $85,837, and the median income for a family was $102,646.

Ouch. It kind of makes sense though. Just look at the notable residents:

* Bobby Ojeda, Lenny Dykstra, Darryl Strawberry, Ron Darling, Dwight Gooden, Sid Fernandez, Ed Hearn, Rick Aguilera, David Cone, Keith Miller, Roger McDowell and about half of the 1986 Mets all used to live in Port Washington during their time with the New York Mets.[3][4]
* Jack Aker, baseball player
* Marv Albert, sportscaster
* Carlos Beltran, New York Mets baseball player
* Len Berman, TV newsanchor
* Frances Hodgson Burnett, author
* Doug Block, film director
* John Cassavetes, (1929-1989), actor and director.[5]
* Jerry Colonna, venture capitalist and business coach
* Perry Como (1912-2001), entertainer.[6]
* Carl G. Fisher (1874-1939), built the Indianapolis Speedway, developed Miami Beach and Montauk, Long Island
* Fontaine Fox, cartoonist and creator of Toonerville Folks
* Leroy Grumman
* W. Averell Harriman (1891-1986), diplomat, Governor of New York
* Estelle Harris
* Craig Johnson, member of the New York State Senate
* Walter Kaner, journalist and philanthropist
* Jeff Kent, former baseball player
* Marian McPartland, jazz pianist
* Kevin McReynolds, retired New York Mets baseball player
* Jean Ritchie, famed Appalachian Dulcimer player
* Mike Scott, retired baseball player
* John Philip Sousa, conductor
* George Vecsey, New York Times sports reporter and author
* Turk Wendell, former New York Mets baseball player
* Mark Wood, electric violinist

Baseball players? Marv Albert? John Philip Sousa? Sheesh… how much money could these guys make compared to an engineer at Facebook?

Well… now you have it. Saratoga is officially a better deal. Because it’s in the Bay Area. And that makes it special.

Debate solved.

Too bad Port Washington. Too bad.

Comments (129) -- Posted by: burbed @ 5:32 am

129 Responses to “What does a Saratoga house buy you in Port Washington”

  1. nomadic Says:

    Is that a slice of spam (above) or is there a hidden meaning I don’t get? There are tennis bookies? Tennis?

  2. A. Lewis Says:

    Gently guiding us to the new thread, burbed?

    Here is some recent national housing news.

    The ‘good’ news (if you want high home prices) is that nationally, so few new homes (of any kind) are being built, that future supply is constrained, and existing inventory will be consumed by whatever demand exists.

    Less supply is pressure for prices to go up.

    The bad news is that so little construction means people out of work, and materials not being bought and sold and transported, so no help for GDP from the house construction sector for the time being.

    If people don’t have jobs and income, it’s hard for them to buy houses.

    But at least they’re not just building more homes wildly like they did from 02-06, increasing the bubbliciousness.

    In other housing/financial news, delinquency rates are skyrocketing, which is probably a leading indicator of pain (housing starts are a lagging response to demand). This is not good news for the economy.

  3. anon Says:

    Delinquency rates are skyrocketing. Now, what can we conclude?

    I propose:

    1) Even the most kool-aid intoxicated fools are starting to run out of kool-aid.
    2) MORE SUPPLY.

  4. A. Lewis Says:

    I’ve been working with the SF 3-tier Case-Schiller data some more, and made a bunch more charts. I won’t subject you to them now, but I’ll try to make them easily viewable.

    There are two things I want to address:

    1) RE constantly says “On average, Bay Area home prices double every 10 years”. He’s close – the correct answer is every 18 years. It’s the difference between 7%/year and 4%/year appreciation.

    2) The idea that high-end places don’t have as far to fall because they never appreciated so much as the low-end places. This is fascinating – and in one sense it’s correct.

    But if you look at either the C-S data, or the cities I profiled in the last couple of days, you see that different places are in different stages of correction.

    And what goes up must come down (back to inflation-adjusted historical pricing) in the world of real estate. And the fact is that many high-end places have yet to come down very far.

    To illustrate, let’s look at how far homes went up, and how far they have come back down. The C-S data starts in Jan. 1987, and goes to Feb. 2009 right now. So this does NOT include action since February.

    If you take a prototype ‘low tier’ C-S home, it cost $75k in 1987. Here is what C-S says the price history was (I pick a few important dates)

    Year C-S Price
    1987 $ 75k
    1990 $ 120k (’90 housing bubble)
    1996 $ 100k (post-’90 trough)
    2001 $ 220k (dot-com peak)
    2006 $ 433k (big bubble peak)
    2009 $ 176k (!!!)

    Now if the home price had followed inflation (CPI less shelter for the SF area taken from the BLS), I will add those values as a 3rd column:

    Year C-S Price CPI-S Price
    1987 $ 75k 75k
    1990 $ 120k 89k
    1996 $ 104k 103k (parity)
    2001 $ 220k 115k
    2006 $ 433k 130k (!!!)
    2009 $ 176k 138k (not much farther now)

    The peak ratio of C-S prices to CPI prices is the height of The Big Bubble (tm, me, today) in 2006, $433k vs. $130k, or 333%. I expect that ratio to return to 100% (though it will probably overcorrect below 100% for a while).

    Let’s compare with the Case-Schiller “high” tier – in my next post.

  5. A. Lewis Says:

    More work with the SF 3-tier Case-Schiller data.

    Take a prototype ‘high tier’ C-S home, it cost $225k in 1987 (compared to $75k for low tier). Here is what C-S says the price history was (I pick a few important dates)

    Year C-S Price
    1987 $ 225k
    1990 $ 357k (’90 housing bubble)
    1996 $ 322k (post-’90 trough)
    2001 $ 648k (dot-com peak)
    2006 $ 930k (big bubble peak – repeated in 2007 in this stronger segment)
    2009 $ 674k (!!!)

    Now if the home price had followed inflation (CPI less shelter for the SF area taken from the BLS), I will add those values as a 3rd column:

    Year C-S Price CPI-S Price
    1987 $ 225k 225k
    1990 $ 357k 267k
    1996 $ 322k 309k (almost parity)
    2001 $ 648k 349k (186%)
    2006 $ 930k 397k (234%!)
    2009 $ 674k 427k (158% – sorry, a bit more to go)

    The peak ratio of C-S prices to CPI prices is the height of The Big Bubble(TM) in 2006, $930k vs. $397k, or 234%. Again, I expect that ratio to return to 100% in the long run.

    Now this compares favorably with the 333% we saw for Low Tier – indeed, the Low Tier went up more.

    But the low tier had fallen to ‘only’ 128% by Feb. ’09, while the High Tier remains at 158%.

    And when you look at in dollar terms, it ‘feels’ much worse. The High Tier house is $674k, and ‘ought’ to fall $250k to $427k.

    It had/has to fall more than $500k from it’s peak.

    The Low Tier house is back to $176k, and ‘only’ has to fall about $40k. In total, it had/has to fall about $300k from it’s peak.

    I know the percentages are more meaningful, but people often foolishly think only in dollars. Like “how many dollars is the monthly pick-a-payment on this house?”.

    So in dollars, the High tier has much farther to fall. And as we saw from the city profiles – if your city hasn’t already done some serious declines from the 06/07 peaks – it has a LOT farther to fall.

    Antioch has done it’s falling already, you see.

    BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE! Stay tuned for my final post on the “Prestige” tier! (And you thought the high tier was bad).

  6. nomadic Says:

    While A is compiling his data, let’s look at something I’m surprised we missed back in February:

    http://www.dqnews.com/Articles/2009/News/California/HighEndSales/MDCA090202.aspx

    A few interesting tidbits:

    “A lot of home sales in the upper half of the market have been on hold for months, waiting for financing,” he said.

    While the number of home purchase mortgages below the old $417,000 conforming limit increased by 21 percent last year, the number above decreased by 51 percent, DataQuick reported.

    -
    The median-sized million-dollar home was 2,494 sq.ft. with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. The median price per square-foot for all million-dollar homes was $569, down 3.3 percent from $588 in 2007. For the market as a whole, the square-foot median declined 40.7 percent from $317 in 2007 to $188 last year, although roughly half that drop was due to a significant shift in the types of homes selling, DataQuick reported.

    Around 24 percent of the $1 million-plus buyers paid cash, up from 14 percent in 2007. In the over-$5 million category, more than half of the purchases were cash. Of those who did finance their purchase, the median down payment was 30 percent of the purchase price. Lending institutions most willing to provide mortgage financing were Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Union Bank.

    -
    Be sure to look at the table at the end of the article as well. It has California’s number of sales above a million dollars in 2007 vs. 2008 for various cities. #3 – Cupertino… and number 1? The much-maligned (and marginalized on this board) Manhattan Beach.

  7. nomadic Says:

    No fair – he had a head start and beat me by 2 minutes.

  8. A. Lewis Says:

    Sorry, nomadic, I can’t be stopped.

    Still more work with the SF 3-tier Case-Schiller data.

    OK, so you noticed that the peak bubble pricing of my “High Tier” home was a mere $930k. This is no RBA 3BD SFH!!! You’re not even in the right neighborhood, right?

    Fortunately, there is C-S style data for more expensive homes, from the First Republic bank website. Unfortunately, their last data point is Dec. 2008 (I think they are scared to post the high-end decline), but it tells us the story up until then.

    Take a prototype ‘Prestige tier’ C-S home, it cost $350k in 1987 (compared to $75k for low tier, $225k for high tier). Here is what First Republic/C-S says the price history was (I pick a few important dates)

    Year C-S Price
    1987 $ 350k
    1990 $ 637k (’90 housing bubble – holy crap nice jump)
    1996 $ 609k (post-’90 trough)
    2001 $ 1.33M (dot-com peak)
    2007 $ 1.72M (Big Bubble(TM)peak – now we’re talking 94301)
    2008 $ 1.64M (4Q08 – only very modest drop from peak)

    Note The Big Bubble (TM) peak occurs later for the Prestige tier – ’06 prices are well outclassed by ’07 for these homes. Think back in your mind to the late summer of ’07 – it was in full swing in the RBA. Move-up buyers were crawling out of the woodwork with high 6-figures of trade-up equity and any loan they wanted…

    Now if the home price had followed inflation (CPI less shelter for the SF area taken from the BLS), I will add those values as a 3rd column:

    Year C-S Price CPI-S Price (Ratio)
    1987 $ 350k 350k (100%)
    1990 $ 637k 412k (155%)
    1996 $ 609k 476k (128% – this is where the low tier is NOW)
    2001 $ 1.33M 543k (245% – exceeds the High peak in 2006/7)
    2007 $ 1.72M 638k (270% – most impressive)
    2008 $ 1.64M 645k (254% – worse then High ever got..)

    The peak ratio of C-S prices to CPI prices is the height of The Big Bubble(TM) in 2007, $1.72M vs. $638k, or 270%. AGAIN, I expect that ratio to return to 100% in the long run!!

    Now this still compares favorably with the 333% we saw for Low Tier – indeed, the Low Tier went up more, so that’s still true. But Prestige went up MORE than High. It’s not a linear function! Those RBA homes were going CRAZIER than the in-betweeners.

    But while Low tier had fallen to ‘only’ 128% of CPI by Feb. ’09, the Prestige Tier was last seen at 254% in Dec. 2008. We have heard tell of some big drops at the Uber-high end ($2.5M+ homes) – but the RBA-faithful maintain that for them, 15-25% drops is about the current state of things (if they’ll admit that).

    If I take 25% off $1.72M, I get $1.29M. Compare it against a $650k CPI price, and you get 198%. That’s why I’m saying they have farther to fall – MUCH farther.

    And when you look at in dollar terms, it ‘feels’ MUCH worse. The High Tier house is $1.29M, and ‘ought’ to fall $640k to $650k.

    It had/has to fall more than $1M from it’s peak.

    The High Tier house had to fall $500k. (The Low, $300k).

    So in dollars, the Prestige tier has an incredible amount farther to fall. I repeat, as we saw from the city profiles – if your city hasn’t already done some serious declines from the 06/07 peaks – it has a LOT farther to fall.

    The other thing that sticks out here is that during the ’91-’96 slump, the Low Tier slumped back to 100%. The High Tier slumped to 104%. But the prestige held its premium up at 128%. Probably because more of those folks didn’t ‘have to sell’.

    So going forward into the ’01 bubble, it already started from a higher base.

    The next thing is the ’01 bubble was CRAZY for the Prestige Tier – the dotcom thing made high-end SV prices go nuts, and we know why, but that also pushed the prestige tier higher than the other tiers in a relative sense.

    So – it’s a pretty bold and shocking thing when I say I expect another 50% off from current RBA pricing. How can that happen?

    Two ways – cliff-diving like we’ve seen in many cities and other tiers, or a long period of stagnation, while it underperforms the rate of inflation. This is totally plausible.

    I’m willing to concede some fraction of this ‘correction’ back to the bulls, because neighborhood X or Y has ‘outperformed’ the average of it’s neighbors since 1987, but I’m only thinking 10% or so.

    I mean – think of the best parts of Palo Alto near Stanford. How special were they in 1987? Answer: pretty special. How much MORE special are they in 2009 compared to say, a good part of Sunnyvale? I’m thinking they’re about the same in ‘betterness’ as they used to be. But the local experts can debate in the small space I’ve left them.

    Thanks for reading,

    -A

  9. A. Lewis Says:

    It’s all clearly displayed in a single C-S 3-tier chart, but a thousand words is worth a picture.

  10. A. Lewis Says:

    On a side note, Calculated Risk gives us a nice math lesson on why the median price is so deceptive.

    Just don’t catch yourself saying that a one month change in the median price is a sign of…anything. ’cause you just don’t have enough info.

    Over 10-year time scales and large geographies, big swings in median price are reasonably related to home prices – but you need to in some way average the medians month after month to account for things.

    And don’t forget about the problem with percentages: home price increase from $100k to $150k. = 50% increase in price. Price drops from $150k to $100k. = 33% decrease in price.

    What happened to the remaining 17%? I guess it’s equity!

    (Note, that was rhetorical – I know the answer.)

    P.S. I was viewing my own comments in the RSS feed view in Firefox – there is no formatting whatsoever!! Hard returns do not make new lines. Extra spaces are simply omitted.

    For sanity’s sake, only read my posts on the web page view, not the RSS feed. I don’t mean to be cruel.

  11. Joe Says:

    Nice work A. Lewis. Graphs would have been very helpful in this analysis of course. I think google offers online graphing software which can be linked for everyone to view.

    Many bloggers have been reporting on the surge in inventory on the high end. That coupled with the alt-a & option-arm resets, and high unemployment should decimate the mid-to-high end range over the next 3-4 years. In talking with colleagues and friends with homes ranging from 700k – 1.5M, they are in complete disbelief that a major correction is possible. Once foreclosures hit these ranges and their home values depreciate 20 – 30%, many will walk away as they have little equity.

  12. Herve Says:

    > only read my posts on the web page view

    A. (can I call you A.?), I guess you don’t fancy Twitter? ;-)

    Anyone cares to give advice to Jerry by the way?

  13. DreamT Says:

    wow, reading Jerry’s latest twitters… gives me the tweets
    but it seems like after two days of laborious thinking, he thought better than to gamble on Gables End

  14. R Says:

    A, thanks for the great summary of the C-S data. The numbers are pretty eye popping, even for those of us non-delusional folks that realized long ago that we just lived through one of the largest speculative bubbles in our history.

    I have said all along that I believe that prices will fall back to their historical levels, I just didn’t realize how much farther we have to fall. Thanks for the great analysis.

  15. CB Says:

    A, could you not have just drawn a damn line from 1987 to some point between the “90s trough” and the current bubble, say 1998, and called it a day? That’s what the rest of us have been doing the the C-S data.

    Wait, don’t answer that.

    But, Jeez. If you’re right, even I can afford a $1.5 million home right smack dab in the heart of the RBA. And I don’t even pull in $400K/yr.

    I think you must consider that in many markets a mid-tier home in 1987 is now a top-tier home. In which case, strictly following inflation to predict an equilibrium is very flawed.

    But like I said, I hope you’re right, because if you are we’re all going to be livin’ like Steve Jobs!

  16. R Says:

    “I think you must consider that in many markets a mid-tier home in 1987 is now a top-tier home.”

    Like where? Are you saying some areas have lost what once was the top-tier? Or that a lot of formerly mid-tier homes have been remodeled to push them to the top tier? Or that some areas have just improved a lot? Not trying to be sarcastic, just curious. I didn’t grow up here.

  17. Alex Says:

    I pity the poor fool who thinks we will fall back to historical trend!

    BUY NOW or BE PRICED OUT FOREVER!! EVAR!!! ARGGG right matey!

    Wait til Real Excreter comes back. I’m gonna tell on you!!

  18. Real Estater Says:

    Alex,

    To convince yourself that the recovery is already taking shape, just to to mlslistings.com and search for a mid-tier city like Sunnyvale, then check how many homes are in Pending Sale or Pending Release status. You’d find that buyers are indeed rushing in to buy homes, and it’s happening throughout the price range. I counted 63 homes being transacted at this moment!

  19. anon Says:

    Fascinating.

    I’ll say it again: FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM.

    You’re seeing the results.

  20. anon Says:

    “And don’t forget about the problem with percentages: home price increase from $100k to $150k. = 50% increase in price. Price drops from $150k to $100k. = 33% decrease in price.”

    Excellent point, Mr. Lewis.

  21. Steve Says:

    A. Lewis – nice analysis, but you also have to consider the impact of the government intervention in the housing market in the form of tax rebates, lower interest rates, and loan modifications. We have never seen anything like this since the Great Depression and I think this has got to put a floor on the housing market to a certain degree. So I don’t believe your analysis is correct because you did not factor in this pretty significant effect.

  22. Real Estater Says:

    anon,

    Which part of “throughout the price range” did you not understand?

  23. anon Says:

    Oh! I’m sorry.

    Was said price range exempted from the foreclosure moratorium?

  24. steve Says:

    for the record, 22 is a different Steve. original steve does not like the shift key and disagrees noting that the mortgage interest deduction is not new and it would be impossible for interest rates to drop further. in fact rates have only one way to go (likely starting at the end of the year).

    since I am in a (cheesy) musical mood, this is for RE and his new fixation on pending sales. I could point out that transactions are taking forever to close, but I prefer to offer encouragement instead.

  25. nomadic Says:

    steve, I think (capital)Steve was referring to the “powerful forces in Washington” that will save the day. (Too lazy to look up RE’s original post and link it.)

  26. Real Estater Says:

    We’ve heard your views. Let’s summarize Pralay’s positions:

    1. The best time to buy a home is when the economy is booming.
    2. Palo Alto is no longer desirable.
    3. He will never provide a report on his own neighborhood!

  27. Real Estater Says:

    …and last but not least:

    The downturn is always in the future!

  28. R Says:

    The other big factor to consider when trying to figure out where prices will fall back to is incomes. If they have out-paced inflation or historical increases, it would be reasonable to see a corresponding uptick in home prices. If they have not kept pace with inflation however, it would be reasonable for prices to fall back below their inflation-adjusted historical level.

  29. nomadic Says:

    Yes, and incomes are doing wonderfully:

    http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20080220se/

  30. steve Says:

    re#26, my apologies to (capital)Steve if #22 was, in fact, satire.

    thinking back to RE’s original comments on the matter, they are both astute and naive. the former because he correctly identified the extraordinary lengths washington would go to “solve” this; the latter because those actions are just fingers in the dyke.

    is their a financial to short the American taxpayers? the TBT trade will be getting interesting; FAZ is intrguing to me; I wonder if there is a triple-leveraged instrument (the FKQ prehaps?) to represent the increasing taxes and declining real incomes that seen unavoidable in the out years?

  31. DreamT Says:

    (lOWER) steve – always a pleasure to read your posts and keen, perceptive insights. I must admit though that you lost me and probably several others with the flood of acronyms.

  32. Pralay Says:

    We’ve heard your views. Let’s summarize Pralay’s positions:

    1. The best time to buy a home is when the economy is booming.
    2. Palo Alto is no longer desirable.
    3. He will never provide a report on his own neighborhood!

    —–

    As usual RealExcreter cannot point a single post where it was said so. Because is a proven liar.

  33. Pralay Says:

    To convince yourself that the recovery is already taking shape, just to to mlslistings.com and search for a mid-tier city like Sunnyvale, then check how many homes are in Pending Sale or Pending Release status.
    —–

    RealExcreter said the same thing in April. He said the same thing in March. Wait a minute, he said the same thing in January. But somehow his “gone pending”, or “sold signs on street” never translates beyond seasonal change. So the question is: where is “THE RECOVERY”?

    ———–
    You’d find that buyers are indeed rushing in to buy homes, and it’s happening throughout the price range.
    ———–

    Buyers rushing? Ok, we will wait for May sale report. Meanwhile, let’s enjoy RealExcreter’s hilarious comment in November 2008

    Any comment about the 553 jump in the stock market? The same thing will happen to the housing market when the rebound occurs — it’ll be very sudden and furious as buyers cave in after a period of low inventory, slow sales and flat prices.

    Looks like RealExcreter’s wish is coming true. :)

  34. steve Says:

    R (29) and nomadic (30), exactly

    DreamT, TBT is a long bond short — a bet that prices are going to decline and yields (interest rates required to attract new purchasers) will go up. the design of the vehicle is such that a move in 20 year+ treasuries has a 2x impact in the opposite direction on TBT.

    FAZ is a leveraged financial stock short. A change in the price of the basket of companies it tracks (Russell 1000 financial services) will have a 3x move in the opposite direction on FAZ.

    FKQ (or maybe FKD?) is my invention for the average taxpayer left holding the bag when all of this unravels. RE often uses a Clinton quote about betting against America. I’d never want to do that, but that’s different than betting against the already squezed middle class.

  35. steve Says:

    oh, and a little sunnyvale data. not my area of expertise but I do know these are almost identical Eichlers, with the caveat being that 942 was in nicer condition.

    942 Olympus Ct
    Sunnyvale, CA 94087
    LAST SALE: $1,235,000 (08/01/2008)
    BEDS: 3
    BATHS: 2
    SQ.FT.: 1,876
    YEAR BUILT: 1968

    928 MACKENZIE Dr
    Sunnyvale, CA 94087
    Price: $1,034,950
    Beds: 3
    Baths: 2
    Year Built: 1968
    Status: Pending Without Release
    DOM: 70 days

    perhaps madhaus can tell us how this tracks with her observations.

  36. steve Says:

    oops, that should read:

    with the caveat being that 928 mackenzie was in nicer condition

    I hate it when I do that. can I blame (capital)Steve?

  37. Real Estater Says:

    R says,
    >>The other big factor to consider when trying to figure out where prices will fall back to is incomes.

    Real income for long term home owners are actually rising. Many home owners are refinancing to record low interest rates. Several people I know now have mortgage payments less than half of equivalent rent. They are going to live an easy life forever.

  38. anon Says:

    No response to 24, excretacus maxximus?

  39. anon Says:

    “Several people I know now have mortgage payments less than half of equivalent rent. They are going to live an easy life forever.”

    Such a situation was possible 20 years ago. The opposite is, in fact, what will happen if someone buys now. They will be stuck on the debt treadmill, unable to sell, for a very long time.

  40. Real Estater Says:

    anon,

    You mean this sentence?

    >>this is for RE and his new fixation on pending sales. I could point out that transactions are taking forever to close

    This is trying to make an issue out of nothing. Credit is already loosening up, and majority of those transactions are going to close. Some may take an additional week or two, big deal.

    Let’s not get distracted. The point is that indeed the market has come alive. 63 pending transactions in Sunnyvale is a very healthy market. The buyers are out there, and homes are selling. The pending sales at this time will translate to sales figures in the coming months. You don’t even need to predict the future. You can already see it coming.

  41. Pralay Says:

    The point is that indeed the market has come alive. 63 pending transactions in Sunnyvale is a very healthy market.
    —-

    Really? Do you know how many Sunnyvale home sold in May 2008 or May 2007 or May 2006? And how was the inventory level compare to today.

    Also, please enlighten us about your Realtardise definition of “healthy”, considering the fact that you call 200 DOM home as “selling briskly”.

  42. steve Says:

    #35 contains an example of one of those sunnyvale pending transactions

  43. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay says,
    >>But somehow his “gone pending”, or “sold signs on street” never translates beyond seasonal change.

    Seasonal change? That reminds me of your other position: Uptick in the house market is due to seasonal change.

    Translation: It’s business as usual. No downturn here!

  44. Real Estater Says:

    >>#35 contains an example of one of those sunnyvale pending transactions

    Thanks for your cherry-picked example.

  45. Pralay Says:

    Seasonal change? That reminds me of your other position: Uptick in the house market is due to seasonal change.

    Translation: It’s business as usual. No downturn here!
    ——

    Again, please enlighten us about your Realtardise definition of “business as usual”. Is it as good as 2008? 2007? 2006?

  46. Pralay Says:

    In addition, RealExcreter, using March/April sale data please tell us which part is seasonal change which which part is “recovery”.

  47. Real Estater Says:

    Just got this in my inbox:

    http://www.summerhillhomes.com/find/parkwood_garden/

    Go check it out, Pralay. Absolute clearance sale.

  48. steve Says:

    RE, you are welcome.

    perfer to discuss inventory levels instead?

  49. Pralay Says:

    >>#35 contains an example of one of those sunnyvale pending transactions

    Thanks for your cherry-picked example.
    —–

    Please tell us why would someone sell his/her house $200K less than Aug 2008 price in a “healthy market”.

  50. Pralay Says:

    Just got this in my inbox:
    ……
    Go check it out, Pralay. Absolute clearance sale.

    ———-

    It got to be spam, RealExcreter.

  51. Real Estater Says:

    steve,

    I don’t see what’s with all the clamor around inventory. At the current rate of sales, inventory does not pose an issue whatsoever. Inventory by itself is useless aggregate data. You need to look at the velocity of “buyable” inventory, rather than just absolute inventory. With all that inventory, are you finding any great deals in Palo Alto that you can buy?

  52. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay says,
    >>It got to be spam, RealExcreter.

    What is spam to me can be useful info to you. Let me ask you the same question you have been avoiding for some time: Given that there are homes affordable to you, what is your excuse for “not even looking”?

  53. Pralay Says:

    Let me ask you the same question you have been avoiding for some time: Given that there are homes affordable to you, what is your excuse for “not even looking”?
    ——

    Do you think an used car salesman style question deserve an answer?

  54. steve Says:

    priceless!

    inventory, “useless aggregate data”

    counting sale pending signs on one’s drive about town, the best way to tell that “the market has come alive”

    by the way, some more useless aggegate date for palo alto

  55. Pralay Says:

    You need to look at the velocity of “buyable” inventory, rather than just absolute inventory.
    —–

    LOL! Let RealExcreter give some historical perspective of “velocity of buyable inventory”. :) Is the velocity better? Same?

  56. Real Estater Says:

    >>by the way, some more useless aggegate date for palo alto

    Indeed it is useless data. Palo Alto is not a city you can analyze by looking at aggregate data. The reason for the drop in median is because the high end sales is down due to the credit crisis. Those $3-5M sales are dropping out of the picture. Even the chart itself is not so bad. Considering how much prices have gone up since I bought my home, I would not lose any sleep over a $200K drop in value of my home. In fact, I would not sell my home to you even if you pay me the peak price. Many homes in Palo Alto are passed down to the next generation, and that’s what I intend to do.

  57. Pralay Says:

    Inventory by itself is useless aggregate data.
    ——-

    Let’s look at RealExcreter’s past comments. His favorite argument was that RBA market is a low inventory market, therefore demand will always be there and price will never go down.

    In Oct 2008 he quotes from Palo Alto Online realestate section:

    “Relatively low inventory and fairly constant demand have kept prices up in this micro-market”

    So, if inventory is useless data, why does RealExcreter think that it is important to quote that specific line?

    April 2008:

    Chart shows Sunnyvale price trend is rising based on 12 month moving average. Inventory somewhat higher than back in ‘06.

    If you focus on the desirable part of Sunnyvale, 94087 Cupertino School District, you’d see that the picture is even rosier. Low inventory, million dollar homes, low DOM number.

    If inventory is useless data, why RealExcreter is mentioning “low inventory” to demonstrate “rosier” housing market?

    More in April 2008:

    What we have experienced is low inventory historically for the last decade. If it bumps up, it doesn’t stay up.

    Bottoline, RealExcreter is like a used car salesman – readly say anything bullshit to make a sale.

  58. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay says,

    >>Do you think an used car salesman style question deserve an answer?

    Of course, you will not provide any answer, you will not provide any report, and you will surely never provide any data. Zero value guy will never provide anything.

  59. Pralay Says:

    Of course, you will not provide any answer, you will not provide any report, and you will surely never provide any data. Zero value guy will never provide anything.
    —-

    I take a great joy in proving RealExcreter as liar. These things are indeed zero value.

  60. Pralay Says:

    The reason for the drop in median is because the high end sales is down due to the credit crisis. Those $3-5M sales are dropping out of the picture.
    ——

    Who cares what is not selling. It’s all about consistently using the same criteria.

  61. Pralay Says:

    Palo Alto is not a city you can analyze by looking at aggregate data. The reason for the drop in median is because the high end sales is down due to the credit crisis.
    ——

    Ok, let’s see what RealExcreter said in January 2009.

    This house aside, the median in 94301 has been rising for the past few months, as shown on Zillow.

    So, what was the reason for rising median, RealExcreter? Because of more “high end” sales?

  62. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay,

    Let’s hear your position. Is it your position that the current uptick in the market (as demonstrated by the 63 pending sales) is due to seasonal reason? Yes or no?

  63. nomadic Says:

    #49: Please tell us why would someone sell his/her house $200K less than Aug 2008 price in a “healthy market”.

    Some people don’t like all of that “icing.” ;-)

  64. Pralay Says:

    Let’s hear your position. Is it your position that the current uptick in the market (as demonstrated by the 63 pending sales) is due to seasonal reason? Yes or no?
    —–

    That’s a nonsensical question. Unless you give me some historical number of “pending sale” for same period, your question does not make sense.

  65. Real Estater Says:

    It’s not a trick question, Pralay. I’m asking your position. I assume you do have the historical data, don’t you?

  66. Pralay Says:

    It’s not a trick question, Pralay. I’m asking your position. I assume you do have the historical data, don’t you?
    —-

    No I don’t have “pending sale” for month of May 2008 or May 2007 or May 2006. But as you claiming “business as usual” based these pending sales, you must be having these information.

  67. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay,

    Your waffling position is making me dizzy. You’re the only person here who made an issue out of seasonality. I was merely following your logic. OK, now what I’m hearing from you is that the market uptick is not seasonal, therefore it is a one time event; i.e. a recovery.

    Again, this is not a trick question. There are only 2 choices.

  68. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay,

    Please don’t change your position again. Either the market uptick is seasonal, or it’s a recovery.

  69. Pralay Says:

    OK, now what I’m hearing from you is that the market uptick is not seasonal, therefore it is a one time event; i.e. a recovery.
    ——

    RealExcreter, it is YOU who claimed “recovery” based on pending sale number. Therefore, it is not my job to prove one way or another. I asked to prove it (because YOU claimed), but you did not provide any information.

    We all know sale report till April. Based on those reports nothing looks more than seasonal. But the problem is that YOU are claiming “recovery” based on some pending sale count in this month which cannot be compared with past data. So, if you cannot compare, how do you claim it “business as usual” or “recovery”? Please enlighten us.

  70. Pralay Says:

    Either the market uptick is seasonal, or it’s a recovery.
    ——

    Well, based on April sale data, it is nothing more than seasonal. Mentioning pending sale numbers is nothing but a desperate attempt to demonstrate health of the market – in Realtard style. Because, SP/LP is gone, price-per-sqft is gone, and “low inventory” is gone too.

    So, you are are sitting with “pending sales”.

  71. Real Estater Says:

    >>Well, based on April sale data, it is nothing more than seasonal.

    OK, Pralay has now switched back to saying the sales are “nothing more than seasonal”. Case closed.

    “Sseasonal” by definition, means that it happens every year; in other words — business as usual. If he wants to find data to contradict himself, he can do that. As of now, let’s stay with the position which he agrees with:

    RBA is business as usual. No downturn here!

  72. Real Estater Says:

    A final thought:

    It’s been amusing watching the snake twist and turn.

  73. R Says:

    RE says:
    “Real income for long term home owners are actually rising.”

    Where have you seen this data? I’ve read the opposite in articles but haven’t actually seen any legitimate source containing incomes of Bay Area folks over time versus inflation. Clearly in the short term, salaries are rapidly decreasing, as nomadic cites.

    RE Says:
    “Many home owners are refinancing to record low interest rates. Several people I know now have mortgage payments less than half of equivalent rent. They are going to live an easy life forever.”

    Your point? You aren’t honestly suggesting that Bay Area incomes are increasing due to refinancing, are you?

  74. Pralay Says:

    “Sseasonal” by definition, means that it happens every year; in other words — business as usual.
    —–

    LOL! Who is actually twisting? :)
    In #34 I asked following:
    Again, please enlighten us about your Realtardise definition of “business as usual”.

    So, RealExcreter is equating “seasonal” with “business as usual”!!! :) If that is the case, RBA market is lot worse than I thought.

    Let’s assume there is 10 inches of rain every winter in RealExcreter’s backyard. Now in 2009 winter if it rains only 2 inches, that small amount of rain still will be “seasonal”. But would that be called “business as usual”? Probably in Realtard’s definition.

  75. Real Estater Says:

    >>Your point? You aren’t honestly suggesting that Bay Area incomes are increasing due to refinancing, are you?

    If one is saving hundreds of dollars each month from refinancing, it’s the same as having more income to buy other things. How does it not make sense?

  76. Pralay Says:

    If one is saving hundreds of dollars each month from refinancing, it’s the same as having more income to buy other things. How does it not make sense?
    —-

    LOL! New Realtardise definition: Saving = income.

    If RealExcreter’s salary is $50K and he saves $10K from it, he actually can claim that his income is $60K. :)

  77. R Says:

    Yeah, I wasn’t even going to respond to that one Pralay.

    So RE, where have you seen that Bay Area incomes have been rising faster than inflation?

    BTW, for “tech guy” you sure get a lot emails advertising real estate. Wife must be a realtor I assume.

    I think we’re also still waiting for your list of 5 zip codes so that we can check in on monitor how accurate your bottom call is.

  78. nomadic Says:

    There is a modicum of dim logic in RE’s original post (#37). His usual muddled, imprecise style led him to say “real income” when he probably meant “disposable income.” i.e., If you refinance to a lower payment, you’d see an increase in disposable income.

    Real Excreter will have to explain what the last two sentences in his post mean because I haven’t a clue what he was trying to convey.

  79. nomadic Says:

    Since we’re sharing mail, I got a funny thing in my snail mail last week. It was about how you can get fantastic returns from private mortgage lending. That one cracked me up more than the one soliciting to invest in independent films with “guaranteed” theatrical release. (Cherry-picked examples: Juno and Slumdog Millionaire.)

    LOL – anyone want to sign up for that?!

  80. R Says:

    Agree regarding disposable income but of course that had nothing the issue RE was apparently attempting to argue, which was that Bay Area incomes have outpaced inflation.

    Maybe I’ll hunt for data when I get home. I’m actually curious to see what income levels have done since the mid-1990s when real estate appreciation really started to take off.

  81. Pralay Says:

    LOL – anyone want to sign up for that?!
    ———-

    I was thinking of transferring multi-million dollars from some king of Africa who is trying flee from his country. Can PML give better return that this?

  82. nomadic Says:

    R, here’s one site you may find useful:
    http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig_03.html

    And a comparison over 24 months from 2003 to 2005:
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/30/pf/real_wage_growth_slow/index.htm
    San Mateo County increased a bit over 6%; SF County over 4%. Santa Clara County? 1.53%

  83. Real Estater Says:

    R says,
    >>I think we’re also still waiting for your list of 5 zip codes so that we can check in on monitor how accurate your bottom call is.

    I already responded to you. You’re not waiting on me for anything. I have 94301 covered. You need to check in with Pralay, anon, madhaus, and nomadic on their reports.

  84. Real Estater Says:

    R says,
    >>Agree regarding disposable income but of course that had nothing the issue RE was apparently attempting to argue

    That was exactly my point. Either you’re trolling or you’re just slow.

  85. R Says:

    Thanks for the links nomadic, I’ll check them out.

    My bad if I missed the 5 RE, the thread became daunting. What are they? And was the sale price of a 4/2 single family home in those zips the decided metric?

    No clue what your last post means. I’ll just assume the title of slow troll for the remainder of the day so that we can move on.

  86. Pralay Says:

    That was exactly my point. Either you’re trolling or you’re just slow.
    —–

    And how does “real income” mentioned in #37 becomes “exactly” disposable income?

  87. nomadic Says:

    That was exactly my point. Either you’re trolling or you’re just slow.

    Maybe – but your lack of clarity makes this statement suspect. I just threw you a bone. Don’t spoil it by name calling.

    -
    R, check out these two in particular. If everyone was a CEO then the bubble prices could be justified.

    http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/03/SWA06_Table3.17.jpg
    http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/03/SWA06_Table3.46.jpg

  88. R Says:

    Here’s one chart I have found (only thru 2005)-

    http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=9357

    According this chart, incomes rose a lot during the 90s but rose very slowly between 1999 and 2005 (last year of chart). Odd considering these were boom years for real estate.

    Things probably rose at the same slow pace between 2005 to 2008 and have fallen since then.

  89. steve Says:

    a few more data sources for you:

    the November 2008 Bay Area Economic Forecast
    pg 6 – per capita peronal income (1995-2006) SF metro

    an amazing Fed chart for real household debt, weath, disposable income and stock wealth (1960 – 2009)

    real personal income growth, bay area v US (2001-2006) (slide 12)

    and OT but interesting, a price/rent graph for east bay housing (1975-2009)

  90. steve Says:

    oh, and you can get income by county from the BEA (1969-2007)

    they have more recent data for larger metro area, but the quarterly information doesn’t show a decline until Q4 2008 in SF. my sense is that it would drop further in Q1 2009 but that data isn’t available yet.

  91. nomadic Says:

    …and DOW SOURS! :-)

    Couldn’t resist the headline
    http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/20/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?section=money_markets

  92. nomadic Says:

    Thanks for the Fed article, steve. Very interesting, including the comparison to Japan, but the conclusion was pretty dissatisfying.

  93. Herve Says:

    > You need to look at the velocity of “buyable” inventory.

    Thanks for the laugh, Chuckie. Keep them coming!

  94. Herve Says:

    Ok, a few price reductions in Palo Alto:

    3282 Fallen Leaf St (from $1,399,950 to $1,349,950)
    3320 Thomas Dr (from $1,415,000 to $1,349,000)
    4167 King Arthur Ct (from $1,450,000 to $1,349,000)
    3118 Fallen Leaf St (from $1,399,000 to $1,299,950)
    3056 Greer Rd (from $1,388,888 to $1,288,888, better luck tomorrow)
    3180 Fallen Leaf St (from $1,299,950 to $1,249,950)
    3915 Louis Rd (from $1,299,000 to $,249,000)
    629 Kingsley Ave (from $1,575,000 to $1,245,000)
    3131 Greer Rd (from $1,324,000 to $1,230,000)
    144 Tasso St (from $1,250,000 to $1,200,000)
    3278 Fallen Leaf St (from $1,349,000 to $1,199,950)
    2290 Louis Rd (from $1,249,000 to $1,195,000)
    994 Loma Verde (from $1,230,000 to $1,185,000)
    3119 David Ave (from $1,295,000 to $1,125,000)
    154 Tennyson Ave (from $1,275,000 to $1,110,000)
    437 Wilton Ave (from $1,199,000 to $1,099,000)
    180 Churchill (from $1,150,000 to $1,092,500)
    4144 Wilkie Way (from $1,098,000 to $1,049,000)
    966 Clara Dr (from $1,195,000 to $1,049,000)

    Ok, I stop here, but the list goes on and on…

  95. Real Estater Says:

    R says,
    >>My bad if I missed the 5 RE, the thread became daunting. What are they? And was the sale price of a 4/2 single family home in those zips the decided metric?

    Go read the old thread. No going to cover the subject again. If you can’t find it, Pralay can help.

  96. Real Estater Says:

    Correction:

    Not going to cover the subject again

  97. DreamT Says:

    Herve, they all have a neighbor, and in all cases there’s a road in front of the house. And I bet they all have power lines somewhere close too. Can we be serious a little?

  98. Real Estater Says:

    R,

    Next time, don’t run away after starting a topic.

  99. Real Estater Says:

    Fallen Leaf St? Do you even know what you’re talking about? These homes are all from the “Classic Communities” builder.

  100. anon Says:

    “Let’s not get distracted. The point is that indeed the market has come alive. 63 pending transactions in Sunnyvale is a very healthy market.”

    Thanks excreter. I am well aware of what your ‘point’ is. You are wrong.

  101. nomadic Says:

    You mean that point on his head?

  102. nomadic Says:

    hmm, that wasn’t quite right as a definition for point.

  103. Pralay Says:

    Correction:

    Not going to cover the subject again
    —-

    Why correction? RealExcreter does not any subject anyway. On the top of that he is a proven liar who always claims that he explained everything in past. “Yes”, “no”, “not” – all same for him.

  104. Pralay Says:

    If you can’t find it, Pralay can help.
    —–

    I thought the only helper here is RealExcreter who helps those “who need the most help”.

    Is that a lie too, RealExcreter?

  105. Herve Says:

    (correction)

    Ok, a few price reductions in Palo Alto:

    [FALLEN LEAF ST REFERENCE REMOVED BY CHUCKIE]
    3320 Thomas Dr (from $1,415,000 to $1,349,000)
    4167 King Arthur Ct (from $1,450,000 to $1,349,000)
    [FALLEN LEAF ST REFERENCE REMOVED BY CHUCKIE]
    3056 Greer Rd (from $1,388,888 to $1,288,888, better luck tomorrow)
    [FALLEN LEAF ST REFERENCE REMOVED BY CHUCKIE]
    3915 Louis Rd (from $1,299,000 to $1,249,000)
    629 Kingsley Ave (from $1,575,000 to $1,245,000)
    3131 Greer Rd (from $1,324,000 to $1,230,000)
    144 Tasso St (from $1,250,000 to $1,200,000)
    [FALLEN LEAF ST REFERENCE REMOVED BY CHUCKIE]
    2290 Louis Rd (from $1,249,000 to $1,195,000)
    994 Loma Verde (from $1,230,000 to $1,185,000)
    3119 David Ave (from $1,295,000 to $1,125,000)
    154 Tennyson Ave (from $1,275,000 to $1,110,000)
    437 Wilton Ave (from $1,199,000 to $1,099,000)
    180 Churchill (from $1,150,000 to $1,092,500)
    4144 Wilkie Way (from $1,098,000 to $1,049,000)
    966 Clara Dr (from $1,195,000 to $1,049,000)

    Ok, I stop here, but the list goes on and on…

  106. DreamT Says:

    your list got chucked, dude (or dudette as I once knew a charming lady called Herve and wouldn’t want to be accused of sexism)

  107. Pralay Says:

    (More corrections on #105)

    Ok, a few price reductions in Palo Alto:

    [FALLEN LEAF ST REFERENCE REMOVED BY CHUCKIE]
    [home with powerline]
    [simply undesirable]
    [FALLEN LEAF ST REFERENCE REMOVED BY CHUCKIE]
    [train truck]
    [FALLEN LEAF ST REFERENCE REMOVED BY CHUCKIE]
    [house with issues]
    [house with more issues]
    [no exotic plant in backyard]
    [haunted house. Ex-owner loves Palo Alto and very often comes to his home]
    [FALLEN LEAF ST REFERENCE REMOVED BY CHUCKIE]
    [generous seller. wants to help new buyer's price-out issues]
    [on busy street]
    [not walking distance from University Ave - undesirable]
    [owner died. children who live in flyover country have no clue about healthy "business as usual" RBA market]
    [next door neighbor is not smart]
    [foreigners, especially Indians and Chinese, do not like brown color house]
    [smaller lot]
    [owner has no built-to-order furniture. everything from IKEA]

    Ok, I stop here, but the list goes on and on…

  108. Herve Says:

    > I once knew a charming lady called Herve

    See what happens when you drink too much?

  109. Pralay Says:

    BTW, regarding haunted house, I should be more specific. The ex-owner is dead, but he does not want to “move up” from Palo Alto.

  110. DreamT Says:

    Pralay – It’s also proven that the more 2s and 4s in a house’s street number, the less desirable it is to firefighters and foreign investors.

  111. anon Says:

    “> You need to look at the velocity of “buyable” inventory.

    Thanks for the laugh, Chuckie. Keep them coming!”

    Herve – And how do you know if its ‘buyable’?

    Answer: Sale pending signs!

    I’m going to reiterate: Real Estater, you are a spectacular fool.

  112. Real Estater Says:

    Why repeat the same stuff? Just review Pralay’s position #2:

    2. Palo Alto is no longer desirable.

  113. Pralay Says:

    RealExcreter, you need to substantiate it by showing my comment where I said so.

  114. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay,

    Don’t switch your position now. Can’t you tell that everyone is hopeful that at the current rate of price drops, pretty soon Palo Alto will be cheaper than Santa Clara? We already saw there are homes you can buy in 94306 for less than $100K.

  115. Pralay Says:

    LOL! When RealExcreter, proven pathological liar, was asked to substantiate his comment, all he did is to define my position by saying “everyone is hopeful”. Well, everyone is not me.

    RealExcreter, your comment #114 does not make sense at all. It just tells that you are a liar with no sense of logic. Nowadays you are not even trying to sound like a credible guy.

  116. Real Estater Says:

    More signs of recovery! KCBS reports that Bay Area home prices are higher.

  117. nomadic Says:

    Useless. Aggregate. Data.

  118. Pralay Says:

    That’s right – useless aggregate data. The only metric should be used is “velocity of buyable inventory“.

  119. anon Says:

    haha excreter.

    Why is this thread brown?!

  120. DreamT Says:

    More signs of recovery! I got a job :P (KCBS probably won’t cover it, though)

  121. nomadic Says:

    Congratulations DreamT! Welcome back to the grind. ;-)

    2,079,931 more to go…

    CA unemployment is at 11.2% (preliminary) – at the worst point of the dot-bomb it was 6.9%

  122. DreamT Says:

    Correction: I got a second full-time job! (doesn’t sound so good anymore, does it? :( )

  123. sv_newbie Says:

    DreamT, congrats!

    ALewis,
    Your posts are always insightful. Just going through your 3-tier analysis.

    However, I see stronger correlation between local income and house prices, than between house prices and inflation.

    So, use CS for analyzing national housing, but for BA use income group. BA has certainly become more desirable in last 20 years than Sacramento has. So, to say that both should see same 3% is flawed.

    BA is more desirable => house prices deserve to be higher. But, it doesn’t mean prices continue to increase at higher rate.

    It’s hard to measure desirability of an area. But, median/average income will be a close one.

  124. Herve Says:

    > More signs of recovery! I got a job :P (KCBS probably won’t cover it, though)

    Meaningless anecdotal data.

  125. Real Estater Says:

    DreamT says,
    >>More signs of recovery! I got a job (KCBS probably won’t cover it, though)

    That’s great. I’m really happy for you. Actually, KCBS did report that layoffs are easing up, and people who are currently employed are feeling more secure about their jobs. I’m actually seeing a lot of jobs openings showing up in the weekly emails I get from Career Builder. Under the current environment, I would say unemployment and job security are not significant factors affecting the Bay Area house market.

  126. DreamT Says:

    Yes lots of companies have been finally loosening up since about 2 weeks ago. That’s the upside, on the hiring front. The downside is many more layoffs are projected to happen. Woe onto those who aren’t marketable. I’d say unemployment and job security are very much significant factors, but opportunities are finally back for the nimble, the schooled, the productive gent and the talented.

  127. nomadic Says:

    So much for my hopes of a new gig, DreamT. And you’re all greedy with TWO jobs!
    ;-)

  128. Real Estater Says:

    DreamT,

    In other words, opportunities are there for the “professional” person. Incidentally, I started getting some recruiting calls via LinkedIn and other sources. I think companies panicked and let go of too many people they actually need. Once business activities pick up, they’ll need to ramp up on hiring fairly aggressively.

  129. DreamT Says:

    That was my point in January: too many people were being let go in some instances (overreaction).


Leave a Reply

Please be nice. No name calling, no personal attacks, no racist stuff, no baiting, etc. Let's be nice to each other in the true Bay Area spirit! (Comments may be edited/removed without notice.)