S.F. housing market warming up | San Francisco Examiner
S.F. housing market warming up | San Francisco Examiner
S.F. housing market warming up
By: Mike Aldax
Examiner Staff Writer
05/07/09 6:00 AM PDT
Time to buy? Bay Area home prices continue to drop. (AP file photo)SAN FRANCISCO — Mike Plotkowski called it “a long cold winter.”
But with summer approaching, San Francisco real estate agents say the housing market is warming up — particularly for homes priced under $1 million — and recent assistance from the federal government has sparked an influx of multiple bids on homes for the first time since the crisis began.
[snip]
San Francisco prices are not nearly as low, however, as what is being offered in other Bay Area cities, where sales are occurring at half the listing price in some cases, Boutiette said.
“I have to educate my buyers who are looking for 25 to 30 percent off the listing price, that that’s generally not going to happen,” he said.
That’s because the housing supply in San Francisco remains static, particularly when it comes to single-family homes, Boutiette said.
“San Francisco is usually the last to get hit and the first to rebound,” he said.
Thanks to Burbed reader Jason for this find!
It always warms my heart to read about how realtors are helping to educate consumers on the ways of Real Estate, and how truly special San Francisco is.
Everyone, please repeat after me – “last to get hit, first to rebound”
“last to get hit, first to rebound”
“last to get hit, first to rebound”
“last to get hit, first to rebound”
And remember, don’t expect discounts!
Oh yeah! Things are heating up! Just in time for summer!
May 31st, 2009 at 7:08 am
This article may be correct. According to the Redfin “Stats and Trends” graph, there has been a slight uptick in purchase and listed prices starting from March of 2009 or so. The bizarre thing is that while price per square feet listed homes started increasing around January of 2009, the price per square feet purchased homes dropped only to uptick this past month. Have SF prices leveled off? Who the heck are buying these overpriced over-glorified shacks and ugly post-modernist industrial lofts?
May 31st, 2009 at 7:10 am
PS, the SF Examiner is like the conservative version of the Onion.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:49 am
The only basis for an uptick is seasonal. Prices will be pushed down further – market inventory is at never seen before levels, foreclosures are at record numbers, bank owned home inventories are at record levels, record T-bill rates are pushing mortgage rates higher, and unemployment will rise 3-4 percent higher creating more foreclosures. The only hope for prices to rise is the decline of the dollar as seen in rising currency rates of foreign currencies.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:31 am
Bill,
I would just add that the decline in the dollar does not mean home prices will rise absolutely. If wages and salaries remain stagnant with high inflation (which is a good possibility), home prices will not rise and the purchasing power of the consumer is actually weakened for home purchasing.
May 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I think prices started to rise in March. I would like to buy one more house so am hoping for a decline this fall but imo, the bottom is in.
May 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Debating with friends whether it will ever make economic sense again to buy in the Bay Area, i.e., is it no longer an economic equation but merely a personal decision about how much value you are willing to assign to the intangibles of home ownership because the numbers will never add up as a financial decision. Playing around with the NY Times rent vs. own calculator it seems to require darn close to 10% year over year appreciation before it makes sense on the numbers. In any case, question for the group is whether folks are PERMANENTLY out of the market or, if you’re waiting for a sign to ultimately buy and, if so, what is the sign? (1997 prices + inflation? median price = 3x medium income? n years of x appreciation? repeal of Prop 13?
May 31st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I’ll buy when there’s blood on the streets. I don’t see any blood yet.
May 31st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
May 31st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Bottom for what segment of the market WG? Low-end, I think it’s possible. Upper two tiers I don’t think we are even close anywhere. The East Bay is probably closest to the bottom but SF, the Peninsula, and South Bay are all still way above what fundamentals say they should and eventually will be.
May 31st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Good questions #6. Personally, I’ll probably seriously considering buying when the cost of purchasing is within around 10% of the cost of renting based on a 30-year fixed and 10% max down payment. I happen to think this will occur when prices fall back to their historical levels, which is around 1997 prices plus inflation. However, I think prices will likely fall below 1997 plus inflation levels for a short time because of the sorry state of the economy (which will push rents down and pull home prices down even further with them), psychology (people’s natural fear of getting back into real estate), and because history tells us prices almost always over-correct post-bubble before settling (mostly because of #2). However, even without timing it perfectly, real estate as an investment will again make some sense when the income it can produce through rents is close to its initial monthly expenses. Until then, and until the economy such that one can safely predict their job is safe, it makes no sense to deplete one’s savings by making a sizable down payment that could vanish over the near term. Too much risk for too little reward.
May 31st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
A little preview of your future, RBA…
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090530/BUSINESS/905309961/1350?Title=Alt-A-loans-Second-wave-of-foreclosures-ahead#
Alt-A loans: Second wave of foreclosures ahead
A new wave of foreclosures is building in Sonoma County, one that echoes the subprime crisis that flooded the region’s housing market with distressed properties.
The tide of troubled loans, which first struck high-risk borrowers who did not qualify for conventional mortgages, is now spreading to people with good credit who purchased more expensive homes.
This time, it involves borrowers who took out mortgages known as Alt-A loans. Like the subprime loans that began imploding in 2006, these loans offered seductively low introductory payments that enabled many borrowers to buy or refinance homes that were pricier than they could otherwise afford.
snip
Today, there are 18,000 Alt-A mortgages in Sonoma County. They account for about 18 percent of the county’s 102,000 home mortgages — triple the U.S. average, according to First American CoreLogic, a real estate research company.
It is a far larger share of the county’s real estate holdings than subprime loans, which accounted for about 10 percent of local mortgages at their peak five years ago, according to First American CoreLogic.
Over the next three years, about two-thirds of the Alt-A borrowers in Sonoma County will see their payments jump sharply, according to First American CoreLogic. The trend will peak in the summer of 2011, the research firm projects.
Uh oh.
May 31st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
What does Alt-A have to do with RBA? Oh, I forgot…the downturn is always in the future!
May 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
No, the downturn is now and in the future for the mythical RBA, RE.
Zanon, that 18% of Sonoma County mortgages are Alt-A is useless aggregate data because the rate in the RBA is zero as we all know. It just doesn’t exist. No loan resets of any sort here. No way.
BTW RE, since according to you, the bottom in the RBA (which news flash, means there was in fact a downturn) was in early 2009, why haven’t you purchased your second property yet? Apparently the bottom hasn’t been hit in the special RBA place you plan on buying? I mean interest rates are at historical lows (and rising). What’s the hold up?
May 31st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
The real estate downturn is a myth perpetuated by Republicans to scare the poor masses from property ownership and into a life of servitude.
Buy now or be priced out forever!! David Lereah said so. And so did Real Excrement.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Losaltosrenter asks a good question. As a former home owner who sold at the real estate bubble peak of 2006, I am prepared to keep renting for as long as renting remains such a good deal.
By my calculation, my landlord grosses 3-4% of my home’s value in rent each year. After property taxes and insurance, that is about 2-3% annually (not counting RBA appreciation of course!).
Meanwhile, my investment portfolio’s expected return is at least twice that. Why would I trade liquid assets for an illiquid asset that is half as profitable?
May 31st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
The real estate downturn is a myth perpetuated by Republicans to scare the poor masses from property ownership and into a life of servitude.
Buy now or be priced out forever!! David Lereah said so. And so did Real Excreter.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
May 31st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
May 31st, 2009 at 11:13 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 1:01 am
I was under the impression that Sonoma county were full of really well off people.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:17 am
Dow soars on more signs of recovery
June 1st, 2009 at 9:04 am
Time for the RETIRED cops and firefighters to step up and save the local real estate market!
S.F. retirees’ solid-golden years
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/01/BAN017TOP0.DTL&tsp=1
There was a time when the “$100,000 club” referred to San Francisco city workers making six figures. These days, it refers to the 480 retired city workers or their survivors who are knocking back $100,000 or more a year in pension money.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:10 am
The recent uptick in housing is little more than a short term seasonal effect coupled with some of the effect of Obama’s recent policy changes. (Which are also short term)
Housing is no where near its bottom. How can you tell? Simple. Rent versus buy. I understand that perma bulls like Real Excreter and WillowGlenner love to dance around that formula. But in the end, at some point, those two values have to reach their historic parity. Plain and simple.
Additionally, Case-Shiller for the Bay Area is still skewed to the high side. The economy is still floundering and we just had the bankruptcy of one of the largest and most iconic companies of the country occur today. Yet what is the stock market rallying on? The fact that the manufacturing numbers weren’t ‘as bad’ as thought. Can you drive a recovery on the concept of ‘well, its not THAT bad’?
Housing is still going down folks. Only an uber-troll or perma-bull thinks otherwise. We have also not felt the full effects of all the recent unemployment. From an economic cycle perspective, housing is generally the LAST thing to find its bottom after an economic downturn. Unemployment will peak, followed by a bottom in stocks and only then followed by a bottom in housing. Every economic cycle I am aware of behaves in that fashion.
One additional item: I have never, in the history of all bubbles I have read about, seen a situation where a bubble does not over-correct on the downside. And when we are looking at a bubble of a magnitude never before seen in our history, how many honestly thing it will simply just peter out gracefully?
June 1st, 2009 at 10:15 am
An article on prime foreclosures:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30984467
As mentioned above, we are now heading into phase 2. And which are in the nation spear-headed the usage of exotic mortgage instruments in the prime bracket?
Why, that would be the Bay Area.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:43 am
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 10:49 am
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Pralay,
Compare the Dow today to the time I bought. It was indeed easy money. When the doom-sayers were worried about catching a falling knife, I was busy catching the bottom!
June 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
R says,
>>BTW RE, since according to you, the bottom in the RBA (which news flash, means there was in fact a downturn) was in early 2009, why haven’t you purchased your second property yet? Apparently the bottom hasn’t been hit in the special RBA place you plan on buying?
As you correctly observed, RBA pricing has not changed much even at the Q1 bottom, therefore. I am actively looking, but so are a lot of other people. There hasn’t been a lot of inventory in my price range, and I continued to be priced out. This is very different than your assumption that I do not want to buy.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
There hasn’t been a lot of inventory in my price range, and I continued to be priced out.
——
So, instead of claiming yourself as real estate investor, how about “Price Out Investor”?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Pralay says (repeatedly):
>>LOL! RealExcreter is “catching bottom” all the time – in DOW 7500, in 6500. In fact the proven liar, as documented here, claimed that he forgot about his “easy money” buy
Absolutely. I bought at 7500, 7000, and 6500. It was the intended strategy! As part of that strategy, I bought more at 6500 than 7500, and my average is below 7000. The Dow is at 8751 as of this moment, and I have gotten more than 25% gain. Easy money indeed!
June 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Amazing foreclosure story of the day. One of thousands, I know.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Gatos/15433-Blossom-Hill-Rd-95032/home/1779737
Purchased April 2005 for $1.6M with 20% down. Refinanced (taking out down payment PLUS $264k equity – GO Countrywide!) for $1.864M July 2006. That’s 16.5% appreciation in ONE YEAR assuming Countrywide was okay with effectively 0% equity at that point. Hard to believe it could have appraised even higher. Foreclosed 9/08 and finally listed for sale 3/09 – a full six months later.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Never mind, that’s small potatoes – now this guy thinks BIG!
http://willcarless.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/a-staggering-swindle/
June 1st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Absolutely. I bought at 7500, 7000, and 6500.
——-
Did you buy? Really?
June 1st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Never mind, that’s small potatoes – now this guy thinks BIG!
——
Well, some investors like Jim McConville are rented inventor and some are fake inventors.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Well, I am looking. And what I’m finding is that the market is still pretty prohibitive. I was looking into buying a starter duplex in east San Jose as my first home for $299K. I intended to buy it FHA, kick one of the tenants out and keep the one who is currently paying $1300 for his two-bedroom unit. Nope, bank says it’s way too expensive, you can’t afford it. So with San Jose effectively ruled out, I looked at Oakland. $175K is doable there in the less desirable parts of the city, but I still run into a problem there. I would need a tenant to have been there for at least 12 months so that they could take rental income into account. No problem, except that Oakland is rent controlled, so most of the long term tenants are paying way below market rate, making for insufficient capitalization.
So that road lead to nowhere. At that point I started looking at townhouses and houses. San Jose has a down-payment assistance program, but it is very stringent in its inspections. Whenever I found a property that wasn’t a short sale, it turned out to be in bad shape and unfinanceable. When I found a nicer one, it was a short sale and therefore unlikely to close. Amazingly, the same thing held true for Oakland, though there I was at least able to look at single-family properties.
And I’m not looking for great neighborhoods here. I would be fine with Alum Rock, Ghetto Glen or southside San Jose, or Fruitvale, Melrose, etc. in Oakland. I just want something with 2 bedrooms to live in.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Foreclosed 9/08 and finally listed for sale 3/09 – a full six months later.
——
Bank was just waiting for bottom. Pretty soon it will sell over asking price with multiple overbidding.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Absolutely. I bought at 7500, 7000, and 6500.
——-
Did you buy? Really?,
Of course he did. Now why would he lie? Except, of course, to embelish himself.
Real Excreter: Just one sidebar for you to contemplate. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY takes anything you have to say at face value anymore. You have continuously dodged the truth and touted nonsense repeatedly to the point that I would believe what Dick Cheney says before I would believe you.
That being said, what are you hoping to accomplish? I find it somewhat difficult to believe that ‘some tech guy’ feels an insatiable need to continuously post the same trollish nonsense day in and day out over here. Unless of course, you really are a realtor masquerading as an average joe. (with a trophy wife)
June 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
sonarrat,
I think only the people are truly looking understand the issues that are out there. Those who are “not even looking” are basically clueless, coming back again and again asking the same dumb questions.
In any case, if I were you, I’d rule out Oakland. The city has too many crime problems, and it is unlikely to ever change.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
sonarrat: Sorry to hear you’re having trouble. This may be too personal, but can you give me a sense of what the banks are looking at to finance a $299K unit?
June 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
BAI,
My interest is to post fact-based views about the market. All the personal stuff are the makings of the real trolls of this forum.
I previously offered to show my transaction statement using Burbed as intermediary. The loser will pay a modest fine for making false claims. After seeing that I was for real, Pralay dragged his tail and fled. Let me just say this once: Pralay is a proven liar by his actions. He can post all the trollish garbage he wants, but his ass has already been kicked. If you don’t believe me, just watch his response. He’ll do anything to get out of this offer to verify the truth.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
By the way, the fine is a donation to Burbed. It’s all for a good cause.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
BAI,
I rest my case.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
My interest is to post fact-based views about the market.
—–
LOL! Let’s see some examples -
Quoting nonsenese statements by Realtors from Real Estate pages and then concluded the post with sales pitch like “why are you not joining [on-going party]?” is a “fact based views”.
Saying “right time to buy” like a broken record (as documented here, here and here) is “fact-based views”.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Let me just say this once: Pralay is a proven liar by his actions.
——
Proof baby proof.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Oh noes. The 401k topic again.
Here’s a potential scenario of why I’m not inclined to do this:
1. RE submits information to me.
2. Others challenge that it’s actually RE’s real information, not photoshopped, not someone elses, etc.
3. I’m left playing CSI: RBA.
So… sorry folks. I truly hate to disappoint. But I’m not stepping into this minefield.
Here’s another idea, how about we move out of this topic – and move onto something less personal.
For example, what’s the best way to get a government job. Those pension benefits look pretty awesome.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 3:09 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
zanon, you might find this ING calculator gives an idea of what a bank would loan (at least for an ARM):
https://banking.ingdirect.com/orangehomeloan/apply.html?command=DisplayCalculator
You can put in different scenarios confidentially and after you click “calculate” it tells you how much you would qualify for – up to a maximum of what you are asking for.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
sonarrat: Sorry to hear you’re having trouble. This may be too personal, but can you give me a sense of what the banks are looking at to finance a $299K unit?
45% debt to income ratio. The down payment was not an issue for me, the problem is that prices are still simply too high for these highly problematic starter properties.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
And you are the biggest idiot.
What’s your point?
June 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
nomadic says,
>>RE backed away saying that gambling is illegal.
I will also back away from driving after having a few drinks; thank you very much.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I will also back away from driving after having a few drinks; thank you very much.
——
But you still can do it. Betting can be called “fee for verification” and make it legal. You can call drinking as consumption for mind enhancement and drive.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The person who refuses
verficationis the one who is guilty of lying.—–
Call it drama which nobody cares or believes.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Hm, this experiment I just conducted was far more time consuming than I had counted on.
Maybe I should just focus on positive comments.
Personally I liked #30.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
What is so special about #30? Considering the fact that we bottomed in last January and activity is picking up “noticeably”, pretty soon this home will appreciate while sitting in market and will sell it over $2M.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:58 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
And you should be allowed to call others a proven liar 100 times without any proof?
June 1st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]”
wewt.
burbed is super thrilled with 56. lol
June 1st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
June 1st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Pralay shall be allowed to:
—-
LOL! #78 contradicts #72. Another consistency.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
burbed, I liked the post removal experiment, but I have two objections to it:
1. There is no way the nicest guy here (nomadic) could say anything warranting a post removal. RE, absolutely. Pralay, sure, for responding to RE and making us have to read RE’s posts twice . anon, well he’s in a bad mood because it goes with being an angry renter. But not nomadic. Heck, I’m ruder than that dude.
2. Someone is using RE’s gravatar and cussing up a storm. Or he left his computer on and one of the Gifted and Talented neighbor kids took advantage of the lapse.
Anyway, carry on. I’m sure my secretary, upper case Herve, would be delighted to assist you in removing posts should you need to attend to other matters. I would suggest you start with verifying his portfolio, work history, tax statements, and, should time permit, academic credentials.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Or he left his computer on and one of the Gifted and Talented neighbor kids took advantage of the lapse.
———-
Or squirrels in his backyard. That explains those squirrelish spellings. In addition to protection of BBQ tables, Palo Alto residents need protection from squirrels.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
#76 – nice, anon. Now it looks like you were calling me the biggest idiot.
It’s still funny the post stayed.
#80 – madhaus, you’re messing with my reputation. I’m a nasty m-f’er – original gangsta. I earned that censorship, dammit!
At least burbed liked my post #30 (cited in #70).
June 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
What is so special about #30?.
I liked #30 because it was informative and not particularly personal.
I also liked #34.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I liked #30 because it was informative
—–
Meaningless anecdotal data for people who don’t go to open houses (for cookies).
June 1st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
an odd flip and an interesting apple, if it ever sells
1030 RAMONA St
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Price: $1,750,000
Jun 01, 2009 Listed $1,750,000
Feb 25, 2009 Listed $1,750,000
Mar 26, 2008 Sold $1,660,000 — Public Records
it now has “approved plans”
carry on…
June 1st, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Went by that one Steve. Hideous duplex with an alley running behind – which might actually be nice since the garage could be hidden.
There are trees in jail next door too. Any idea what the point of using ugly chain link fencing for “tree preservation” is?
June 1st, 2009 at 9:07 pm
nomadic,
If any construction is done on the house, it is a requirement in Palo Alto to protect all trees with fencing.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
madhaus says,
>>RE, absolutely. Pralay, sure, for responding to RE and making us have to read RE’s posts twice .
Do you really think this kind of bias comment is rewarding the right kind of behavior? Clearly he repeated a baseless personal attack against me like 100 times before I even bothered to respond. All I did was to show that he has no proof.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:20 pm
No construction in sight as of yet. Guess the neighbors are getting in on the act too, eh?
Judging by the height of the weeds, the fence has been there awhile. Maybe it’s really the weeds – which came invading from EPA – that are in jail.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
wow this thread is surreal! So our mission is now to Thrill burbed? Do we get paid for this?!
In other news, the weather is overcast in San Diego. No wonder houses cost less around here.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:42 pm
steve – the neighbor (with the jailed trees) looks at you very angrily if you park in front of his tree fence. Definitely not the friendliest neighborhood.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
>>No construction in sight as of yet.
Tree fences are put up before construction begins. It’s a very common sight in Palo Alto.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
No need to thrill me. Just don’t post stuff that makes this site lean towards 4chan style commentary.
I dream of a Burbed where all visitors will instantly recognize the beauty and want to stay forever. Like Redwood City, which has Climate Best By Government Test!
June 1st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
all right! I’ll start the theme with Google’s first image result on searching for a beautiful house search.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Maybe it’s really the weeds
——
Well, it is in prestigious 94301 zipcode where weeds are not allowed to grow. Got to be exotic plants.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:14 pm
all right! I’ll start the theme with Google’s first image result on searching for a beautiful house search.
——
But when it comes to real estate investment, ugliness can be transformed to beauty with right pair of eyes and imagination, as Sunny Kim said.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:19 pm
lol CAN YOU SIGN?!
June 1st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
OK, let’s look at some recent sales.
First up, from the “ice cold” Los Altos market:
165 PINE Lane. List price: 2.298M. Sold price: 2.3M.
944 ANDOVER Way. List price: 1.599M. Sold price: 1.61M.
No downturn here. Next up: “No longer desirable” Palo Alto:
365 Hawthorne Ave. List price: 1.395M. Sold price: 1.538M. Wow! No typo here.
1414 Edgewood Dr. List price: 2.1M. Sold price: 2.5M.
Despite the unlucky number!
505 Embarcadero Road. List price: 1.25M. Sold price: 1.3M. Overbidding on a big street? That’s against the rules!
877 Northhampton Dr. List price: 3.295M. Sold price: 3.31M.
4090 Orme St. List price: 2.538M. Sold price: 2.6M.
OK, ok, let’s end here. Message delivered; overbidding is still everywhere!
June 1st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Yes, real estate investment is as tough as ability to sign.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I cannot believe this. I looked at 1030 Ramona recently, due to the misleading flier. Beautiful picture of a nice home, but it’s an artist’s rendering. The actual house is even ooglier than the one on redfin. Yup, the nice drawing with the address and price on front, the fugly house, complete with both an old and a new Beetle on the back.
This is a Realtard who took the phrase “Imagine the possibilities” a little too seriously.
By the way, the trees in jail are not at 1030 Ramona but next door. 1030 instead has a bigger copy of the house porn (that illustration) posted on the front wall.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Geithner: “The global recession seems to be losing force…. The financial system is starting to heal”
June 1st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
> I’m sure my secretary, upper case Herve [...]
[trying something new - I'm not super thrilled with my own comment. -Herve]
June 1st, 2009 at 11:24 pm
how many of us stopped at that virtual house on Ramona?! I must say the flyer didn’t give justice to the painter’s vision. Once you see the house, its real potential is breathtaking. The front door (on the side, not visible from the street) was even ajar, no doubt part of the staging. “Tear me down, I’M READY!”
June 1st, 2009 at 11:57 pm
lol what a great site burbed is.
DONCHA ALL JUST LOVE THE BAY AREA?!
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:28 am
I’m beginning to believe that Burbed is the mastermind behind Real Estater to stir things up and keep things interesting.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 am
[Burbed - removed not for calling me a communist, but for baiting others]
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 am
>>I’m beginning to believe that Burbed is the mastermind behind Real Estater to stir things up and keep things interesting.
Here we go again with the conspiracy theories…
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:17 am
Alex,
Instead of attacking the persons, why don’t you talk issues instead? So far, we’ve heard the following:
- Bernanke cannot be trusted
- Geithner cannot be trusted
- RE cannot be trusted
What’s next? GOD cannot be trusted?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 am
Before anyone calls anyone else names again, consider the following undisputed results (even by Pralay):
RE bought when the DOW was at 7500, 7000, and 6500, and called out these purchases on Burbed. If you followed his advice, you’d have made 25% easy money by now!
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:24 am
News flash:
Pending U.S. home sales in April posted the biggest monthly jump in nearly eight years, a sign that home sales are finally coming to life after a long and painful slump.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
burbed:
With respect, that censorship tactic is complete and utter horsesh*t. And that includes the censorship of Real Excreter’s posts.
I am sorry, but what exactly is the issue? burbed is a real estate parody site. Unless I was mistaking your sarcastic posting style as actually being genuine.
That being said, if Pralay and Real Excreter want to have some back and forth rants, so be it. That is what makes this site interesting. What is your goal? To turn it into a snore fest?
So rather than this continuous ‘big brother’ method of trying to maintain order as if this is some unruly classroom of 12 year olds, let people post what they wish. When Pralay and Real Excreter go at it, just think of it as an episode of ‘Deadliest Warrior’ on SpikeTV.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 am
BAI,
There’s no need to worry about censorship if you don’t plan to post crap here. I don’t object to censorship as a way to stop the trolls from taking over the forum with garbage comments. It’s been going on for way too long. I find myself spending too much time defending against distortions and personal attacks. This is not acceptable even for a parody site.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 am
>>That being said, if Pralay and Real Excreter want to have some back and forth rants, so be it.
I can assure you, once we cut the craps in this forum, Pralay’s posts would virtually disappear from sight, and there would be no need for any back and forth.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
RE #110,
Denninger has a good writeup about why the pending sales number is meaningless: Pending Home Sales: Watch The Birdie!.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
There’s no need to worry about censorship if you don’t plan to post crap here. I don’t object to censorship as a way to stop the trolls from taking over the forum with garbage comments
Um, didn’t you just contradict yourself with that statement?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
Guys,
Remember how for the past month I have been talking about sale pending signs? I told everyone that this matter will eventually make its way to the news headlines. Well, we got it today! Here’s the current headline on Yahoo Finance:
Pending Home Sales See Biggest Rise in More Than Seven Years
Mark it as another chapter in my consistent track record!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Excerpts:
“The National Association of Realtors said Tuesday its seasonally adjusted index of sales contracts signed in April surged 6.7 percent to 90.3, far exceeding analysts’ forecasts. It was the biggest monthly jump since October 2001, when pending sales rose 9.2 percent.”
“”This is yet another positive indication that the bottoming process is forming,” Jennifer Lee, an economist at BMO Capital Markets”
“we expect greater activity in the months ahead,” Lawrence Yun, the Realtors’ chief economist, said in a statement.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 am
mtv-renter – even some realtards get it:
Today’s report “reflects first-time homebuyers and investors taking advantage of foreclosures,” Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC Chief Executive Officer James Gillespie said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “But to get the market really moving we need to get the move-up buyers” for a true recovery to take hold, he said.
Coldwell Banker is lobbying Congress for a $15,000 tax credit for all homebuyers, not just first-time purchasers.
Still, an improving economic outlook has pushed up borrowing costs, raising concern the real-estate industry will not rebound.
-snip-
“Home-purchase activity could wallow at moribund levels,” said Scott Anderson, a senior economist at Wells Fargo & Co. in New York. The emerging “green shoots” of recovery may be stamped out, “forcing us to yet again downgrade our outlook for the economy,” he wrote in a May 29 note to clients.
A weak job market is another reason economists say any rebound in housing would be slow to develop. The unemployment rate, which reached a 25-year high of 8.9 percent in April, may climb to almost 10 percent by the end of 2009, according to the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg last month.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
RE # 114
The recent action in the stock market and home sales is attributed to two reasons:
1) Seasonal effects (we are entering the summer)
2) Short term effect of Obama’s policies
Ultimately, both are not going to last. The mentality of individuals is still stuck in the clouds and people incorrectly assume that the old realtor cliches are still valid. After the recent drop in housing and a subsequent lowering of interest rates, the whole ‘buy now before its too late!’ mentality has resurfaced yet again. The exact same thing happened in Japan in 1992 after 3 years of declines in stocks and housing. When the government began to finally react to the crisis, people assumed that was the bottom and they needed to dive in. What actually happened was that numerous individuals ended up catching falling knives. And the downturn continued into the now famous ‘lost decade’.
Whether or not we mirror Japan in every sense is debatable. Their economy is somewhat different than ours. However, that is the only frame of reference that we have for a bubble of similar magnitude.
Now once the short term seasonal effects run their course and the effect of Obama’s policies begin to atrophy, we will be right back where we started. Round 2 will begin once the Alt-A and prime loans continue their implosion. In all likelihood, a secondary set of bailouts and policy actions will have to occur.
According the the housing charts I have seen, we are not looking at a bottom in real estate until somewhere between 2011 and 2014. That would also match symmetry-wise for the housing bell curve.
Like many have said before, there is one sure-fire way of knowing when we have reached the bottom: when rental costs and mortgage rates line up. Pure and simple. And that will only happen one of two ways: either rents will rise to meet up with housing costs or housing costs will drop to meet up with rents.
Which of those two scenarios is more likely?
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
“It’s been going on for way too long. I find myself spending too much time defending against distortions and personal attacks. This is not acceptable even for a parody site.”
Leave, fool.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Rental and mortgage are like apples to oranges. One is an expense, while the other is a tax deductible investment. It makes no sense to compare the two. Mortgage payment should be higher than rent, because in one case you’re buying something tangible, while in the other case is just throwing money away in consumption.
The two reasons given by BAI are soon-to-expire excuses. Why is the recession not affecting seasonal effects? Obama’s policy is to bring about a recovery, not just to give a short term boost. Mis-judging the economic trend will be detrimental to one’s financial health. The fact is that the Dow has already yielded more than 25% gain. That’s even better than doubling your money every decade. If you missed it, you missed it.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Excerpts from that same article (Great if I want to buy a foreclosed home in Phoenix, Miami or Vegas):
Still, some economists wonder whether rising mortgage rates will dampen home sales. Nationwide average rates for 30-year-fixed rate mortgages are around 5.3 percent this week compared with about 5 percent a week earlier, according to Bankrate.com.
And analysts cautioned prices will take longer to stabilize, because of the glut of unsold properties on the market.
“Even if sales volumes rebound, home prices will keep falling under the weight of the massive inventory overhang,” wrote Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics.
Still, Yun cautioned that the pending sales data is more volatile than in the past because many sellers need banks to agree to take less than the original mortgage — a so-called “short sale.” That process is often difficult, time-consuming and can wind up falling apart before the deal closes.
Sales of inexpensive foreclosures and other distressed low-end properties have even sparked bidding wars in places like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami. But the market for high-end properties remains at a virtual standstill.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
Still, Yun cautioned that the pending sales data is more volatile than in the past because many sellers need banks to agree to take less than the original mortgage — a so-called “short sale.”
—–
Think about this – the biggest cheerleader of NAR, who calls “bottom” almost every month, is cautious!!!!!!
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Sales of inexpensive foreclosures and other distressed low-end properties have even sparked bidding wars in places like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami. But the market for high-end properties remains at a virtual standstill.
———-
Looks like some places in flyover countries like Phoenix and LV saved the day for NAR.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Actually, I checked out the market in LV, and kept in touch with the realtor there. The market is extremely competitive right now. Bargain shoppers, investors, and investment companies are everywhere buying up foreclosures. Multiple offers and cash deals are common. When a good forecosure property comes onto the market, tons of people jump on it, so it’s very hard to even buy a property right now.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
Meaningless aggregate data.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Meaningless aggregate data.
—-
Or may be consistent track record of God.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 am
In case anyone’s still interested in 1030 Ramona, here’s a useful (but not current) link.
Since I checked the place it, it’s been relisted. As of yesterday. Seems the Realtards were smart enough to leave out the photo, but stupid enough to list it as a 5/3.5 3100 sf house for $1.75m. A house that only exists as approved plans and a drawing. Your construction costs not included.
More photos in next post, trying to avoid the spam-eating demon.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:50 am
“According the the housing charts I have seen, we are not looking at a bottom in real estate until somewhere between 2011 and 2014. That would also match symmetry-wise for the housing bell curve.
Like many have said before, there is one sure-fire way of knowing when we have reached the bottom: when rental costs and mortgage rates line up. Pure and simple. And that will only happen one of two ways: either rents will rise to meet up with housing costs or housing costs will drop to meet up with rents.”
Well said BAI, agree 100%.
The most notable report I have seen recently is the one posted by zanon (I think?) regarding Sonoma County Alt-A mortgages. The fact that 18% of all mortgages are Alt-A isn’t as noteworthy as the fact that the peak of the resets won’t occur until mid-2011. While the “RBA” might have a different percentage of Alt-A (could be more or less, who knows), there is no reason that the peak timing of the resets will be different than Sonoma County. And until Alt-A resets work their way out of the system, prices will continue to drop all over, even if the pace of decrease begins to slow.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Here’s what I found when I visited 1030 Ramona. And, of course, the trees in jail. 1030 is next door, looking vaguely pink but actually beige.
Oh yeah, this house was relisted TWICE. Anyone know what’s up with that?
Anyway, after seeing a listing for a 5/3.5 house that is actually a garageless duplex (no wasted living area here!), I decided to check out Foothills Park. It is NOT true that only Palo Alto residents may visit. More in my next post.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
[trying something new - removing all posts that I'm not super thrilled with in a thread. -Burbed]
What? What? Now I can’t talk about Foothills Park?
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
madhaus,
What are you doing sneaking around my neighborhood taking photos? You went to Foothills Park too? Aren’t you going a bit overboard with your Palo Alto infatuation? I think it’s time for you to buy a house there and be done with the mid-life crisis.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
[Burbed]
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
R says,
>>While the “RBA” might have a different percentage of Alt-A (could be more or less, who knows)
Could be more? We’ve talked about this before. Alt-A is barely even marketed over here.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Rental and mortgage are like apples to oranges. One is an expense, while the other is a tax deductible investment. It makes no sense to compare the two
Actually, it makes PERFECT sense to compare the two. Which is why calculators like this one exist:
http://www.dinkytown.com/java/MortgageRentvsBuy.html
The reason those two have to be in sync is to ensure that a property is cash flow positive. If it isn’t, it’s not a viable investment vehicle.
The tax deduction you laud is often used by realtors to convey their view. That is factored into the calculations and even when taken into account, the viability of the purchase is still not often valid.
In general terms, depending on the size of the purchase, often times, the maintenance and increased insurance costs associated with often will offset to a large degree the mortgage deduction.
For most, an excellent rule of thumb that has been used in years prior to the bubble idiocy is that the cost of a property should be between 100-200 times the monthly rental costs. So for example, if you can rent a property for $2500 a month, that property’s value should be between $250k to $500k.
Another good indicator is the ratio that compares home price to rental costs. So if a house rents for $2500 a month, by nationwide historic terms, you add up the rent for the year ($2500 x 12 = $30,000) and then multiply it by 11. (Which was the historic P/E for housing) With that, you get a fair value of $330,000. For the Bay Area, I will assign a premium and give it a P/E of 14. (Which is actually closer to the Bay Area historic norms. That would give a fair value of that house of $420,000.
Now as has been demonstrated by this site copious times with home costs and craiglist rental references, that P/E ratio is no where near its historic level.
Finally, there is one additional piece of criteria to factor in: that is, the comparison of median wages of a given area when compared to home prices.
As is evidenced on this chart:
http://www.zoyzoy.com/realestate/ofheo.php?msa=41884
Which compares per capita income to the home price index, one can clearly see we are nowhere near parity. The beauty of the above chart is that one can clearly see these values WERE at parity at one point and that the skew formed in the late 90s which was the effective start of our housing bubble in the Bay Area.
So there you have it. Now I have two choices before me based on the above:
1) All my data and calculations is correct and we still have a ways to go before housing normalizes. So I should wait before I purchase.
or
2) Real Estater and the NAR are right (along with Geitner) and that now is the time to buy.
Care to guess which option I am taking?
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Could be more? We’ve talked about this before. Alt-A is barely even marketed over here.”
According to who? Several of my friends that are brokers marketed Option ARMs to no end because it allowed people to purchase on the Peninsula who otherwise wouldn’t be able to. Closing escrow = commission.
My several friends who purchased on the Peninsula in 2004ish all used Option ARMs. All but one has been making minimum payments. He luckily refi’d while he could to a 30 year fixed. The others now can’t and know that they will likely lose their houses unless their salary doubles very soon.
I have spoken to numerous others, notably realtors, who touted the virtues of Option ARMs to purchase in SF, the Peninsula, and nicer South Bay Areas. In fact a couple weeks ago I ran across someone who is set to lose four properties around willow glenn to foreclosure (all in 750k to 1.3m range) because their payments are set to jump considerably. They can’t afford the increase because rent doesn’t come close to covering the monthly nut nor can they refi or sell because they are so far under water. Oh yeah, this person is a realtor who watched too many episodes of Flip that House.
You are delusional if you think Option ARMs don’t exist in the RBA. Given that you are are an “expert” with industry knowledge, I don’t actually think you are that delusional, just acting in self interest, which is understandable to a certain extent.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
BAI,
What your calculator does not account for is the benefit of price appreciation for the property owner. For example, the person who is renting a house in Palo Alto instead of buying one most likely lost a million dollars in appreciation over the past 10 years. That makes it very expensive to rent. You are in fact paying rent + opportunity cost from lack of appreciation.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
While the “RBA” might have a different percentage of Alt-A (could be more or less, who knows), there is no reason that the peak timing of the resets will be different than Sonoma County.
——
Check the interactive map from New York Fed. Click on “Alt-A” checkbox and enter bay area zipcodes.
Darker shades indicates more Alt-A loans. Most of the zipcodes in San Clara County do have Alt-A loans. Only exception is 94085 which is primarily business/industrial area.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“BAI,
What your calculator does not account for is the benefit of price appreciation for the property owner.”
Substitute depreciation for appreciation and you’re close. All the more reason to rent until prices fall back to historical levels.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Thanks for the link Pralay.
BTW, how do you strike through text on this site?
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
R – the html tag
works.See?Pralay – nice link. Did you notice the other tab – marked 6 month change? That one is really interesting. It shows that nearly all bay area zips have gotten worse when you click on the “share current” button. More people are falling behind on their payments.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
argh – the preview worked. Use the tag “del”
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
It shows that nearly all bay area zips have gotten worse when you click on the “share current” button. More people are falling behind on their payments.
—–
Except 94305 (Stanford), 94304 and 95141 (San Jose).
And that explains why inventory keeps piling up.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
What your calculator does not account for is the benefit of price appreciation for the property owner
*sigh*
Do you understand now why I consider you a troll Real Excreter? With posts like that, how am I supposed to take you seriously?
Your statement presupposes that housing appreciated by a considerable level in the time frame you indicated. Since we have had decreasing home prices since 2005-2006, that would seem to indicate that owners are LOSING money.
But more importantly, you are failing to factor in the cost of borrowed money. Last time I checked, mortgages are not offerred at 0% interest. Even at the height of bubble idiocy, they didn’t get that low. That being said, I am paying a premium of the money I am using to pay for the house.
Generally speaking, when one does the calculations and depending on the type and size of the mortgage, an owner pays between 2 and 2 1/2 times the original value of the home mortgage over a standard 30 year timeframe to pay it off.
For example, let’s assume somebody went and bought a house worth $1 million dollars. He is a studious little Google engineer and dropped the requisite 20% down payment giving him a mortgage of roughly $800,000. Assuming that he took a standard 30 year jumbo mortgage, how would things look like after 30 years?
Now depending on area, desirability and so forth, in normal times, it takes roughly 20 years for a house to double in value. I know you have been touting the fact that it occurs every ten years, but that is false. But even doubling every 20 years is not bad.
So lets look at the math:
A $1 million dollar house after 20 years is worth $2 million. Add another ten years and assume it increased by an additional 50% and you get a home worth $2.5 million 30 years from now.
So how about the mortgage? As mentioned above, a standard 30 year mortgage will cause you to pay about 2 1/2 times the mortgage value over the timeframe in question. So that $800,000 mortgage would have cost the Google engineer $2,000,000 over the lifetime of the mortgage. Over the same timeframe, that individual would have been paying property taxes. On a $1 million assessed value home, that is $10k a year for the Bay Area. Multiply that by 30 years, and you’ve paid $300,000 in property taxes.
I’ll ignore maintenance and insurance fees for these calculations.
So what is the grand total cost to own?
$200,000 down payment
$2,000,000 in mortgage principle and interest over 30 years
$300,000 in property tax.
End result total cost to own: $2,500,000.
Current cost of home: $2,500,000.
Net return on $200k investment: a big fat ZERO.
Now I recognize that some of the above assumptions are debatable. (appreciation, mortgage cost over time, etc) But you have to realize there was a reason why Robert Shiller’s book was able to clearly demonstrated that housing costs over time are essentially flat. Of course, the mortgage deduction can offset the mortgage cost over the lifetime of the mortgage. But bear in mind I also did not include maintenance and insurance fees. Furthermore, note that not all of the return on a home sale is tax free.
So there you go. More fuel for the pessimist fire. Or you could listen to the NAR. I choose to do my own due diligence.
In the end, people need to recognize the solid distinction between buying a home for yourself versus buying one as an investment. The reason investment properties have better long term value is that renters are generally covering your mortgage. So you enjoy the returns.
But for a primary residence, it is not the type of asset realtors tout it to be. It is merely another large cost. You will never realize the gains from individual property unless you sell it (which comes with additional costs and potentially taxes, depending on appreciation), a primary residence is merely a place to live. The moment this country realizes that and returns to the notion that a home is a place to live and raise a family and not a path to riches, the sooner we return to normality.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
[i]Real Escreter spewed:
Alex,
Instead of attacking the persons, why don’t you talk issues instead? So far, we’ve heard the following:
- Bernanke cannot be trusted
- Geithner cannot be trusted
- RE cannot be trusted
What’s next? GOD cannot be trusted?[/i]
Don’t know about God. But I trust YOU, Bernanke, Geithner, the rest of the politicians and real estate mouthpieces as far as I can throw you.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
And burbed, I’m sorry, you’re not a communist. You’re a nazi. LOL
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
>>Check the interactive map from New York Fed. Click on “Alt-A” checkbox and enter bay area zipcodes. Darker shades indicates more Alt-A loans.
The map shows Alt-A’s will have little affect on RBA. Only the low income areas have dark shades. The second tab is virtually all green, meaning conditions are improving.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Nice analysis in #144, but your theoretical value after 30 years should be $3M. Probably just an oversight while you were on a roll.
20 years – $2M
plus 10 @ 50% appreciation = $3M
It’s cumulative.
While a primary residence isn’t necessarily a stellar investment, it isn’t a zero sum proposition either.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
It shows that nearly all bay area zips have gotten worse when you click on the “share current” button. More people are falling behind on their payments.
——–
In addition, check Share of 90+ days delinquent (for Alt-A). What the matter with Los Gatos? It’s hot red. Los Altos, 94087, Saratoga are reddish too.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
RE #148
Thanks for the correction nomadic.
And yes, I agree. It is not a zero sum gain. I was merely trying to demonstrate the long term costs versus appreciation. Often times, I see too simplistic a calculation from real estate bulls and it bothers me that they try to gloss over the actual overall costs.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
BAI,
There is no other investment in this country that allows you & your spouse to take a $500K tax exemption on your profit. Couple that with RBA’s propensity to appreciate, you have a recipe for wealth building that the majority of the people in this country don’t have access to. Best of all, it’s easy money. All you have to do is to live in your house. If you are here and you don’t take advantage of this, I’m all ears as to what better plan you have?
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
#149, Pralay: What ? I thought Los Altos was ice cold! Now you’re telling me it’s red hot? wtf? And are you calling me and all my 94087 neighbors communists? Or just the CUSD part?
nomadic, you stopped being rude. I rest my case that you are the nicest guy here. Also I use the html tag “strike” for
striking through text. More letters to type but way easier to remember.#144, BuyersAreIdiots, similarly, you seemed to have forgotten your debut here. You were crude, disruptive and nasty. Now you’re witty, informative and helpful. I must demand you cease your current behavior immediately.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
#149, Pralay: What ? I thought Los Altos was ice cold! Now you’re telling me it’s red hot? wtf? And are you calling me and all my 94087 neighbors communists? Or just the CUSD part?
—–
Based on 90+ days delinquency for Alt-A (in last six month) your zipcode is either turning Republicans or communists. Either way it does not look good. The later group got extinct in last decade. And the only hope for former group is either Carrie Prejean or Rush Limbaugh.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
madhaus says,
>>#144, BuyersAreIdiots, similarly, you seemed to have forgotten your debut here. You were crude, disruptive and nasty. Now you’re witty, informative and helpful.
Just like one of those rock bands that grew up!
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
There is no other investment in this country that allows you & your spouse to take a $500K tax exemption on your profit. Couple that with RBA’s propensity to appreciate, you have a recipe for wealth building that the majority of the people in this country don’t have access to …. If you are here and you don’t take advantage of this, I’m all ears as to what better plan you have?
The plan? To rent until the aforementioned criteria I had alluded to earlier return the market to historical trends. At that point in time, you purchase a property.
One of your biggest problems RealExcreter is your propensity to looking at issues that are entirely black and white. Reminds me of Bush’s ‘you’re with us or against us’ narrow minded mentality.
As many have indicated copious times, their aversion to real estate is not due to them being bitter renters or clueless investors. Quite the contrary, they are rationalists that can obviously do elementary math a lot better than you can.
Your view of real estate is the stereotypical Shangra La and panacea often touted by the likes of Re/Max and Collwell banker. A utopic vision of easy wealth through minimal effort simply by purchasing a property and living the American dream. It was that mentality that contributed to the disaster we experienced and are still currently experiencing in our financial system. It is a clever tactic that appeals to the lowest common denominator and preys on people’s emotions. Which is why my opinion of the real estate industry as a whole is so low. There is not an ethical bone in the NAR’s body and they are little more than glorified used car salesman that would coerce their own mother into buying real estate if it meant they could bank the commission.
But I digress. And I have a suggestion on how you can better communicate your viewpoint and demonstrate to everyone that you are not actually a troll.
Now myself (and several others) have brought forth numerous calculators, historical references, charts, graphs, etc. to present our argument.
All I have ever seen from you is repeated references to how Bay Area real estate appreciates without a SINGLE data point to back it up. Not a single historical reference graph that shows how properties have appreciated per your assumptions.
So how about it? How about instead of just merely spouting your assertions or regurgitating NAR propaganda, instead, regale us with your numerous and well referenced data that demonstrates your point.
Take as much time as you need.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
#144, BuyersAreIdiots, similarly, you seemed to have forgotten your debut here. You were crude, disruptive and nasty. Now you’re witty, informative and helpful. I must demand you cease your current behavior immediately.
LOL
I’m still nasty and disruptive. I’ll work on the crudeness in the future.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
BAI,
First of all, realtors don’t determine prices, and in most cases, don’t care about prices. It is the buyers and sellers themselves that make the markets and decide to buy or sell. Realtors are simply facilitators of these transactions. Why do you have a high or low opinion of these people when it’s really irrelevant?
Secondly, the data points have already been given plenty of times. Go search the site and you’ll find plenty of examples, or simply go ask your grandmother and mother who much home prices were in the 50′s, 60′s, and 70′s, then come back here and talk about your growing appreciation for this wealth building vehicle. Take your time.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Correction:
howmuch home prices were
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
BAI says,
>>The plan? To rent until the aforementioned criteria I had alluded to earlier return the market to historical trends. At that point in time, you purchase a property.
It depends on what “market” do you mean. If you’re talking about high demand areas like RBA, that will not happen any time soon. Historically, this is true of all high demand areas, from Tokyo to NYC to London. If you’re just looking for a place to live, wait no more. There are plenty of houses in San Jose and East Bay that already meet your criteria.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Go, excreter, go!
Shit your propaganda.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Let me share my experience with open houses this weekend.
1. 95051 (not CUSD) – didn’t see much traffic there. There were couple of nice houses in 600s range.
2. 95014 (CUSD) – these were in 700s-low 800s. Pathetic houses, no buyer traffic here too. By pathetic I mean worse than what $1500 rent can get you. As long as you can see listings like this you can rest assured we are still in bubble.
3. Classics in Sunnyvale – boy was it crowded! I guess most were FTB who like new houses. However, someone would really need dope to spend close to $900k to get a god-knows-how-many storied house on < 2000 ft lot.
this was most idiotic house I have ever seen. This one has one floor underground. What will happen during flood/rain? I heard this was dump-ground. FYI: this was listed for $1.2M.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
sv_newbie, what a great link. When you click on the neighborhood map, it shows a moving train on the tracks and a plane flying right over one of their “communities.” All they were missing was the high-voltage power distribution lines.
Which one did you go to, Trinity Park? I wonder how close they’re going to stuff them in? And best of all, the houses in front (on Fremont) will face a wall that has CUSD houses behind it!
The virtual house at 1030 Ramona also has a (to-be-dug) basement. Also I visited the one-car-garage house at 1061 Fife. Four. Million. Dollars. Let’s just say this place is new construction, is completely overstaged in faux Tuscan/Provence decor complete with a distressed set of courtyard gates used as decoration in the dining room leaning up against the blank white wall. Oh yeah, and a bocce court in the back yard.
There was never more than 2 other couples in the house and I checked it out for a long time. Not only were the Realtards in no danger of running out of flyers, they were also in no danger of having to spend any time and trouble going through offers.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“Realtors are simply facilitators of these transactions. Why do you have a high or low opinion of these people when it’s really irrelevant?”
Wrong. Realtors are not simply facilitators they are agents and fiduciaries of the principals they represent and thus have a duty to act in the principal’s best interest (rather than their own), which many failed to do by spewing baseless NAR propaganda about real estate only going up, real estate doubling every ten years, and how using an Option ARM to purchase a house that a buyer can’t possibly afford in two years is a great idea and in their best interest. Believe it or not, many buyer’s actually thought they could trust their real estate agent to act in their best interest. What fools.
It is also unethical, if not unlawful, for real estate agents to advise their clients as to matters they are not qualified to opine on, like they do whenever they convince a buyer that is in their best interest to buy. “Buy, buy, buy,” “buy now or be priced out forever,” and “real estate always doubles every ten years” are sleazy self-serving sales tactics that are completely contrary the the public interest and helped contribute to many people’s financial ruin.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
1061 Fife is a joke. For $4M, you have both neighbors looking through your windows from a few steps away, and the narrow-and-deep layout feels like two houses back to back.
On another note, I’m still trying to figure out if the pink house across is in fact a church.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
But DreamT, that pink house across the street has a two-car garage. Coveted space in that ‘hood. But the funny part was the shack next to 1061 with the almost-flat roof and “No Soliciting” sign on the door. Tres chic!
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Yeah, but at least there weren’t any arborial delinquents in timeout.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
nomadic – did we somehow cross path? Were you that strange scantly-clad dude with a long ponytail?
I must say I found the back balcony of 1061′s neighbor very kitsch. Seemed to come straight out of an old western movie. Bright red and bright yellow. Did you see that?
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Secondly, the data points have already been given plenty of times. Go search the site and you’ll find plenty of examples, or simply go ask your grandmother and mother who much home prices were in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, then come back here and talk about your growing appreciation for this wealth building vehicle
And THIS is why I think you are a troll.
Your answer, in a nutshell:
“Go find the data yourself or ask your grandmother”
Gee, thanks. My grandmother is no longer alive (neither of them) and they did not live in the Bay Area.
Thank you for once again demonstrating your trollish nature by dodging the question and providing completely subjective evidence.
Engaging in dialogue with you reminds me of all the conversations I had with creationist idiots when discussing evolution. When the data does not support their assertion, they insert the ‘god of the gaps’ tactic. Appears as though religious zealots and real estate perma-bulls have much in common. No data or evidence to back up their claims but blind devotion to a doctrine long since dis-proven.
You are in good company Real Excreter.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
RE # 163
Well said. Kudos.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
#168… ZING!
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
DreamT, you were there too? And nomadic? Are either of you Indian? Because half the couples there were Indian. That means one was and one wasn’t.
I was there. You would have recognized me immediately because I was wearing my Strat. Looked like a bad neighborhood so I didn’t want to keep it in the van. Fortunately nobody swiped my amp.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Maybe we did cross paths, DreamT. Sorry, but I can’t disclose my secret ID in case I hit up some more open houses.
I did notice the lovely paint job on the other side of 1061. You’d think PA would have some standards; require approval for outlandish paint jobs or something. Sheesh, they could even publish an acceptable palette with reference to the Pantone colors.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Excreter!
He’s full of shit.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
163 & 168: we are not worthy!
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
…there weren’t any arborial delinquents in timeout.
LOL!
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
#172 – No problem. I just hope the ponytail wasn’t RE stalking one of us.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
OMG, you guys are all stalking PA now!
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Looks like quite a few angry renters finally decided to go see some open houses…
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
sv_newbie says,
>>Classics in Sunnyvale – boy was it crowded! I guess most were FTB who like new houses.
I talked about this sometime ago. Around 40 new SFH’s are being built next to Fremont Avenue, averaging more than a million per unit. Some of you were laughing when I said (during the Q1 bottom) that 40 million dollars of wealth is coming to Sunnyvale. Looks like it’s not going to take very long to sell out these units.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
[doesn't symbolize the best of the bay area - burbed]
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Lower case herve: DreamT, nomadic, and I are angry owners. That leaves sv_newbie, who isn’t anywhere as cynical as we are.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I just wanted to verify that Palo Alto offers miserable value compared to Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills. I visited these two areas as well. Verdict: PA fails. By several lengths.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
> Lower case herve: DreamT, nomadic, and I are angry owners.
So the angry owners are visiting open houses? How ironic!
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I’m not angry! damnit!
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
The car dealer that was mentioned in an article I posted a few days ago seems to have gotten rid of the Lamborghini showroom on Santa Cruz Ave (Los Gatos). Although I see quite a few Tesla roadsters these days. Too bad they won’t be made in San Jose
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
When the data does not support their assertion, they insert the ‘god of the gaps’ tactic.
——-
Everything explained in
old testamentpast.June 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
>>I just wanted to verify that Palo Alto offers miserable value compared to Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills. I visited these two areas as well. Verdict: PA fails. By several lengths.
I’m sure you’ll find that NYC offers miserable value compared to New Jersey. NYC fails too, by several magnitudes.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
> Verdict: PA fails. By several lengths.
I second that. Portola Valley rules.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Are these comparable at all? You can live in a Los Altos Hills ranch a few minutes from 280 and actually qualify to attend Gunn High School.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
DreamT, you were there too? And nomadic? Are either of you Indian? Because half the couples there were Indian. That means one was and one wasn’t.
—–
Considering the fact (according one “pro” here) visitors in open houses are exclusively Indian and Chinese, you guys should consider having Indian/Chinese appearance before going to open houses. Otherwise Realtard might not consider you as serious buyers and will ignore as a result. Go to Saturday in beach and get tanned. Buy some black wigs.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
BAI,
I tried to explain to you that if your objective is to buy a home that is priced on par with rent, then such homes are readily available. If you want something in a desirable area such as RBA, such equation will not fly. This condition is by no means unique to RBA. If you check out the premier cities in the world, you’ll find that prices are typically higher than rent and higher than median income. Instead of having the market accomodate to you, I suggest that you do some accomodating yourself, or you will be renting for a long, long time.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Pralay: the secret is to attend the open houses hosted by the owner. No realtor to pinch his/her nose at you just because you didn’t bring your parents, grandparents and great-grand aunties with you.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Pralay (#190) – THAT’S why the realtard wouldn’t let me have a flyer! d’oh!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Boy! That’s a lot of editing, burbed!
Why does excreter have so many censored posts?
Because he is a troll.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Pralay, what made you think I wasn’t Indian? Is my English too sloppy?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
DreamT says,
>>Are these comparable at all? You can live in a Los Altos Hills ranch a few minutes from 280 and actually qualify to attend Gunn High School.
We discuss this before. It depends on one’s preference. I personally don’t like to be in a remote environment where one must drive half an hour just to buy milk. I also don’t like to be in the hills, and I don’t want to take care of an acre sized lot. PA offers a more city-like environment. I can buy grocery, go to restaurant, see a movie, or send the kids to school within minutes.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Since we are talking about open houses: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090517192535AARLZBM
Would you ask the realtor/owner first? Would you just do it? Would you flush?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
You’d think PA would have some standards; require approval for outlandish paint jobs or something.
—-
Yes, after EPP (Exotic plant protection), BTP (BBQ Table protection), now PA needs PFOP (Protection from outlandish paints).
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
>>I second that. Portola Valley rules.
Did you check the API score?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
>>nomadic – did we somehow cross path? Were you that strange scantly-clad dude with a long ponytail?
I think you got’em. You can sort of tell from his uneasy response. I’ll be watching out for that guy.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 pm
DreamT, I also went to an open house hosted by the owner. The house and grounds were stunning, but the owner kept following me around and informing me about the history of the stone facing and what artist painted each ceiling. Rather like a tour of Filoli, except at Filoli, the docent isn’t begging you with those huge eyes to please buy the flipping place.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
PFOP! LOL – it sounds like something from a Monty Python skit. Like the Ministry of Silly Walks.
herve – your post reminds me of this woman I knew who would judge the quality of an open house by how many ply the toilet paper had!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Pralay, what made you think I wasn’t Indian? Is my English too sloppy?
——-
You weren’t not constantly (and loudly – disturbing the quiet/tranquil ambiance) talking on your cellphone. Instead you were wearing your strat. So un-Indian!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
>>You weren’t not constantly
Now that’s proper Indian English!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Pralay (#190) – THAT’S why the realtard wouldn’t let me have a flyer! d’oh!
—–
You got it. But of course realtard cannot discriminate you based on your race or ethnicity. I bet he gave excuse for going green and not wasting papers for flyers.
Green Realtard!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
#197, whenever I tour an open house, I check whether there’s bathroom tissue on the roller. The most important question to ask when checking out a house is not API score, Exotic Plant Index, or if there are any flyers left.
The question to ask is: one-ply or two?
Any Realtard who expects a juicy commission on a $4M house had better spring for some two, or even four-ply toilet roll.
Guess which kind was at 1030 Ramona?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
> Guess which kind was at 1030 Ramona?
At $4M, whatever the toilet paper was, I’m sure it felt like this one.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
nomadic, I’ve found you out. You’re that skanky dude who made fun of my big sister.
Small flippin world.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
#180 – you’ve got to work on your symbolization. Please refrain from symbolizing anything that is not the best of the bay area.
Examples of the best: stubborn foreigners who keep buying houses, despite injunctions from the media. Dairy-challenged hill dwellers. A horse in the Palo Alto Hills country club. A church-looking, pink house in 94301.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
At $4M, whatever the toilet paper was, I’m sure it felt like this one.
—–
LOL! Was it motorized?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I want to know who made that Norris toilet paper. Because if it isn’t Sub-Zero or Thermidor, it doesn’t symbolize the best of the Bay Area.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Chuck Norris’ toilet paper is actually sub-zero as well.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
And the house/church accross the street is probably using this one. Sorry DreamT, that’s also quite low, or sub-zero
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I admit it. I’m an angry renter. Angry because of all the fvcking idiots who foreclosed when they didn’t deserve to buy in the first place and now I gotta fvcking bail them out with higher taxes.
Fvck.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Chuck Norris’ toilet paper is actually sub-zero as well.
—–
Sub-zero toilet paper or not, a restroom having Chuck Norris toilet paper needs a sub-zero refrigerator. Because after using toilet paper, ordinary people need to keep their bottoms inside sub-zero refrigerator.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Alex,
Why be angry? Now is your opportunity to buy low. You deserve the place, don’t you?
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Coming back to the 4M house…When I first came to Palo Alto, Fife was probably the cheapest street in Crescent Park. You could buy a house there for less than $800K. If the owner of this house has been there for some time, he can lower the price quite a bit and walk away loaded.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
…and still walk away loaded
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Basically, if you know what you’re doing, you can make huge money in real estate. You cannot make that kind of money by out-saving, out-working, out-waiting, out-calculating, or out-spelling your peers, which is what all of you are trying to do here.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Basically, you’re an idiot.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 pm
anon,
Basically, you need to be banned.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
and you don’t!
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 am
>>Alex,
>>
>>Why be angry? Now is your opportunity to buy low. You deserve the place, don’t you?
I’ll always be angry as long as the government keeps getting bigger and I have to pay higher taxes.
And no, I’m not buying just yet, not when I can buy even lower in 3 years.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 am
“Step right up and be a bagholder!” carnival master obama says!
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 am
Or be a bread-holder!
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 am
>>And no, I’m not buying just yet, not when I can buy even lower in 3 years.
Even if that’s true, you’re getting into diminishing returns here. You would be paying 3 more years of rent, 3 more years of taxes, and you would have to endure 3 more years of apartment life. Chances are, interest rate would be higher by then. Is it really worth it?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 am
RE, give up the buy sales pitch. By now, you should realize that people on this board are capable of doing elementary math when it comes to renting versus buying and are fully aware real estate prices are still at least 20% too high in the RBA. You need to find a new audience of suckers. I realize it’s getting harder. But nobody here is buying what your selling.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 am
I admit it. I’m an angry renter. Angry because of all the fvcking idiots who foreclosed when they didn’t deserve to buy in the first place and now I gotta fvcking bail them out with higher taxes.
Fvck.
And they had all their fvcking babies thinking they could sustain their lifestyle forever, and now they’re collecting bigger unemployment bennies which those of us who were too poor/smart/cheap to buy during the bubble are subsidizing.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 am
R,
I’m talking to the issues while you’re just busy attacking me. I’ve clearly laid out the the case from multiple angles, and the results speak for themselves. Some of my calls were made right here in real time, and there’s been a proven track record of winning.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
sonarrat – # of children is not a factor in determining unemployment benefits. Unless you’re saying these people are getting welfare or foodstamps.
re: Angry because of all the fvcking idiots who foreclosed when they didn’t deserve to buy in the first place and now I gotta fvcking bail them out with higher taxes.
At least everyone is sharing that burden. Just think how angry the responsible buyers are – they get the tax bill AND see the money sunk into a house disappear with each passing month. Then again, you’d probably say no buyers were responsible in the last 10 years…
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
The root of the problem was not the buyers. The problem was due to lack of regulation leading to many dubious mortgage products being sold and then repackaged into securities. The lack of regulation was at least partially due to Bush administration’s desire to keep the economy afloat via the housing market. At the end, we’re all paying for it.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
#162: Yes, i went to trinity park. I guess most people would be like me, would go there out of curiosity and come back laughing about idiots out there.
For 1.2M, why not buy a 600k house in Rancho Rinconada and build 2500ft mansion there. Or, if that’s too cumbersome I’ll still prefer SFH in rivermark. they have good lots and backyard.
#179: whoever buys that house in trinity is either paying with some jackpot money! None with $300k downpayment can be that dumb otherwise.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
Good thing these problems won’t affect the RBA – http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/coming-a-3rd-wave-of-foreclosures.aspx?page=1
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:15 am
#231: when you realize that repackaging of a security doesn’t make it more (as you are claiming) or less (as people thought who did it) risky than underlying securities, you would know that real culprits were idiots buying beyond their means.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 am
“The root of the problem was not the buyers. The problem was due to lack of regulation leading to many dubious mortgage products being sold and then repackaged into securities. The lack of regulation was at least partially due to Bush administration’s desire to keep the economy afloat via the housing market. At the end, we’re all paying for it.”
There is plenty of blame to go around, including lack of regulation. But at the end of the day, buyers were the idiots who ultimately signed on to loans they couldn’t afford at unsustainable price levels. Greed plus all of the enabling factors proved too much for most buyers to refuse. That, and the inability of too many people to do simple math before agreeing to take on mind-numbing debt.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 am
That, and the inability of too many people to do simple math before agreeing to take on mind-numbing debt.
—–
Because home value doubles in every 10 years. Simple math skill is not a requirement.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
R: I was speaking with a mortgage broker at Bank of the West just yesterday. She told me straight-up that the moratorium on foreclosures was lifted on June 1, and we were going to see a lot more inventory on the market. I was amazed that she was so candid, but she had a real point. The stability we’re seeing is all completely artificial.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
June 1 eh? Nice bit of info. I actually thought the moratorium had been lifted earlier but that was just based on reading main stream media stuff. No insider info. I talk to real estate industry players quite often too, and not a single one them, from mortgage brokers to realtors, think we are anywhere near the end of price declines. I also think the whole market rally is based on smoke and mirrors orchestrated by Uncle Sam. As the msn article I linked in 233 opines, reality will probably soon set in again and take the market with it. Commercial real estate loans are just starting to sour. Local banks are going to get hammered.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
R, Banks are going to need to use LCD boards rather than bothering with custom signs. I’ve seen at least 4 bank names on the same building in the last 2 years.
sv_newbie, I figured you were talking Trinity Park on Fremont Avenue. I walk by that place quite often, and I am wondering just how big an animal you’ll be able to swing in your backyard. I doubt a cat would fit in the side one.
Did you get prices for the different plans? They’re not really going to go for a mil, are they? The website says “from the low 900s” so I’ll assume that’s for the 1650 sf model? The biggest model is 2530 sf. There’s some other new construction that was booked before the collapse, and I’d imagine they’ll be lowering their prices too. There’s that place I mentioned before that overlooks the scenic 85 North entrance at DeAnza Blvd in Cupertino, and there’s another beautiful spot on Stelling overlooking the charming I-280 traffic. Both these Cupertino projects are chockablock against their neighbors. Kentwood is right next to a couple of shopping centers, Stelling is blocking the afternoon light of yet another church.
The Trinity Park site was not a former dump, but a church. Not sure where the chuch moved to or whether it just disappeared due to lack of membership. There are a number of churches on Fremont Ave between Mary and Sunnyvale-Saratoga, and I’m sure there’s a Realtard whispering into the ears of every member that there’s a fortune to be made by selling that wasted living space.
Whoever said one cannot serve both God and Mammon must have met a Realtard.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
Madhusas, 1650sf were all reserved, so they didn’t give exact quote but she said something like high 800s. 2530sf is the one listed for $1.2M.
Backyard is large enough to shelter you, your cat, and your family during rain flood (remember the bedrooms are underground). Just make sure your canopy is not bigger than 10×10.
There was another one – forgot exact sf, but it was “very ordinary” 3/3 house listed in high 900s. I wanted to see more but my knees were hurting climbing up & down all those stairs. So we came back.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
sonarrat,
If you’re looking for a cheap place under $300K, you might want to take a look at this chart. Besides Oakland and Antioch, the choices are Hayward and Union City.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
sonarrat,
If you’re looking for a cheap place under $300K, you might want to take a look at this chart:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_C_udvemSTqQ/SZxHDrWZyOI/AAAAAAAAAlU/-EMZfNow08k/s1600-h/ZIP-Median_list.png
Besides Oakland and Antioch, the choices are Hayward and Union City.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
R, Banks are going to need to use LCD boards rather than bothering with custom signs. I’ve seen at least 4 bank names on the same building in the last 2 years.
———
LCD board? Expensive. I suggest sign letters similar to one you see in some movie theaters.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
#240, sv_newbie,
The website says the smallest houses (1650 sf) were going for low 900s. Now they’re going for high 800s? No downturn here!
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
That isn’t a downturn. That’s instant equity!
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
>>The website says the smallest houses (1650 sf) were going for low 900s. Now they’re going for high 800s? No downturn here!
Low 900′s vs. high 800′s is just typical marketing ploy. The small houses are sold out, guys! (and most of the houses aren’t even built yet!)
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
$900K is basically the “sweet spot” as far as RBA homes go. A lot of 2 engineer families can afford those. When the houses are brand new and in a good school district, it’s a no brainer to buyers regardless of the economy.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
1650sf @ $200/sf = 330k. I’m sure you can buy a much better/bigger lot for remaining $550k where your friends won’t have to hunt for parking, and you wont pay $100 in HOA
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Most buyers want move-in ready homes. 2 engineer families don’t have time to look for lots, work with contractors, or build houses.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
sv_newbie, good call on the HOA dues. Is Trinity Park set up that way? What’s the point in watering your own lawn if you don’t own it? Plenty of nice homes at lower prices than $1.2 million if you cross Fremont Avenue. Plus… they have big, shady trees all around! And, none of the trees are incarcerated.
Ooops, silly me! Who would want Cupertino School District? So much better to crowd yourself against your neighbors and send your Gifted and Talented Children to Sunnyvale Middle School. And not be harassed by those mischievous trees.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Sonar said:
“She told me straight-up that the moratorium on foreclosures was lifted on June 1, and we were going to see a lot more inventory on the market. ”
I’ve been trying to explain this to our resident excrement for months. Does he listen? No. Why not? I don’t know!
June 5th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I am not so sure SF is going to be the first to rebound. Its a big city with two many variables which could affect its recovery. SF was also not the last man standing, its slide supersceeded Palo Alto’s by 4 months. I vote that Palo Alto is the last down, first up, merely because of the insulated nature of its market.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:49 am
too not two