SF vs NY battle rages on
This Person Collects Salt And Pepper Shakers on Flickr – Photo Sharing!
This Person Collects Salt And Pepper Shakers
Thanks to Curbed for this find.
Can you fill in the gaps on what’s going on here? There’s plenty weirdness going on here.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Who’s ahead in salt & pepper shakers?
December 13th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Whose ahead in broke financiers?
December 13th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Not Bay Area for sure. BA investors are buying up rental properties as we speak:
Bay Area real estate investors snap up rental properties
By Sue McAllister
smcallister@mercurynews.com
Posted: 12/13/2009 04:00:00 PM PST
Updated: 12/13/2009 07:43:25 PM PST
Bay Area real estate investors have gone on a shopping spree, snapping up homes in low-cost communities outside the region as falling home prices and low mortgage rates make the economics of buying rental property far more appealing.
In the third quarter of this year, for instance, buyers in the nine-county Bay Area purchased nearly 3,000 homes outside the region, up 58 percent from the same quarter last year, typically for prices well below 2008 levels.
The wave of investment was led by purchases in communities stocked with rental housing, with Sacramento, Las Vegas, Stockton and Tracy among the top destinations for Bay Area residents’ out-of-area real estate spending, according to information compiled for the Mercury News by MDA DataQuick.
That’s quite a shift from five years ago, when many buyers were flocking to well-appointed condos and homes in tony vacation enclaves. The data looked at home sales in which the property address and the buyer’s mailing address were in different places.
“People are looking for value in areas where prices have fallen,” said Matthew Anderson, a partner with economic research firm Foresight Analytics in Oakland. “It seems pretty clear that the increase in volume was in the areas that have been hardest hit by price declines and high volumes of defaults.”
What people paid for second homes varied widely by location, but in general they shelled out much less than they would have a year earlier.
In Las Vegas, Bay Area residents paid 41 percent less than buyers from this region paid in the third quarter of 2008, for a median price of $125,000. In the vacation town of Truckee, buyers paid a median price of $497,000, which was 9 percent less than such purchases went for in the third quarter of 2008.
In Sacramento, Bay Area buyers paid a median of $141,000 for homes, or 15 percent less than a year earlier. Sacramento was the most popular venue in the third quarter for Bay Area buyers, who bought 277 homes there.
“The values are too good to pass up,” said Carlos Kozlowski, a Coldwell Banker broker in Sacramento. Homes that sold three years ago for $170,000 might go for $80,000 to $110,000 now, he said, and rental rates are typically high enough to cover buyers’ mortgage payments and leave them with positive cash flow.
Kozlowski said most investors in the area are buying in cash, not financing their purchases with a mortgage. Some sold property four or five years ago during the boom, he said, and others are tapping equity in their homes to pay cash for Sacramento’s bargains. “Most of the investors we see are the mom and pop investors who come and buy one, two, three, four properties, maximum. Typically, they are going to hold them for a long time.”
Public records don’t indicate whether purchases were for vacation or investment purposes. But the data clearly indicate that in comparison to five years ago, near the height of the Bay Area housing boom, purchasing suburban rental property is the hot ticket now, not buying vacation homes. While sales to Bay Area buyers are up from 2004 in Stockton and Tracy, for example, they are down in Carmel and Palm Springs.
Bay Area residents have also increased their purchases of second homes within the nine-county area, in places such as Pittsburg and Antioch. Five years ago, those were not top destinations for local investment, but they’ve gained popularity as prices have fallen steeply after waves of foreclosures.
Real estate and mortgage brokers say that in the past several months, they’ve begun hearing from more people interested in buying rental property. But there are hurdles, especially for first-time investors, said Stanley Tseng, a mortgage broker at Nova Financial and a past president of the Silicon Valley chapter of the California Association of Mortgage Brokers.
Buyers typically need down payments of 20 or 25 percent and good credit, of course. But they’re unlikely to get a loan if the seller of the property has owned it less than 90 days (indicating the house is simply being “flipped”), and recently some lenders have begun requiring that buyers have two years of experience owning rental property before they’ll approve a loan.
“It’s a chicken-and-egg problem. If you don’t buy it, how can you have the experience?” Tseng said. “The guidelines are becoming more and more difficult each month. They won’t be relaxed until we see a consistent appreciation of home values. Lenders are afraid they still have a lot of downside risk.”
Alamo homeowners Scott Keith and his wife, Lori, are among the thousands of Bay Area residents who sized up the risks and made a purchase recently. This summer, for just over $400,000, they bought a lot at Martis Camp, a development near Truckee with direct access to the Northstar-at-Tahoe ski resort.
When they first pondered the purchase, Keith said, “I thought, ‘No one’s going to be doing this, are we crazy?’ But still it seemed to be the right time to us. We wanted to set up that kind of vacation property where we could enjoy family time.” The couple and their three children hope eventually to build a four-bedroom house on their lot.
And one added bonus: Prices for contractors are lower than a few years ago, Keith said. “It makes things much more doable.”
December 13th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
What does this have to do with Bay Area real estate?
…snapping up homes in low-cost communities outside the region…
December 13th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“This summer, for just over $400,000, they bought a lot at Martis Camp, a development near Truckee with direct access to the Northstar-at-Tahoe ski resort.”
Lol
stupid real estater is stupid.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
> What does this have to do with Bay Area real estate?
It means they’d rather invest outside the Bay Area… Only Roger seems to see that as good news.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Burbed – you should so do a post on this house:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/1653-Mariposa-Ave-94306/home/967157
Per the description: “Nobody died in the house.”
December 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Roger that!
December 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
#7 – That means they must have died right on the porch or something
December 13th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
What a great selling point: no one died there.
I was almost going to say that it’s not a bad house considering it needs to be gutted, but then I saw the location right up against the train tracks.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
The wave of investment was led by purchases in communities stocked with rental housing, with Sacramento, Las Vegas, Stockton and Tracy among the top destinations for Bay Area residents’ out-of-area real estate spending,
—–
I better hurry and buy up something in Las Vegas.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
It means they’d rather invest outside the Bay Area… Only Roger seems to see that as good news.
—–
Considering the fact that Roger is trying to buy his investment property for more than one and half years, he should try his luck in Stockton or Las Vegas. That would be more effective way to spend the time on Bellagio room rates.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
What a great selling point: no one died there.
—-
You are just not smart. You need to think like a Palo Altan. If a property is selling in lower price in Palo Alto, you must assume that owner died (although the actual fact could be otherwise).
For 1653 Mariposa, the agent is just explicit about it.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
> Burbed – you should so do a post on this house [...]
Find a ‘good deal’ or an interesting article? Let me know. Send mail to burbed@burbed.com
December 13th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Regarding post #3, instead of the whole article, I was expecting some “exercepts” like this:
December 13th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Thanks to Curbed for this find.
—-
I didn’t know Burbed has a younger brother.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Bay area folks are shopping outside the region because inventory is tight in the area right now, and there is no relief in sight. For investment purpose buying in surrounding cities makes sense. Prices are low because these places are too distant for bay area people to commute, but within driving distance for ease of management. If you got cash, investing in real estate easily beats the 1% you get on a CD.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:47 am
> Bay area folks are shopping outside the region because inventory is tight in the area right now, and there is no relief in sight.
Spoken like a true Real Estater
December 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am
If you got cash, investing in real estate easily beats the 1% you get on a CD.
—–
Of course, real estate is more effective than “safe” investments like a CD.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Spoken like a true Real Estater
—–
Not only he speaks like RealEstater.
- He spells like RealEstater.
- He loses bids like RealEstater.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:58 am
ay area folks are shopping outside the region because inventory is tight in the area right now, and there is no relief in sight.
—–
And no relief in sight for this poor seller either. This guy bought “touch the sky” home in 2005 for $1.252K. Can’t afford to sell less. So he keeps listing since September 2008. Although he can touch the sky from this property, but after price started going downhill the owner cannot touch his 2005 purchase price anymore.
But, but, SV “wife-big-on-education” Shopper said that inventory is tight, so it got to be true. That means “touch the sky” property is not part of the inventory.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Haha – Looks like SV Shopper is as dumb as RE. How could that possibly be true?!
December 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
> Haha – Looks like SV Shopper is as dumb as RE. How could that possibly be true?!
That’s like giving birth to two identically retarded children that both manage mega-projects.
No offense to the retarded children.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:44 am
If you got cash, investing in real estate easily beats the 1% you get on a CD.
Ahh, here we go again. Yet ANOTHER person on this blog who claims that investing in real estate is a grand idea over other forms of investment. First of all, if you buy outside of the Bay Area, there’s a reason why those houses cost less: They are further away from the working areas. Secondly, those prices are still falling and if you buy now, your asset will actually be losing value for who knows? 1 or 2 more years? So the statement that investing in real estate versus even a CD because the CD would pay less is also wrong.
Additionally , its simple econ 101 that stocks outperform real estate by a good margin. On average you will get anywhere from a 7-10% appreciation in stocks while the average in real estate is around 4%. Even in the prime of prime areas like Palo Alto, the return is only about 6%. So either way you cut it, stocks will beat the crap out of real estate. I’ve repeated this numerous times because its true. But if others think they’d rather invest in houses then go for it. Just realize you’re not acting like the brightest bulb in the bunch when you do so.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“That’s like giving birth to two identically retarded children that both manage mega-projects.”
Indeed. What are the chances of that?
“Ahh, here we go again. Yet ANOTHER person on this blog who claims that investing in real estate is a grand idea over other forms of investment.”
No, bob. We have the same person – real estater – posting the same misunderstandings under a different name.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
All I can say is that if you’re an “Investor” buying “Investment property” in such godforsaken places like Vegas, Stockton, Sacramento, and others, then you truly belong in the Darwinian wood chipper.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
#17 – investing in Real Estate vs. CDs is quite a different behavior. One is zero risk, the other has substantial risk, and substantial potential reward, neither of which is predictable.
And people who invested in Vegas and Antioch real estate in 2006 that has lost 50% of it’s value did not “easily beat” the 3% they could have made on CDs at the time. In fact, they got slaughtered, some of them have declared bankruptcy, and are in a world of misery.
So you might want to add a few caveats to your statements, SV Shopper, lest we think you have bad motives.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Those investors are losers. Instead of investing in a place like RBA “where property values always go up”, they are investing in places where people don’t want to live.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
So you might want to add a few caveats to your statements, SV Shopper, lest we think you have bad motives.
—-
How dare you think that he possibly could have bad motives! He just informs us about “low/no/tight inventory” in bay area in regular basis (e.g this, this, this, this, this). He also forecasts in regular basis that next year is going to be tough and “no relief in sight”.
Hurry up, buy something before you get priced out forever.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
So you might want to add a few caveats to your statements, SV Shopper, lest we think you have bad motives.
Too late, Lewis.