December 20, 2010

Cheapest House (not) in Portola Valley

Face it, the real estate sector is having a few bumps, so we continue our Black Friday DEALS all the way until Xmas!  To help get the market into the black before the year is out, today we’ve got a much higher-end place for you!  Operators are standing by to take your call.

250 Gabarda Way, Portola Valley, CA 94028
$1,495,000

image Beds: 4
Baths:  3
Sq. Ft.: 2,730
$/Sq. Ft.: $548
Lot Size: 0.45 Acres
Property Type: Detached Single Family
Style: Contemporary
Stories: 1
View: Neighborhood
Year Built: 1964
Community: Ladera
County: San Mateo
MLS#: 81048520
Source: MLSListings
Status: Active
On Redfin: 77 days

Large home for the money. Flexible floor plan with possible 5th bedroom. Sunny Liv/din rm has vaulted ceilings & large picture windows flanking a wood burning frplc. The kitchen has updated appliances & a breakfast bar that opens up to the family w/ attached bonus rm/office & full bath. The home has an attached one bedroom in-law unit w/ sep entrance, kitchen, with liv rm & frplc. New roof in ’09.

The broker has used as many abbreviations as possible to pass the savings ON TO YOU.  Another way to ensure you get the MOST for your MONEY is putting this Portola Valley house not in Portola Valley. It’s in a neighborhood built as cooperative housing, all on county land.  You get the Portola Valley mailing address with none of the attendant headaches like their school district. Win-win!  Some of your friends will hear “Ladera” and might even think you live in (gasp) Menlo Park.  Talk about prestige!

image And this house and its flexible floor plan could easily be repurposed into anything you want.  I see this room and those beautiful hardwood strips and I’m thinking bowling alley.  Maybe you’re looking at all the stainless steel in the kitchen and imagining an aircraft assembly plant.

Hey, don’t laugh.  This is county land.  If you want to come up with something to drive your neighbors nucking futs, like putting up a bunch of cellular towers in your front yard, go right on ahead.  As long as you can get some big corporations involved and a few handshakes with the Planning Commission, the sky’s the limit.  Or 55 feet, whichever comes first.  Which means you’re going to need a few more handshakes to fit in that 63 foot bowling alley.  Better go with building fighter jets in the kitchen.

Remember, Black Friday DEALS will continue all this week!  If you’re planning on picking up last minute stocking stuffers for the the family, let us know where and we’ll see if there are any DEALS waiting for you!

Comments (183) -- Posted by: madhaus @ 5:08 am

183 Responses to “Cheapest House (not) in Portola Valley”

  1. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Close but no cigar! Can you even legally claim to be in Portola Valley living there? I’d be expecting a Cease and Desist letter any day!

  2. sonarrat Says:

    USPS ZIP finder says Portola Valley 94028. You use the Portola Valley exit off I-280 to come home. As far as anyone is concerned, it’s Portola Valley – except to PV itself.

  3. nomadic Says:

    This was an informative post – I didn’t know this area isn’t part of RPV (Real Portola Valley).

  4. The Gilroy Alex Says:

    An ugly snout-house surrounded by concrete, on land you won’t own! With co-op fees monthly. Surely it’s underpriced!

  5. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    I always wonder what the “the value’s in the land” rhetoric Realtards would have to say about places like this?

  6. nomadic Says:

    The link about cooperative housing says the venture failed. Doesn’t that mean each resident owns their land now? The listing doesn’t indicate anything about not owning the property; is the realtard THAT dishonest?

  7. SEA Says:

    Not only is “the value in the land,” but…

    1. The price doubles every 10 years, or sooner.
    2. Even if the price does not double, the value only goes up, and please ignore those “short sales.” They were really just bad people.
    3. Buying something, anything, is better than renting.
    4. Renting is throwing money away, and paying interest nets you a bit tax refund, even if the NET interest paid (net cost of capital=net rent on money) is more than the equivalent rent for the entire structure.
    5. You’ll never have to worry about moving again, and please ignore all those foreclosure sales were from other people who thought they’d never have to move again.
    6. Renters are really ‘transient guests,’ so be a real citizen and buy, buy, buy.
    7. This year is the best year to buy.
    8. Buy now or be priced-out forever.


    The list goes on and on.

    And even if you don’t get any land, such as a condo, then it’s called, “location, location, location,” which is just another derivative of “The value is that you think like a buyer.”

    We all know that buyer’s needs are very different from the needs of renters. Buyers think differently–probably a result of their ‘better control of language.’ Just buy a house, and boom, you’ll have better control of the language, and your neighbors will thank you.

  8. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Also, you shouldn’t ever lowball because it will insult the sellers and make both realtors feel bad. If anything, you should OVER bid!

  9. SEA Says:

    …and you should over-bid no matter how high the asking price is, because it is not possible to over-price any property.

  10. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Incidentally, I actually worked with the guy who did the write up on the co-op origins of Ladera (John Fyten) and he was a pretty decent real estate agent to deal with, and seemed fine with offering lowballs. If I had to pick a realtor to work with today, I’d probably wind up using him.

  11. SEA Says:

    It cracks me up when sellers decline a so-called low-ball offer only to sell at a lower price.

    I know a guy who tried to sell his home for $495k. An offer came in right away for $425k. He declined that offer with a counter-offer, which was then declined. Over a year later he sold for ~$375k.

    Was the $425k a “low-ball” offer?

  12. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    #11 Yep. I bought in 2009 after watching a couple of heirs who got a house free and clear chase the market down. They turned down 3 lowball offers before winding up accepting our even lower offer. (Just over 30% off their original asking price.)

    Of course, my glee at them chasing the market down is offset by me catching a knife. Ouch!

  13. SEA Says:

    We disagree here. I have a hard time calling the highest offer a “low-ball” offer.

  14. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    #13 : What do you mean? We were lower than all three of the other offers they received in the 9 months they were chasing the market down. They even scoffed at our offer when we first made it only to come crawling back after cheesing off the other buyer who they told us they were going to work with because he was “more reasonable” than us.

  15. SEA Says:

    My question: “Was the $425k a “low-ball” offer?” (#11)

    Your Reply: #11 Yep. (#12)

    My reply back: “We disagree here. I have a hard time calling the highest offer a “low-ball” offer.”

  16. madhaus Says:

    #15, you’re being rather literal. I’m assuming that “#11, Yep” in #12 was not in response to “Was the $425 a lowball offer” but to “It cracks me up when sellers decline a so-called low-ball offer only to sell at a lower price.”

    I say that because #12 went on to describe a seller declining 3 so-called lowball offers only to accept the lowest of them all.

    Given that there was more than one thing in #11 for #12 to agree with, how does this then make #12 disagree with you? Are you making a low-ball offer?

    #12, do you mind telling us where you ended up buying? And since you mentioned falling knives, how much more do you think the market’s gone down since?

  17. SEA Says:

    I was looking for a reply, and the “yep” seemed close enough. Then I bifurcated the rest of the story, which clearly stated his offer was the lowest, which could be considered a low-ball offer.

    I guess I should be more careful, but the question remains: What is a so-called ‘low-ball’ offer?

    My definition is an offer that is several standard deviations to the left of some measure of central tendency.

  18. SEA Says:

    Oh, and let me add that there are some people who consider any offer 5% below the asking price to be a “low-ball” offer. So the $425k is a low-ball offer by that definition. I guess it depends on whether you value the property by the asking price or some other method.

  19. anon Says:

    Come on now, SEA. A low ball offer is anything less than a doubling every 10 years. You know this!

  20. madhaus Says:

    We were in a similar position with an overpriced property. We made an offer on the worst house on the block (smallest, most in need of a repainting/remodel). They wanted $310K, which was laughable for the time and location. We offered $265K. How many standard deviations would that 18% under asking price be? Doesn’t the standard deviation vary with the velocity of buyable inventory anyway?

    We ultimately offered $275K firm which they countered with (ha ha ha) $306K. I think they ended up putting their own money into repainting and redoing the kitchen instead and sold it for a whopping $295K, long after we bought another house. This all happened in 1993, a good 3 years after the last bubble peak.

    I don’t know what the fixing up cost them but they wasted 8 months trying to sell the place in a flat market.

  21. SEA Says:

    anon has this correct: Anything less than doubling every 10 years, or sooner, is a low-ball offer. That said, an offer that provides more than a price double every 10 years still might be a low-ball offer, if it is not sufficiently high enough over all the other offers. The asking price might be far greater than the standard double every 10 years.

    “How many standard deviations would that 18% under asking price be?”

    Uh, yea, I knew the value of all the offers, since I was dealing with the seller, and I ignored the seller’s counter-offers. In the case of a buyer, it’s difficult to know just how good an offer is, since you’re guessing the second highest bidder’s value.

    That eight months of time and additional improvement expense is an interesting topic. I recently had a REALTOR suggest that tree trimming would bring a positive return. Of course he had no way to support his claim other than hand waiving. You probably can guess my question, “So I spend $500, how much more will the place sell for?”

    His Reply: It might sell for the same amount, but sooner.
    My questions back: How much sooner? To sell the place in equal time, how much less could I expect?

    Do people actually worship REALTORs?

    From the numbers provided in #20, I find it very difficult to believe that $295k less expenses eight months later was a positive return over the $275k offer. Only considering the difference in selling prices, assuming $0 expense: $20k is 7.2% of $275k. What was the cost of capital back in 1993? The difference is quickly approaching zero.

    In other words, they probably put their life on hold for eight months for far less than $20k. But the ROE computation was probably very sensitive to that little bit of extra cash…

    But seriously, who puts life on hold for eight months for less than $20k?

  22. nomadic Says:

    What is a so-called ‘low-ball’ offer?

    My definition is an offer that is several standard deviations to the left of some measure of central tendency.

    It depends on how close the asking price is set to real market value. I’ll give you my example:

    House is listed for ~$590k
    First offer received 1-2 weeks after listing: ~$530k
    Flat out rejected
    Second offer received about 2 weeks after the first: $560k
    Settled for a bit over $565k. Seller and buyer are happy.

    The first offer was a low ball because it was below market value. Sometimes the seller needs time to adjust to market realities, sometimes the buyer does. My scenario was in 2001 in a fairly balanced market. Not in CA if it matters.

  23. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    SEA : Sorry I was unclear. I was agreeing with the enjoyment of seeing someone chase the market down and then didn’t go back and re-read your post to try and figure out why I was confused.

    I think the original offer you were talking about, a 425k offer on a 495k listing price would count as a lowball. Anything more than 10% below asking comes as a punch-in-the-gut to a seller, at least emotionally.

    The sellers we bought from and the guy you know discovered that one punch in the gut is far preferable to multiple gut shots. You eventually wind up spitting blood.

    Madhaus : We bought in Redwood City in the Emerald Hills area. Prices went down, then back up with the whole “more tax stimulus” and are now on the way back down. I expect the house to bottom out at least 10% under what we paid for it, and more likely 20% under what we paid for it. KNIFE CATCH!

  24. Real Estater Says:

    sfbubblebuyer,

    When you buy Redwood City, you know the price may go down. Trying to save money by negotiating a low price in the wrong neighborhood is not the right strategy. There are two “right strategies” in my view:
    1. Go buy where prices won’t go down for any sustainable period (e.g. Palo Alto,Los Altos, Cupertino, Sunnyvale 94087 etc)
    2. Go buy where prices can’t go any lower (e.g. parts of Central Valley)

    For places like Redwood City, the future is too uncertain. Given the price level of Emerald Hills, even a 10% drop will be too much.

  25. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Better than a 10% drop in PA.

  26. Real Estater Says:

    Actually not, because a 10% in PA is a non-event. History shows PA tends to drop less than other areas, and it always recovers.

  27. Real Estater Says:

    Study shows East Bay is segregated by neighborhood:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16906199?nclick_check=1

  28. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Also, your strategy of #2 IS trying to negotiate a low price in a crap neighborhood, which you say is a bad plan. If I wanted to live in palo alto, I would rent since the rent/price ratio is retarded. I looked in Crapitino and absolutely do NOT want to live there.

    You zip code fetishists make me laugh. The absurdity of your evangelical posts makes me t-roll my eyes.

  29. Real Estater Says:

    Crap neighborhood? I’d be willing to bet this neighborhood looks cleaner and newer than the one you live in, at a fraction of the price.

    You must not have checked the rental prices in Palo Alto, because it pretty much starts at $3000/month for a crap Eichler 20 minutes away from university Avenue.

  30. madhaus Says:

    #23, I lived in Emerald Lake Hills and really liked that neighborhood. I know I joked that the area looks like Appalachia where half the residents won the lottery but it had a laid-back vibe in the late 80s when I was renting there. Plus you get the same high school as Woodside and Portola Valley get (which ain’t much). But I liked the terrain and the sense that the place was away from the cookie cutter tractvilles everyone else lived in.

    Is the area really down 40% plus since 2007 or was your seller just insane about the wishing price?

    I don’t agree with #24/26 at all. Palo Alto is down a LOT more than 10%, so waving it away as a “non-event” is just foolish. And while buying at the bottom of the market makes sense, buying in an overbuilt area full of foreclosures plus plenty more open space for still more development is taking on a world of unnecessary hurt.

    I posted a link a couple days ago to an article from the Atlantic from 2008, #24. Read it, as your Central Valley purchase is exactly what it addresses as far as disasters waiting to happen.

    I’m a little surprised by that list of supposedly unsinkable properties, all of them sinking. But Palo Alto and Sunnyvale ’87 on the same list? That’s like saying Manhattan and Manhasset are both good markets to preserve your capital.

    Seriously, if I invested my sidelines cash in rental property, right now I’d be putting it in somewhere neither too expensive nor too worthless. I mean, if you want to buy “cheap” property, this place gives you even more house than Detroit.

  31. nomadic Says:

    But RE, your Tracy neighborhood (nice REO, BTW) is probably littered with pickup trucks.

  32. madhaus Says:

    “looks cleaner and newer”

    Sure, #29, sure it looks cleaner and newer. But with a nasty run of foreclosures destroying the community, coupled with insta-buildings thrown up on the cheap that will fall apart quickly, we’re talking McSlum in the Making. Chinese drywall, anyone?

    Buying a new house from the bubble days is definitely a worse choice buying a well-maintained older one.

  33. Real Estater Says:

    nomadic,

    Just look at the photo. Do you see any pickup truck?

  34. Real Estater Says:

    madhaus,

    Palo Alto market today is no more than 10% away from the peak when you look at a comparable property. The level of buyer interest is consistently high. It’s the kind of place where you can just buy and put all worries aside.

    Yes, 94087 is another one of those robust areas where buyer interest persists. If you have to pick out areas where the national downturn has had little effect, the areas I listed are at the top of the list.

  35. nomadic Says:

    #33, Google street view couldn’t find that particular location, but here’s a fine view nearby:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=&q=2964+Lyon+Ct,+Tracy,+CA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=2964+Lyon+Ct,+Tracy,+San+Joaquin,+California+95377&gl=us&ll=37.734781,-121.470616&spn=0.009198,0.022724&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.734781,-121.470725&panoid=jfqHT9raJAzZcCCG6OrHiQ&cbp=12,197.56,,0,9.08

  36. Real Estater Says:

    madhaus says,
    >>Sure, #29, sure it looks cleaner and newer. But with a nasty run of foreclosures destroying the community, coupled with insta-buildings thrown up on the cheap that will fall apart quickly, we’re talking McSlum in the Making.Chinese drywall, anyone?

    Foreclosures is not an issue as long as you are the beneficiary rather than the victim. You’re getting beautiful homes at less than what it would cost to construct one today. Not only is the whole area very well planned out, the homes are of newer design that look way better than the crap ranch houses that will dot Sunnyvale into eternity.

  37. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    #30: I actually liked your description of Emerald Hills. It really is ecclectic and strange, with a wide variety of houses, which I like. It also has larger lots, which I like.

    The area got bumped up pretty hard in 2000-2007, and definitely was hurting on the way down. We set the comp for the lowest price sale in about a 10 block radius. Of course, after we bought our house, a bunch of other houses languishing dropped their prices down to about what we paid. Now we’ve seen a rebound where houses that should have been selling for about what we paid sold for only 10% off of peak. Now we’re watching another house near by sit long enough to go ‘short sale’ and drop their price back down to about what we paid for ours, so back down to 30% off-ish. That’s low enough it drummed up a bunch of foot traffic again, so maybe it will get bid up a bit.

    I happen to live right next door to a friend of mine who bought in ’98, and I know what he paid then, and I know what he’s rented his house out for, how long it took him to do so between renters, so I had a pretty good idea what the rental rates were for our area when we bought, and our mortgage turned out to be a couple hundred less than the ‘top rent’ we could get and a couple hundred more than the ‘easily rent it for that amount’ rent.

    Of course, that means we’re eating tax and insurance over what it would have cost to rent it, not to mention the maintenance. Another 10% off of what we paid makes it ALMOST break even for owning, and 20% off should make it cash-flow positive for investors, which is what I base my assessment on where it could go on.

    Anyway, I lowballed hard enough that unless the whole area goes Detroit on us, we should be okay, even if we’re bleeding a bit from the ol’ knife wound we got catching this bad boy.

  38. Real Estater Says:

    nomadic,

    The Google street view is right in that link in #29.I see SUV’s, a convertible, and a Lexus.

    These are dream houses you can buy for less than $100K down. Whatever complaint you might have, just look at the price. The down payment for a RBA house is more than the list price of this house.

  39. nomadic Says:

    These are dream houses you can buy for less than $100K down.

    Is that the new goal?

  40. nomadic Says:

    Oh, and Tracy is a bad, bad dream for me.

  41. nomadic Says:

    The Google street view is right in that link in #29.

    No, it isn’t. That’s Funston Court.

  42. Real Estater Says:

    >>No, it isn’t. That’s Funston Court.

    What are you talking about? It’s the same house in both the photo and the street view.

  43. Real Estater Says:

    >>Is that the new goal?

    The goal is to build wealth. What you think of as a bad dream is in fact a vehicle for wealth building. You pay hardly anything to get the house, and your tenant pays the rest. In 15 years, the house will be worth $500K and paid off. It will also bring you a rent check month after month into your retirement. If you cookie cutter this, you will be a millionaire when you retire. What part of the strategy do you not get?

  44. Pralay Says:

    The Google street view is right in that link in #29.I see SUV’s, a convertible, and a Lexus.
    —–

    And pickup truck.

  45. Real Estater Says:

    >>And pickup truck.

    If you look carefully, it’s a SUT (Sport Utility Truck).

  46. madhaus Says:

    Oh yeah, very well planned out. Hundreds and hundreds and HUNDREDS of 3000+ sf homes on 6000 sf lots, chockablock against their neighbors. No trees. Sunnyvale might have rancher tracts, but they’re 40-60 year old rancher tracts with mature shade trees and space between each house, and that’s part of what people are paying for. (Sunnyvale code is 10 feet from lot line on one side and 6 feet on the other.)

    Take a look at #35’s map by going aerial and pulling back. That ridiculous development is thrown up in the middle of an agricultural area, which means it will look like crap in ten years and smell like crap right now.

    That’s what stinks about this kind of insta-development. There was obviously plenty of room to have done it right and put the homes on 8-10,000 sf lots, but they didn’t.

    Clearly too many big houses built in this zip, because according to Foreclosure Radar, more 5 BR houses foreclosed on last month than any other type. Similarly, homes between 2-3000 sf had more NODs and foreclosures last month.

    And very few older home foreclosed on, it’s mostly stuff built less than 10 years ago.

    Q4 2006 was peak date of loan origination for last month’s foreclosures, too. But lots of NODs from Q3 2005.

    So what’s up with 94301, then? Bunch of NODs in the lsat 3 months all of a sudden. I thought the buyers’ ability to qualify for a loan meant they were qualified to manage their money well enough to stay there. (I’d Pralay that but I’m tired.)

  47. SEA Says:

    “Palo Alto market today is no more than 10% away from the peak when you look at a comparable property.”

    And “from the peak” implies down, otherwise it’d be at peak. See below for a discussion about 10% of a large number versus 100% of a small number.

    How long until that 10% need to be updated?

  48. SEA Says:

    #25 – Reminds me of a friend who was moving to flyover land, Indianapolis to be specific. His dad had him convinced that prices could go down 50%, so he should not buy any real estate. I asked how much was the 2,000 sf single family home he was considering. It was nice enough and all, but he didn’t want to lose money.

    Then I asked about the price: $45,000.

    My question was simple, “Can you afford to lose the $45k, plus whatever improvements you make?”

    Basically when it came down to price versus rent costs, market risk, and so on, this place was relatively low risk, even if it was a total loss.

    The final purchase price was actually significantly lower than the $45k, but he put in a few more dollars than originally expected in improvements. The net cost was favorable. He’s happy with the place, and he really doesn’t care if the market value goes to zero.

    I’m sure there are some similar owners in P*** A***, like the guy who listens to the trains while out in his orchard, but I’d also bet that we will see foreclosures and short sales too. If $1.5M is pocket change, by all means, buy that 1,500 square foot home for $1,000 per square foot.

    You decide:

    $1.5M in P*** A***
    or
    $45k in Indianapolis

    Given the lower housing costs, what is the break-even income point. Remember, you probably don’t need to worry about that darn AMT, with likely lower state income and sales tax.

    I know; I know. Income does not matter.

  49. Real Estater Says:

    SEA,

    We’ve covered this before. The peak was a short-lived anomaly. Very few transactions took place right at the peak. You might as well disregard it. It’s meaningless; a blip on the radar.

  50. madhaus Says:

    But… but… but… there’s no sushi in Indiana!

  51. madhaus Says:

    Anything that leads to price drop in Palo Alto is anomaly and you can ignore it. Anything that leads to price increase in Palo Alto is trend and you must pay attention to it. Homes that drop 30% in 94301 are simply triple anomaly and even more deserving of disregard. Homes that increase 30% despite having 29% construction cost put in should be upheld as typical of the area.

    Everyone got that? Remember, different rules for all other areas.

  52. Real Estater Says:

    >>Hundreds and hundreds and HUNDREDS of 3000+ sf homes on 6000 sf lots, chockablock against their neighbors. No trees.

    6000 sf lot is actually quite a decent size for 2 story new homes. If you look at those new homes built on Fremont Blvd in Sunnyvale, those are on 3000 sf lots selling for a million+.

    You’re completely wrong about the trees. Tracy has lots of trees. Some neighborhoods even have canopy like Palo Alto.

    Sunnyvale is a great location, but I would never say trees are its main attraction.

    >>That ridiculous development is thrown up in the middle of an agricultural area, which means it will look like crap in ten years and smell like crap right now.

    Much of Sunnyvale used to be Orchards and agricultural land. Does your home smell like crap?

  53. Real Estater Says:

    >>Homes that drop 30% in 94301 are simply triple anomaly and even more deserving of disregard.

    That’s true. There’s no home that actually dropped 30%. You can’t go by useless aggregate data. In a low volume area like 94301 data can swing wildly depending on which homes change hands. If a $15M house sold you will see a peak that is followed by a 50% drop in the following month.

  54. Real Estater Says:

    >>My question was simple, “Can you afford to lose the $45k, plus whatever improvements you make?”

    My question is, how much does it take to buy the house at 20% down? Can you afford $9000? The rest is the responsibility of your tenant.

    >>The final purchase price was actually significantly lower than the $45k,

    LOL. How “significantly” can the price be below that? Was the house free?

  55. SEA Says:

    “LOL. How “significantly” can the price be below that? Was the house free?”

    To put it in P*** A*** terms, much more than 10%.

  56. Real Estater Says:

    SEA,

    In flyover country a house is like a car. You treat it as an expense, since you need a place to live.

  57. SEA Says:

    Yes, treat it like an expense… He paid cash, and he’s quite happy to expense it off.

    Now I know a few people who have RBA type mortgages. You cannot do that in flyover land.

  58. Real Estater Says:

    Madhaus,

    Let me put it this way. If 94301 really dropped 30%, you and a bunch of other people would have moved in already. A prize doesn’t just go unclaimed.

  59. Real Estater Says:

    SEA,

    He is quite happy but he is living in Indiana, where a tornado can blow his roof off any day.

  60. Pralay Says:

    Anything that leads to price drop in Palo Alto is anomaly and you can ignore it.
    —–

    And when you cannot ignore it, you can simply lie saying that the owner died.

  61. SEA Says:

    But he doesn’t have to worry about earthquakes…

    What he’s so happy about is not having to make a house payment. A major cash flow item scratched off.

    I have never seen the place, but he insists that it’s a very nice place in a good neighborhood. Of course Stanford isn’t in his backyard. I’m sure his children are doomed. How will he pay for their education?

  62. madhaus Says:

    #60, but poster in link admitted he feels like a loser. So at least one part was true.

    #52, of course there are trees in Tracy, but not in the development under discussion.

  63. Real Estater Says:

    Big lots are absolutely available in Tracy. It just depends on what you want. For an investment property interior space is far more important than lot size.

  64. Real Estater Says:

    >>of course there are trees in Tracy, but not in the development under discussion.

    Like I said, it depends on what you want. Same as with anywhere. The good thing about Tracy is that many new neighborhoods have trees planted. As a result, most neighborhoods built as recently as the 90’s have a fair amount of trees.

  65. Real Estater Says:

    SEA,

    You have the option of moving to Indiana any day. Your friend doesn’t have the option of moving to California.

  66. SEA Says:

    “Your friend doesn’t have the option of moving to California.”

    Are you suggesting that the roads only go flyover land? Maybe you can elaborate why he could not move back.

  67. Real Estater Says:

    Look at the Gooogle street map of this one. Trees everywhere. Looks like Sunnyvale, but priced like Indiana.

  68. madhaus Says:

    #63, that is completely backward. The value is in the land. The house depreciates. You want the most land, the house size is unimportant.

    Oh yeah, silly me, land is free in Tracy.

  69. Real Estater Says:

    >>Maybe you can elaborate why he could not move back.

    Isn’t it obvious? First, he cannot afford to come here. Second, he won’t be able to sell his house.

  70. madhaus Says:

    #67 I don’t understand why you’re so happy about that listing. Priced like Indiana, smells like Indiana and might as well be in Indiana with 105 minute commute to Google.

    Remember, location, location, location!

  71. Real Estater Says:

    #68,

    In a rental market, tenant doesn’t care about your land. He wants space in the house. The more space in the house the more cash flow positive.

  72. madhaus Says:

    #66, is a big shame your friend cannot afford to ever leave his $45,000 house. Ever. It’s Hotel Indiana. He can check out RBA any time he likes, but he can never leave. House has attached ankle chain to him permanently.

  73. SEA Says:

    Really? He cannot afford to come back to California?

    I’m not sure how you know that.

    As far as selling his house, if you were paying any attention, you might have noted that the expected salvage value is ZERO. But he knows that it’ll be worth something. It won’t be a problem to sell.

    That said, I’m not sure how he’ll pay for his kids’ education. You know, no big dollar over-bidding, even if he prices it very low.

    Maybe he’ll have to make due with the cash that’s piling up from not having any house payment? I don’t know.

  74. Real Estater Says:

    #70,

    First you said you wanted lot. I showed you lot. Next you said you wanted trees. I gave you trees. Now you want location? You’re not paying for location, how can you get location?

  75. madhaus Says:

    #71, who cares about the tenant? The whole point is investing for appreciation. You buy a big house on a small lot, it will be worth much less in 30 years than a smaller house on a big lot.

    Unless they’re in Tracy. Then both will be worth much less in 30 years.

  76. madhaus Says:

    #74, I want big lot, mature trees, and convenient location. Oops! My bad! I seem to have that already.

    Remind me again why I would want small lot, no trees, and terrible location.

  77. SEA Says:

    I thought a landlord was supposed to be “cash flow neutral” on the rentals.

  78. Real Estater Says:

    SEA,

    Your friend can make tons of money out there. He’s house is paid off, which means it’s cash flow positive from Day 1. At 45 grand, it won’t take very long to recover his investment. Again, using the cookie cutter method, he can become a millionaire.

  79. madhaus Says:

    Excuse me. I have an eclipse to watch.

  80. SEA Says:

    “He’s house is paid off, which means it’s cash flow positive from Day 1.”

    Now I know you’re a REALTOR!

  81. Real Estater Says:

    >>#71, who cares about the tenant? The whole point is investing for appreciation.

    Right now you are buying in below trend. All you have to do is wait for the inventory to clear, and you’ll have appreciation just by returning to normalcy. It doesn’t matter what you buy there, as long as it’s cash flow positive.

  82. Real Estater Says:

    >>Remind me again why I would want small lot, no trees, and terrible location.

    Because you’re not living there. All you care about is cash flow positive / return on investment.

  83. SEA Says:

    #82, please review #77.

  84. Real Estater Says:

    SEA,

    There are 2 types of investments. One is invest for appreciation; the other is invest for income. If you invest for appreciation, you want to buy RBA. Cash flow neutral is already your best case scenario. If yo invest for income, you want to be cash flow positive. The way I have structured my investments is that I’m doing both types. That’s why I end up with cash flow neutral.

  85. SEA Says:

    So what’s wrong with a large lot for maximum appreciation?

  86. Real Estater Says:

    SEA,

    I’ve given away quite a few wealth building tips. I hope you learned something tonight.

  87. Real Estater Says:

    >>what’s wrong with a large lot for maximum appreciation?

    Lot size matters more for RBA, because in RBA you can tear down an old crap box and put a new house on the lot that’s worth millions. The reason this works is because RBA has no empty land just sitting there. You have to tear something down to build something new. Outside of RBA there’s no economic case for doing this. You just want a normal lot that’s easy to maintain as a rental.

  88. madhaus Says:

    I learned many things tonight.

    1. When eclipse is about to go total, big fog bank will roll in front of it.

    2. Everyone seems to know more about real estate investments than the person claiming to have recently made some.

  89. SEA Says:

    “The value is in the land” only applies to the RBA?

  90. madhaus Says:

    #89, in Tracy, the value is in the leaving.

  91. SEA Says:

    I’ve learned that your “quite a few” is much different than my “quite a few.”

  92. madhaus Says:

    For example, a house with a 60% down payment on it is cash flow positive from day one. The cost of capital is zero! That’s one of those “quite a few” wealth-building tips.

  93. Real Estater Says:

    “Value is in the land” is a mistaken notion. Value is in the location. You can by an acre in Texas or Indiana for 50 grand. Land is worthless there.

  94. madhaus Says:

    Since the cost of capital is zero, you can buy a scraper in 94306 for only $1.4 million and build a McMansion there for about $600,000. Then you can sell it for $2.5 million. That’s $2.5 million pure profit!

  95. madhaus Says:

    Yes if half a million is not a lot of money then $50,000, which is ten percent of not a lot of money, is “worthless.”

    That means Tracy is worthless too.

  96. madhaus Says:

    I hope you learned something tonight.

  97. SEA Says:

    #93, please review #7, specifically:

    “location, location, location,” which is just another derivative of “The value is that you think like a buyer.”

  98. Real Estater Says:

    madhaus,

    What you need to learn is that you can make money from something that is worthless. If it’s worth a lot, the money has already been made by someone else.

  99. SEA Says:

    “If it’s worth a lot, the money has already been made by someone else.”

    Are you describing the RBA?

  100. madhaus Says:

    Clearly land with a house on it in Indiana or Tracy is not worthless, because people will pay for it and banks will write loans for it.

    Who made the land not worthless? It certainly wasn’t the onesie-twosie real estate invester.

  101. anon Says:

    “SEA,

    I’ve given away quite a few wealth building tips. I hope you learned something tonight.”

    I just spent the last 10 minutes laughing hysterically. Thanks egg skreeter. You sure know how to spew garbage.

  102. Pralay Says:

    I just spent the last 10 minutes laughing hysterically. Thanks egg skreeter. You sure know how to spew garbage.
    —–

    We are getting “tips” from Egg Skreeter for last three years. Unfortunately nobody takes him seriously. How sad! I am repeating his “tips”. Please pay attention this time:

    1. How to become one of “the richest people in the world” – like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett (clue: it’s not by selling software of investing in stock market).

    2. How to make money in foreign currency.

    My favorite:

    3. How to learn English.

  103. anon Says:

    #3 is classic. It’s always fun to receive English lessons from a non native speaker with minimal command of the language.

  104. madhaus Says:

    We need an exercept from that advice #3 above in #102. It’s just like an interception, only outside the football stadium and you have to do 100 sit-ups first. Maybe some old missile system is involved?

  105. Tuno Says:

    #46 you are so right madhaus – those 5 bedroom Tracy houses are going to go down to 150K, if not lower. crap building quality, small lots, too big for actual family life, too big to maintain.

  106. Tuno Says:

    Sunnyvale might have rancher tracts, but they’re 40-60 year old rancher tracts with mature shade trees and space between each house, and that’s part of what people are paying for.

    even more important is the fact that there are occasionally a lot of good jobs in the vicinity of Sunnyvale. there is no limit to how far down Tracy can go.

  107. Real Estater Says:

    >>Sunnyvale might have rancher tracts, but they’re 40-60 year old rancher tracts with mature shade trees and space between each house, and that’s part of what people are paying for.

    LOL. A million bucks for 50’s crap shacks is what you’re paying for. Never heard that trees are an attraction of Sunnyvale. If you like trees, you go for Woodside, Portola Valley, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, or Saratoga.

    >> there is no limit to how far down Tracy can go.

    When we hear sentiments like this from amateurs, it’s a clear sign we’ve caught the bottom.

  108. nomadic Says:

    I used to have some really nice trees in my yard in Sunnyvale. Had a sonofabitch eucalyptus in my backyard though – pretty flowers but that thing was constantly dropping crap.

    Hey everybody – we have a new bottom call…

  109. anon Says:

    Very real excrement says:

    “The goal is to build wealth. What you think of as a bad dream is in fact a vehicle for wealth building. You pay hardly anything to get the house, and your tenant pays the rest. In 15 years, the house will be worth $500K and paid off. It will also bring you a rent check month after month into your retirement. If you cookie cutter this, you will be a millionaire when you retire. What part of the strategy do you not get?”

    Does anyone remember Casey Serin? This is from his book of real estate knowledge.

  110. anon Says:

    How many millions would you like at retirement? 10 million? 20 million? Just buy houses!

    lololol

    Real estater, it is so much fun to laugh at you. Your mentality is several decades too late.

  111. SEA Says:

    Um, yea, uh, let’s see…

    How about…

    There is not limit to how far up Tracy can go.

    You may exercept this as you see fit.

  112. Pralay Says:

    Hey everybody – we have a new bottom call…
    —–

    Who called bottom…..AGAIN? Lawrence Yun or Real Estater Bottom-caller?

  113. anon Says:

    Guys, stop sitting around posting on a blog. Go buy property! How many millions do you want to retire with? Me? I’ll take infinity millions. That’s going to require a lot of properties so you better get them before I do. Unless, of course, you want to be priced out forever…

  114. Petsmart Groomer Says:

    So how does it work in Tracy? Does the landlord bill tenants for utilities, or do the tenants pay for them directly?

  115. anon Says:

    Petsmart groomer, that is a very stupid question. However, since you are just a pet groomer, I suppose we can overlook it. On the other hand, if you had the right combination of certain things, and still made that mistake we just might think you were a pretender..

  116. Real Estater Says:

    anon,

    What have you done for yourself? I wouldn’t be laughing if I were merely a step above living with mom and dad at age 40+.

  117. Real Estater Says:

    Wow, just checked the MLS. Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale 94087 CUSD are all pretty much sold out. Given the amount of chat about these cities, few are actually able to move in.

  118. SEA Says:

    #117- Since all are ‘pretty much sold out,’ what is the current velocity of buyable inventory in P*** A***, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale 94087 CUSD?

  119. anon Says:

    Oh no! All the garbage in PA has already been purchased by speculators and wannabes? You’ll be in good company, RE.

  120. SEA Says:

    Just check redfin–if you search P*** A***, I’m sure not a single property will come up.

  121. nomadic Says:

    Only people who really want/need to sell their house choose to allow people to traipse through it during the holidays. But I’m sure that’s not why inventory would be low now…

  122. SEA Says:

    I’m not sure what kind of data this is, since it has no application to the RBA, and probably does not even apply to the BA, but…

    “(RTTNews) – Existing home sales in the U.S. showed a notable increase in the month of November, according to a report released by the National Association of Realtors on Wednesday, with the increase in sales more than offsetting the decrease seen in the previous month.

    NAR said existing home sales rose 5.6 percent to an annual rate of 4.68 million in November from an unrevised rate of 4.43 million in October. However, economists had been expecting a more significant increase to an annual rate of about 4.75 million.

    While the increase in existing home sales in November more than offset the 2.2 percent decrease seen in October, sales are still 27.9 percent below the cyclical peak of 6.49 million in November of 2009, which was the initial deadline for the first-time homebuyer tax credit.”

    And we need our normal dose of optimism from our favorite NAR chief economist:

    “Expressing optimism for 2011, Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, said, “Continuing gains in home sales are encouraging, and the positive impact of steady job creation will more than trump some negative impact from a modest rise in mortgage interest rates, which remain historically favorable.”

    “The relationship recently between mortgage interest rates, home prices and family income has been the most favorable on record for buying a home since we started measuring in 1970,” he added. “Therefore, the market is recovering and we should trend up to a healthy, sustainable level in 2011.””

    Pay attention to that last sentence: “The market is recovering and we should trend up to a healthy, sustainable level in 2011.”

    What does all this mean? Should I buy now? Is tomorrow too late?

  123. Real Estater Says:

    It means the stars are lined up. Now is a great time to buy a house.

  124. nomadic Says:

    Of course, what else could it mean? There’s never a bad time to buy a house. Or two or three.

  125. Real Estater Says:

    Anyone know what’s up with this one? It seems too cheap to stay around.

  126. SEA Says:

    What’s wrong with it?

    Nothing price cannot fix.

  127. Real Estater Says:

    Should be sold in a day at that price.

  128. SEA Says:

    Get off your rear!

  129. anon Says:

    All the drones know its a great time to buy real estate!

  130. Real Estater Says:

    With you guys, there is NEVER a good time to buy a home. Price too high? Waiting for the fall. Price too low (e.g. Tracy)? Will go lower.

    What are the real reasons?
    1. Fear of responsibility
    2. Fear of commitment
    3. No money in pocket

  131. madhaus Says:

    But #130 has been asked, repeatedly, when is not a good time to buy, or if there is ever a time not to buy. #130 has never given an answer.

    Perhaps the people making fun of you are doing so because are pushing home purchase during a collapsing market. When the bubble was about to pop, you said there was no bubble. When the market was dropping, you said it wasn’t.

    What are the real reasons?

    1. Your financial interests are tied to real estate market (you work in it and/or spouse is) – Fear of loss

    2. You prefer negative attention to no attention so you make a fool of yourself repeatedly here – Fear of abandonment

    3. You puff yourself up on a blog among people who don’t know you and can’t verify anything you say is true – No money in pocket, in bank, or in other assets.

    Plus fear of failure.

    Remember, I’m “here to help.”

  132. anon Says:

    Real Estater-san, you are 20 years too late. The rule for the new normal is that real property is a liability.

  133. SEA Says:

    Hey everybody look at this really cheap home that should sell immediately (“soon pending” status). Now that I have found a super deal, I am not going to buy it myself, but everyone else look, look, look. Someone else, not me, should buy this right away. Please everyone list the reasons why you won’t buy–I just don’t understand that the price could be too high when I am telling you this is really a low price. Who cares that the home has already been on the market for a month, someone should buy this right now, and when I say someone, I mean, anyone but me.

    You slackers are just full of excuses why now is not the right time to buy. On the other hand, I know that now is the right time to buy, even if I won’t buy this myself.

  134. Real Estater Says:

    madhaus,

    These topics have been addressed over and over. Not sure why you’re still trolling on this. As I’ve said before, you can’t time the market precisely, but now is a very special time. We have already been through a big recession, and EVERY recession in history recovers. The last 3 years have ALL been good years to buy, because prices and interest rates were aligning to an attractive proposition. We reached a rare point when all the stars were aligned, and that’s when I made the leap into being an investor. I’m emphasizing NOW is the time to buy because stars don’t stay aligned for long. Signs are everywhere we are getting past the bottom:

    Consumer sentiment at highest level since June

    New home sales rise 5.5%

    You are clearly distorting the record here. While it’s not possible to verify some things over the internet, we know the following:
    – I have many calls in this forum in real time, and they turn out to be the right calls.
    – I didn’t claim to own an investment property for 2 years despite harassment from the rentards. I simply don’t state something if it’s not backed by fact.
    – There’s been plenty of circumstantial evidence my statements are true, this is why the rentards try to in vain attack my credibility. Why do they do this? Because they know I’m credible.

  135. Pralay Says:

    Anyone know what’s up with this one? It seems too cheap to stay around.
    …..
    Should be sold in a day at that price.

    —–

    2449 Our Ln is already in market for more than a month. Talk it in months, not days. “A day” won’t make any difference.

    Wow! The seller bought this property in 2005 for $879,000 and now after five years trying to sell it for $978,888 (with four 8). Great investment!

  136. Pralay Says:

    These topics have been addressed over and over.
    —-

    Translation: I can’t answer it. So I will say “I explained everything IN PAST”.

  137. Pralay Says:

    New home sales rise 5.5%
    —–

    Useless aggregate data.

    But thanks for posting the link. Let’s get some “exercept” from the article anyway.

    That’s less than half the rate that economists consider healthy. And the increase follows a dismal October sales pace that nearly matched the lowest level in 47 years.
    ….
    ….
    The median price for a home sold in November fell to $213,000, 2.7 percent lower than a year ago.
    …..
    …..
    Still economists expect 2010 will finish as the worst year that market since 1997.
    ….
    ….
    One major problem facing the entire housing market is the record number of foreclosed properties. Economists say a large “shadow inventory’ of such homes is waiting to come on the market as banks continue to clear out a huge backlog of properties they are in the process of taking back.

  138. Pralay Says:

    - I have many calls in this forum in real time, and they turn out to be the right calls.
    ——
    NOT TRUE. If you keep saying “this is right time to buy home”, someday you will be right. That does not make a “right call”. Same thing is true for other kinds of calls too.
    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    —–
    - I didn’t claim to own an investment property for 2 years despite harassment from the rentards. I simply don’t state something if it’s not backed by fact.
    —–
    Absurd logic. What was the return Bernard Madoff claimed in his investment? About 20%. Not 50%, not 100%. In court, his argument could have been: “I am not a liar. If was a liar, I would have said all the investigators that my investment returns 50% or even 100%”.

    Just because you “didn’t claim” something, that does not make you a credible person.

    —–
    - There’s been plenty of circumstantial evidence my statements are true, this is why the rentards try to in vain attack my credibility. Why do they do this? Because they know I’m credible.
    —–
    “Plenty of circumstantial evidence”. Now, that funny! Thanks for the laugh. :)

  139. Pralay Says:

    Correction in #138: investigators = investors

  140. SEA Says:

    Real Estater- “Should be sold in a day at that price.”

    I’ll give you TWO days. Today and Tomorrow.

    “I have many calls in this forum in real time, and they turn out to be the right calls.”

    The clock is ticking.

  141. Pralay Says:

    It means the stars are lined up. Now is a great time to buy a house.
    ——

    “Stars are lined up” all the time. 2008, 2009, 2010. For sure, it will be lined up in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014….so on. We all know it takes millions of years for a star to die. Thanks for the “RIGHT CALL”, Real Estater. It’s valuable. :)

  142. SEA Says:

    From the government press release, “This is 5.5 percent (±16.2%)* above the revised October rate of 275,000, but is 21.2 percent (±13.3%) below the November 2009 estimate of 368,000.

    The median sales price of new houses sold in November 2010 was $213,000; the average sales price was $268,700. The seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of November was 197,000. This represents a supply of 8.2 months at the current sales rate.”

    Did you notice that little star? Those little stars are always interesting.

    “* 90% confidence interval includes zero. The Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero.”

    The next thing you’re going to tell me is that sales might be better if prices went down. Even if we assume that sales did go up by 5.5%, let’s look at what happened to prices.

    November 2009
    Median: $218,800
    Average: $274,700

    November 2010 (preliminary)
    Median: $213,000
    Average: $268,700

    Imagine what might happen to the number of sales if prices went up!

  143. Pralay Says:

    SEA, it just means stars are lined up to buy homes. It just means foreigners are lined up to to buy homes. It just means newborns are lined up to buy homes. That’s my RIGHT CALL.

  144. Real Estater Says:

    We see a lot of critics here, but what kind of plan have they proposed so far? Absolutely nothing. By default, their plan is to spend majority of their life in a rental and send their kids to crappy schools. If this is not the plan, let’s hear it from Pralay and SEA. Can you communicate your plan in one concise post, for once?

  145. Pralay Says:

    We see a lot of critics here, but what kind of plan have they proposed so far? Absolutely nothing. By default, their plan is to spend majority of their life in a rental and send their kids to crappy schools. If this is not the plan, let’s hear it from Pralay and SEA. Can you communicate your plan in one concise post, for once?
    —-

    Translation: RIGHT TIME TO BUY. BUY, BUY, BUY. STAR ARE LINED UP. Don’t be Pralay or SEA. :)

  146. SEA Says:

    Real Estater- I’ve already said I dumped my real estate before the peak, but I’m happy to have sold at the price point and time I did. As you might be able to guess, when I find conditions to be correct, I’ll start buying property once again.

    I’m happy to sell a little before the peak and buy a little after the bottom. Instead of all this “real estate is a long-term investment” garbage, I’d rather hold property in a market that’s going up. I’m not patient enough to simply watch market values melt away. There are those who think placing 20-year bets at these prices is a good idea. I’m not in that group.

    Given my objectives, do I think conditions are right to start amassing real estate? No.

  147. SEA Says:

    Remember the days when Real Estater had a large following? Yes, that’s right, I sold my properties to them. Now I really didn’t care how they produced the cash–borrow it all; no concern of mine.

    That said, I’ll be the one watching them selling short with my cash in hand.

    Many of the followers are now selling short, or struggling to make payments. Oh well.

  148. madEstater Says:

    I won’t answer any of your embarrassing questions, but I will pout and sneer and stamp my foot like an indignant fourth grader if you ignore mine. Also I will call you a loser and a failure if you don’t do exactly what I say. I demand you buy a house this instant! Did you hear me? I own a house! That means I am the boss of you!

    And don’t deflect. Only I get to do that. No stealing my ideas that I stole fair and square.

  149. Real Estater Says:

    Guys,

    As you can see, Pralay has not a clue what his plan is. SEA at least has a wrong plan (wait and see and pray). Madhaus doesn’t need to answer, because she’s already in the same position as I am (which clearly rejects SEA’s approach of getting in and out like it’s a stock).

  150. madEstater Says:

    Guys, as you can see, I haven’t a clue what my plan is. I have tried talking about investment property without owning any (wait and see and pray) and equating other homeowners to myself now when I previously attacked them for doing same thing. That is because I get to tell story and your job is to listen and agree with me. I am only credible person here and I have always said so. If I say a thing is true then you can take it to Washington Mutual bank.

  151. Real Estater Says:

    madhaus,

    I’m just challenging the loud mouth critics to come up with a plan, for their own sake. That’s not an attack by any stretch.

  152. Real Estater Says:

    Cheapest house in 94087 CUSD.

    Hurry, there are only 7 houses left in this market! This is the only one that’s not next to the freeway or busy street priced under a million. That’s right, buyable inventory is 1!

  153. anon Says:

    My plan is to live as hedonistically as possible.

  154. Pralay Says:

    Real Estater- I’ve already said I dumped my real estate before the peak, but I’m happy to have sold at the price point and time I did. As you might be able to guess, when I find conditions to be correct, I’ll start buying property once again.
    —–

    Do you have “certain combination of diploma, address, and mate”? If not, Real Estater is right.
    If you have that kind of combination, you are still wrong. Because Real Estarer is always right.

  155. Pralay Says:

    I am only credible person here and I have always said so.
    —-

    Guys,
    For last three years Real Estater keeps claiming “I am credible, I am credible” in this blog without any success. I think keeping Holiday spirit in mind, we should pretend to agree that he is credible. You have to pretend to think as credible only upto 31st Dec (we don’t have to do it beyond that).
    Agreed?

  156. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay says,
    >>Do you have “certain combination of diploma, address, and mate”? If not, Real Estater is right.

    You’re not there yet. The question to ask yourself is, do you have a plan?

  157. Pralay Says:

    You’re not there yet. The question to ask yourself is, do you have a plan?
    —–

    Translation: I get to ask question, OK? Because I am THE BOSS. I demand answer. BTW, don’t make fun of me.

  158. Real Estater Says:

    >>My plan is to live as hedonistically as possible.

    Translation: I live day by day without a plan.

  159. anon Says:

    It is the plan of no plan, real estater. Someday you might progress to such a level. For now, you should stick to plans that can be summarized in a sentence or two.

  160. Pralay Says:

    you should stick to plans that can be summarized in a sentence or two.
    —-

    Of course, he can. He is Real Estater Rock Star. Here his plan:

    Sentence One: It’s right time to buy home NOW.
    Sentence Two: They are not making any more land.

  161. Real Estater Says:

    anon,

    Imagine if you had done what madhaus did. You can live like a hedonistic house wife right now!

  162. SEA Says:

    Real Estater- “SEA at least has a wrong plan (wait and see and pray).”

    Oh, yea, don’t sell above the purchase price!

    Make a profit? 100% wrong plan.

  163. Pralay Says:

    You can live like a hedonistic house wife right now!
    —–

    Translation: One can live day by day without a plan right now.

  164. Pralay Says:

    Oh, yea, don’t sell above the purchase price!

    Make a profit? 100% wrong plan.
    —–

    Of course it is wrong plan. This is the right plan:
    Day-dreaming about investment and talking about it, anonymously, in a blog where nobody knows you.

  165. SEA Says:

    Let’s not forget being ‘cash flow neutral,’ so ‘you avoid paying income taxes.’

    Personally I like making money. Yes, that’s right, income. Clearly if you don’t have any income, no income taxes are due, but what good is that?

  166. Pralay Says:

    Clearly if you don’t have any income, no income taxes are due, but what good is that?
    —–

    That’s the Wall Street Journal’s version of Lucky Duckies – no income, no tax.

  167. SEA Says:

    I guess I have been using the wrong strategy!

  168. Real Estater Says:

    >>For last three years Real Estater keeps claiming “I am credible, I am credible” in this blog without any success.

    Look guys, the man with no plan is try to teach us about credibility!

  169. SEA Says:

    Look the guy without credibility is judging the credibility of others. How credible is that?

  170. SEA Says:

    Let’s remember, Real Estater, the clock is ticking.

  171. Pralay Says:

    Look guys, the man with no plan is try to teach us about credibility!
    —–

    Bad comprehension. I did not teach credibility. I am merely stating the fact that when you say “I am credible”, nobody takes you seriously.

    But hey, this is holiday time. Real Estater, you might not be credible, but you are rock star.

  172. madhaus Says:

    Speaking of noncredible person who repeatedly claims to be only credible person present:

    The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.

    “What are you talking about with spooons? I do not like soup so I do not want your spoons. You are changing the subject. Why don’t you have a plan to buy a house?”

  173. Real Estater Says:

    >>Let’s remember, Real Estater, the clock is ticking.

    You’re losing it SEA. The whole reason for pointing that house out is because it did not sell . If it did, it wouldn’t have been brought up in the first place!

  174. Real Estater Says:

    >> I am merely stating the fact that when you say “I am credible”, nobody takes you seriously.

    Of course we all take a man with no plan, no equity, and no money very seriously.

  175. SEA Says:

    I’m not into making excuses.

    Once again, review #140, but you are the one who claimed it should sell in a day. You make plenty of other claims too–are you expecting others to find excuses for those claims too?

  176. madEstater Says:

    What do you mean no one takes me seriously? I own a house. A house! In a really, really, really expensive zip code! That makes me the BOSS of you. Plus you have no plan, no money, no equity so I am the DOUBLE-BOSS of you. I don’t really know that you have no plan, no money, no equity but you don’t really know if I have a house so let’s not go there.

    We all know being told I am credible is more impressive than being told you don’t have squat. And I am credible and I say you have a big plate of NOTHING. So I am the TRIPLE-BOSS of you.

    Why are you laughing at me? I am so credible that when I went to Downey Savings they saw my P*** A*** parking permit and say, “How about a couple more bonus mortgages for living in such a credible city?” That’s how I bought two investment properties. But this offer was only for credible people (like ME).

    A man, a plan, root canal: CANADA!

  177. Pralay Says:

    Of course we all take a man with no plan, no equity, and no money very seriously.
    —-

    I don’t know about “we”, but there is plenty of evidence is that Real Excreter is taking it too seriously and getting mad and upset as a result. :)

  178. Pralay Says:

    Of course we all take a man with no plan, no equity, and no money very seriously.

    I don’t know about “we”, but there is plenty of evidence that Real Estater is taking it TOO seriously and getting mad and upset as a result. :)

  179. SEA Says:

    The question that keeps being avoided is why Real Estater doesn’t go buy the home. He keeps acting like it’s such a great deal–should go pending in a day–yet he seems to be sitting on the sidelines, which he complains that so many others do. But are all those others suggesting they’ve found such a great deal? Nope. So the people who have not found a deal are supposed to buy, while the guy who suggests he’s found a real bargain, he should just complain about all the others who are not buying.

    In response to, Should be sold in a day at that price, I immediately reply, Get off your Rear!

    Now when I find a really good deal, what do you think I do? Do you think I immediately go post what a great deal it is online, and tell everyone what a great deal it is–should be sold in a day.

    Let me clue all of you in: If it really is a good deal, I buy it. I don’t go blabbing about how great the deal is, and I just cannot explain why it has not sold in the expected time. But then when the time expires, I suggest that I’m really looking for reasons why it didn’t sell.

    That said, my suggestion was that the price was too high. Specifically, I suggested there is nothing wrong with it that price cannot fix.

    Why isn’t it selling in a day? Simply put the price is too high. Lower the price enough, and it will sell in a day.

    What is so complicated about this?

  180. madEstater Says:

    #178 Man with no Plan:

    Look. I gave you an OPPORTUNITY. You did not take advantage of it because you have no plan. That means you have no credibility. And why should we listen to a man with no credibility and no equity? As soon as you sold your house at the peak of the market, you turned your equity into profit. That means it isn’t money or equity anymore. I still have money and equity, and I have way more plans than you.

    I am the BOSS of you. Do you hear me? Do you?

  181. Pralay Says:

    Why are you laughing at me? I am so credible that when I went to Downey Savings they saw my P*** A*** parking permit and say, “How about a couple more bonus mortgages for living in such a credible city?”
    —–

    For Christmas eve, we would like to read some “light-hearted story” from Real Estater. After hearing the stories of “Customs Customized for Palo Alto” and “Sooth Sailing With Millionaire Builder’s Sister”, we are so eager to read the next story.

  182. bob Says:

    The goal is to build wealth. What you think of as a bad dream is in fact a vehicle for wealth building. You pay hardly anything to get the house, and your tenant pays the rest. In 15 years, the house will be worth $500K and paid off. It will also bring you a rent check month after month into your retirement. If you cookie cutter this, you will be a millionaire when you retire. What part of the strategy do you not get?

    …and once again its worth mentioning that if the ultimate goal is to build wealth, you’re not going to do it nearly as fast buying real estate. A perfect example is today’s stock market, which is up 11% for the year. Had you been investing in the market all along, what you would have put in last year is now up considerably- as has been the case with what I’ve put in. You couldn’t hope to attain that sort of performance with real estate. We only saw that kind of crazy growth during the now long-dead 2003-2006 bubble which as of last check is still dead and won’t be showing any signs of improvement for the foreseeable future. History has a way of being a good teacher. The past 100 years has clearly shown stocks to beat real estate by a mile and as seen by its comeback of late, that trend seems to be staying true.

    As far as the story about the guy buying a house in Indiana, well- there’s a lot to be said about buying a house for cash. No interest rates, and no payments period, which frees you up to invest more into stocks and better performing assets. Is the guy living in IN without a house payment and a lot less financial liability better off than the A homeowner in the BA spending 60% of their income on the mortgage? That’s a hard call. I think I’ll go with the guy in IN.

  183. Cheapest House in Woodside [Burbed.com] Says:

    […] Friday sales continue until Christmas Eve!  So there were some complaints about yesterdays “Cheapest House in Portola Valley” not actually being in Portola Valley.  Well, we won’t make that mistake again with […]


Leave a Reply

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