exasperated

[NotCranky]

I am a little surprised how relatively sticky prices have been in your hood. On the other hand I was going to be surprised if they were not.

The area between the park, Hillcrest/University Heights and Kensington did undergo a huge demographic shift,as you likely know. If there is an example of the “San Francisco effect” hitting town that is it. However, prices very much follow perception. The trendiness, while pretty dominant has gaps.

18 months is a good window, If you can’t get what you want but really want to stay there, I would suggest thoughtfully and patiently,looking in the gaps. While shoddier at first, it could possibly be a better move in the long run. You could get a bigger lot, a house with more potential and basically live in the same hood.I know many people who did this to good results over the years, including myself. The improvements are likely to keep catching up.

If you can stomach it, try to ponder going these few streets over,ones that are most likely to experience the positive changes we have seen, and getting the best value there.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

This is a great and timely post because I, too, am “exasperated” and confused by all the conflicting data flying around. Some indicators are claiming a “bottom” (such as Robert Campbell’s “Crash Index” in his newsletter that I get) while other indicators (such as my wallet!) are saying no way, jose.

Despite supposedly expert indicators such as the crash index, my gut is just not seeing a bottom right now. With all the Alt-A recasts coming down the pike right now, unemployment sucking… and I am not sure how secure my own job is right now. I want to get something on a fixed mortgage for absolutely the lowest monthly payment I can get, so if I do lose the current job I can still keep my dwelling on a lower income.

Rent is just right out. Rent gets hiked every year and as I have complained before, my pay has not risen to cover it. In today’s sucky employment market, jumping to another, higher-paying job is looking unlikely at best.

So what would a price look like today if it was truly equivalent to the bottom we made in 1995-6? Well, I just happened to look at some condos in my area back then, which were selling for $100,000, and I took the CPI figures (use “Consumer Price Index History Table”) and calculated what the equivalent price of that place would be today after inflation.

Turns out a $100,000 condo in 1995 would be equivalent to a $140,500 condo today because of inflation. This is equivalent to about 1999-2000 “nominal” price per Zillow (same exact condos). To top it off, these actual same condos that I looked at in 1995 are currently selling for $200,000 or somewhat above (well, actually, being *offered* for that). So, this implies no bottom yet, at least in my area.

But all this implies a “normal” market where all the foreclosures come out and settle prices back to a realistic level. Can the government(s) and the banks jimmy the market and keep these prices up at bubble levels (and out of my reach without a long and exasperating commute?) I worry…

[CricketOnTheHearth]

This is a great and timely post because I, too, am “exasperated” and confused by all the conflicting data flying around. Some indicators are claiming a “bottom” (such as Robert Campbell’s “Crash Index” in his newsletter that I get) while other indicators (such as my wallet!) are saying no way, jose.

Despite supposedly expert indicators such as the crash index, my gut is just not seeing a bottom right now. With all the Alt-A recasts coming down the pike right now, unemployment sucking… and I am not sure how secure my own job is right now. I want to get something on a fixed mortgage for absolutely the lowest monthly payment I can get, so if I do lose the current job I can still keep my dwelling on a lower income.

Rent is just right out. Rent gets hiked every year and as I have complained before, my pay has not risen to cover it. In today’s sucky employment market, jumping to another, higher-paying job is looking unlikely at best.

So what would a price look like today if it was truly equivalent to the bottom we made in 1995-6? Well, I just happened to look at some condos in my area back then, which were selling for $100,000, and I took the CPI figures (use “Consumer Price Index History Table”) and calculated what the equivalent price of that place would be today after inflation.

Turns out a $100,000 condo in 1995 would be equivalent to a $140,500 condo today because of inflation. This is equivalent to about 1999-2000 “nominal” price per Zillow (same exact condos). To top it off, these actual same condos that I looked at in 1995 are currently selling for $200,000 or somewhat above (well, actually, being *offered* for that). So, this implies no bottom yet, at least in my area.

But all this implies a “normal” market where all the foreclosures come out and settle prices back to a realistic level. Can the government(s) and the banks jimmy the market and keep these prices up at bubble levels (and out of my reach without a long and exasperating commute?) I worry…

[CricketOnTheHearth]

This is a great and timely post because I, too, am “exasperated” and confused by all the conflicting data flying around. Some indicators are claiming a “bottom” (such as Robert Campbell’s “Crash Index” in his newsletter that I get) while other indicators (such as my wallet!) are saying no way, jose.

Despite supposedly expert indicators such as the crash index, my gut is just not seeing a bottom right now. With all the Alt-A recasts coming down the pike right now, unemployment sucking… and I am not sure how secure my own job is right now. I want to get something on a fixed mortgage for absolutely the lowest monthly payment I can get, so if I do lose the current job I can still keep my dwelling on a lower income.

Rent is just right out. Rent gets hiked every year and as I have complained before, my pay has not risen to cover it. In today’s sucky employment market, jumping to another, higher-paying job is looking unlikely at best.

So what would a price look like today if it was truly equivalent to the bottom we made in 1995-6? Well, I just happened to look at some condos in my area back then, which were selling for $100,000, and I took the CPI figures (use “Consumer Price Index History Table”) and calculated what the equivalent price of that place would be today after inflation.

Turns out a $100,000 condo in 1995 would be equivalent to a $140,500 condo today because of inflation. This is equivalent to about 1999-2000 “nominal” price per Zillow (same exact condos). To top it off, these actual same condos that I looked at in 1995 are currently selling for $200,000 or somewhat above (well, actually, being *offered* for that). So, this implies no bottom yet, at least in my area.

But all this implies a “normal” market where all the foreclosures come out and settle prices back to a realistic level. Can the government(s) and the banks jimmy the market and keep these prices up at bubble levels (and out of my reach without a long and exasperating commute?) I worry…

[CricketOnTheHearth]

This is a great and timely post because I, too, am “exasperated” and confused by all the conflicting data flying around. Some indicators are claiming a “bottom” (such as Robert Campbell’s “Crash Index” in his newsletter that I get) while other indicators (such as my wallet!) are saying no way, jose.

Despite supposedly expert indicators such as the crash index, my gut is just not seeing a bottom right now. With all the Alt-A recasts coming down the pike right now, unemployment sucking… and I am not sure how secure my own job is right now. I want to get something on a fixed mortgage for absolutely the lowest monthly payment I can get, so if I do lose the current job I can still keep my dwelling on a lower income.

Rent is just right out. Rent gets hiked every year and as I have complained before, my pay has not risen to cover it. In today’s sucky employment market, jumping to another, higher-paying job is looking unlikely at best.

So what would a price look like today if it was truly equivalent to the bottom we made in 1995-6? Well, I just happened to look at some condos in my area back then, which were selling for $100,000, and I took the CPI figures (use “Consumer Price Index History Table”) and calculated what the equivalent price of that place would be today after inflation.

Turns out a $100,000 condo in 1995 would be equivalent to a $140,500 condo today because of inflation. This is equivalent to about 1999-2000 “nominal” price per Zillow (same exact condos). To top it off, these actual same condos that I looked at in 1995 are currently selling for $200,000 or somewhat above (well, actually, being *offered* for that). So, this implies no bottom yet, at least in my area.

But all this implies a “normal” market where all the foreclosures come out and settle prices back to a realistic level. Can the government(s) and the banks jimmy the market and keep these prices up at bubble levels (and out of my reach without a long and exasperating commute?) I worry…

[CricketOnTheHearth]

This is a great and timely post because I, too, am “exasperated” and confused by all the conflicting data flying around. Some indicators are claiming a “bottom” (such as Robert Campbell’s “Crash Index” in his newsletter that I get) while other indicators (such as my wallet!) are saying no way, jose.

Despite supposedly expert indicators such as the crash index, my gut is just not seeing a bottom right now. With all the Alt-A recasts coming down the pike right now, unemployment sucking… and I am not sure how secure my own job is right now. I want to get something on a fixed mortgage for absolutely the lowest monthly payment I can get, so if I do lose the current job I can still keep my dwelling on a lower income.

Rent is just right out. Rent gets hiked every year and as I have complained before, my pay has not risen to cover it. In today’s sucky employment market, jumping to another, higher-paying job is looking unlikely at best.

So what would a price look like today if it was truly equivalent to the bottom we made in 1995-6? Well, I just happened to look at some condos in my area back then, which were selling for $100,000, and I took the CPI figures (use “Consumer Price Index History Table”) and calculated what the equivalent price of that place would be today after inflation.

Turns out a $100,000 condo in 1995 would be equivalent to a $140,500 condo today because of inflation. This is equivalent to about 1999-2000 “nominal” price per Zillow (same exact condos). To top it off, these actual same condos that I looked at in 1995 are currently selling for $200,000 or somewhat above (well, actually, being *offered* for that). So, this implies no bottom yet, at least in my area.

But all this implies a “normal” market where all the foreclosures come out and settle prices back to a realistic level. Can the government(s) and the banks jimmy the market and keep these prices up at bubble levels (and out of my reach without a long and exasperating commute?) I worry…

[Rt.66]

[quote=DWCAP]3) We follow a trend line that looks speciously like they line from 1991-1997. Spring rallys fizzel into fall declines as the economy just kinda sputters and frets. RE agents bottom call every spring and remain suspeciously silent as fall drops egg’s on faces. Happy talk from government is loud and perminate, as they are obviously big belivers that if everyone thinks itll all be ok, then it will regardless of everything else.

Personally, I am not waiting for a backlog of houses from the banks to magically make things change direction. They obviously have chosen to not take that path anymore. REO will trickel in at a rate that can be managed by the banks and will flow for years to come.

Id wait for two things to happen:
a) interets rates hit 5.75%+
b) October.[/quote]

I agree except for the slow trickle for years. Right now the banks are like a dam for REOs. They keep getting foreclosures piling up behind the dam but only let a trickle flow out. These are not good investments for banks, and not something that’s in their best interest to hold onto. They are insolvent because of them and only something like RTC2 will solve that.

They still have a 700k strong inventory of REOs they have not sold from the 1st wave of subprime defaults and now we have much bigger waves hitting.

The Gov. and banks know there are x amount of people out there that will participate in bidding wars and buy at today’s REO prices and they want to get those people tied up before they move to more drastic measures like RTC2?

Patience will be rewarded.

[Rt.66]

[quote=DWCAP]3) We follow a trend line that looks speciously like they line from 1991-1997. Spring rallys fizzel into fall declines as the economy just kinda sputters and frets. RE agents bottom call every spring and remain suspeciously silent as fall drops egg’s on faces. Happy talk from government is loud and perminate, as they are obviously big belivers that if everyone thinks itll all be ok, then it will regardless of everything else.

Personally, I am not waiting for a backlog of houses from the banks to magically make things change direction. They obviously have chosen to not take that path anymore. REO will trickel in at a rate that can be managed by the banks and will flow for years to come.

Id wait for two things to happen:
a) interets rates hit 5.75%+
b) October.[/quote]

I agree except for the slow trickle for years. Right now the banks are like a dam for REOs. They keep getting foreclosures piling up behind the dam but only let a trickle flow out. These are not good investments for banks, and not something that’s in their best interest to hold onto. They are insolvent because of them and only something like RTC2 will solve that.

They still have a 700k strong inventory of REOs they have not sold from the 1st wave of subprime defaults and now we have much bigger waves hitting.

The Gov. and banks know there are x amount of people out there that will participate in bidding wars and buy at today’s REO prices and they want to get those people tied up before they move to more drastic measures like RTC2?

Patience will be rewarded.

[Rt.66]

[quote=DWCAP]3) We follow a trend line that looks speciously like they line from 1991-1997. Spring rallys fizzel into fall declines as the economy just kinda sputters and frets. RE agents bottom call every spring and remain suspeciously silent as fall drops egg’s on faces. Happy talk from government is loud and perminate, as they are obviously big belivers that if everyone thinks itll all be ok, then it will regardless of everything else.

Personally, I am not waiting for a backlog of houses from the banks to magically make things change direction. They obviously have chosen to not take that path anymore. REO will trickel in at a rate that can be managed by the banks and will flow for years to come.

Id wait for two things to happen:
a) interets rates hit 5.75%+
b) October.[/quote]

I agree except for the slow trickle for years. Right now the banks are like a dam for REOs. They keep getting foreclosures piling up behind the dam but only let a trickle flow out. These are not good investments for banks, and not something that’s in their best interest to hold onto. They are insolvent because of them and only something like RTC2 will solve that.

They still have a 700k strong inventory of REOs they have not sold from the 1st wave of subprime defaults and now we have much bigger waves hitting.

The Gov. and banks know there are x amount of people out there that will participate in bidding wars and buy at today’s REO prices and they want to get those people tied up before they move to more drastic measures like RTC2?

Patience will be rewarded.

[Rt.66]

[quote=DWCAP]3) We follow a trend line that looks speciously like they line from 1991-1997. Spring rallys fizzel into fall declines as the economy just kinda sputters and frets. RE agents bottom call every spring and remain suspeciously silent as fall drops egg’s on faces. Happy talk from government is loud and perminate, as they are obviously big belivers that if everyone thinks itll all be ok, then it will regardless of everything else.

Personally, I am not waiting for a backlog of houses from the banks to magically make things change direction. They obviously have chosen to not take that path anymore. REO will trickel in at a rate that can be managed by the banks and will flow for years to come.

Id wait for two things to happen:
a) interets rates hit 5.75%+
b) October.[/quote]

I agree except for the slow trickle for years. Right now the banks are like a dam for REOs. They keep getting foreclosures piling up behind the dam but only let a trickle flow out. These are not good investments for banks, and not something that’s in their best interest to hold onto. They are insolvent because of them and only something like RTC2 will solve that.

They still have a 700k strong inventory of REOs they have not sold from the 1st wave of subprime defaults and now we have much bigger waves hitting.

The Gov. and banks know there are x amount of people out there that will participate in bidding wars and buy at today’s REO prices and they want to get those people tied up before they move to more drastic measures like RTC2?

Patience will be rewarded.

[Rt.66]

[quote=DWCAP]3) We follow a trend line that looks speciously like they line from 1991-1997. Spring rallys fizzel into fall declines as the economy just kinda sputters and frets. RE agents bottom call every spring and remain suspeciously silent as fall drops egg’s on faces. Happy talk from government is loud and perminate, as they are obviously big belivers that if everyone thinks itll all be ok, then it will regardless of everything else.

Personally, I am not waiting for a backlog of houses from the banks to magically make things change direction. They obviously have chosen to not take that path anymore. REO will trickel in at a rate that can be managed by the banks and will flow for years to come.

Id wait for two things to happen:
a) interets rates hit 5.75%+
b) October.[/quote]

I agree except for the slow trickle for years. Right now the banks are like a dam for REOs. They keep getting foreclosures piling up behind the dam but only let a trickle flow out. These are not good investments for banks, and not something that’s in their best interest to hold onto. They are insolvent because of them and only something like RTC2 will solve that.

They still have a 700k strong inventory of REOs they have not sold from the 1st wave of subprime defaults and now we have much bigger waves hitting.

The Gov. and banks know there are x amount of people out there that will participate in bidding wars and buy at today’s REO prices and they want to get those people tied up before they move to more drastic measures like RTC2?

Patience will be rewarded.

[Anonymous]

Just registered after lurking for some time. I sympathize with your frustration. After sitting on the sidelines for several years, I have started to look seriously in the areas that interest me (Lemon Grove, La Mesa). Recently looked at a short sale property in L.G. (3 bed, 2 bath, 1847 sq. ft.) on the first day it was listed and put in an offer at full asking as it appeared to underpriced. Listing agent finally responded after 3 days. Listing agent said had three offers she needed to proceed with the short sale and would be doing a multiple counter offer. Multiple counter offer never came. When finally reached, listing agent said sellers had picked the highest of the three original offers. This is the first time I have attempted to purchase a house. Is this way of doing business common?

[Anonymous]

Just registered after lurking for some time. I sympathize with your frustration. After sitting on the sidelines for several years, I have started to look seriously in the areas that interest me (Lemon Grove, La Mesa). Recently looked at a short sale property in L.G. (3 bed, 2 bath, 1847 sq. ft.) on the first day it was listed and put in an offer at full asking as it appeared to underpriced. Listing agent finally responded after 3 days. Listing agent said had three offers she needed to proceed with the short sale and would be doing a multiple counter offer. Multiple counter offer never came. When finally reached, listing agent said sellers had picked the highest of the three original offers. This is the first time I have attempted to purchase a house. Is this way of doing business common?

[Anonymous]

Just registered after lurking for some time. I sympathize with your frustration. After sitting on the sidelines for several years, I have started to look seriously in the areas that interest me (Lemon Grove, La Mesa). Recently looked at a short sale property in L.G. (3 bed, 2 bath, 1847 sq. ft.) on the first day it was listed and put in an offer at full asking as it appeared to underpriced. Listing agent finally responded after 3 days. Listing agent said had three offers she needed to proceed with the short sale and would be doing a multiple counter offer. Multiple counter offer never came. When finally reached, listing agent said sellers had picked the highest of the three original offers. This is the first time I have attempted to purchase a house. Is this way of doing business common?

[Anonymous]

Just registered after lurking for some time. I sympathize with your frustration. After sitting on the sidelines for several years, I have started to look seriously in the areas that interest me (Lemon Grove, La Mesa). Recently looked at a short sale property in L.G. (3 bed, 2 bath, 1847 sq. ft.) on the first day it was listed and put in an offer at full asking as it appeared to underpriced. Listing agent finally responded after 3 days. Listing agent said had three offers she needed to proceed with the short sale and would be doing a multiple counter offer. Multiple counter offer never came. When finally reached, listing agent said sellers had picked the highest of the three original offers. This is the first time I have attempted to purchase a house. Is this way of doing business common?

[Author]

Posts