Housing won’t hit bottom ’til 2012

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=deadzone][quote=sdrealtor]Not coppin out. Just struggling with disclosing a private information to someone I dont know. If I had met deadzone at a meetup or one of the longtime piggs could vouch for him, I’ll be all over it. I’m mulling it over and perhaps we could do it offline once the transaction closes.[/quote]

Regardless I don’ think there is any point to betting on a single property anyway. Cherry picking one particular property doesn’t change the fact that generally speaking prices are much more likely to go down in the next two years than up.

How about this for a bet: I say December 2012 Case Shiller for San Diego will be at least 10% lower than December 2010. Dinner at Donovans.[/quote]

Sorry but I dont disagree. Case Shiller could well be lower. I dont play the averages, I play to beat the averages.[/quote]

Imagine, with all the folks on here who believe RE has bottomed they should be lining up to take this bet. Any takers?? Actually I’m not super confident in the 10% drop in nominal terms due to no end in site to the governments massive QE program de-valuing the dollar.

[UCGal]

sdr –
I did not try to represent it as representative of the broader market. It was one example of high end distress in a home that based on sales price – should not have been in distress. If it can happen with one house, it can happen with more than one. But it does not represent the entire market.

You hold up the fabulous deal that you just got your client and admit it’s not a typical deal. Why do you object if someone brings up a different side of the coin?

There are high end sellers who are over extended. Just as there are high end sellers who can hold out for their wishing prices till they die.

Since this thread had touched upon both 92109 homes and high end equity homes not being in distress, it seemed like a valid data point. It’s not every day that you see a forclosure of that $ value.
(btw – that supports your theory that the higher end is holding on better than the lower end.)

[UCGal]

sdr –
I did not try to represent it as representative of the broader market. It was one example of high end distress in a home that based on sales price – should not have been in distress. If it can happen with one house, it can happen with more than one. But it does not represent the entire market.

You hold up the fabulous deal that you just got your client and admit it’s not a typical deal. Why do you object if someone brings up a different side of the coin?

There are high end sellers who are over extended. Just as there are high end sellers who can hold out for their wishing prices till they die.

Since this thread had touched upon both 92109 homes and high end equity homes not being in distress, it seemed like a valid data point. It’s not every day that you see a forclosure of that $ value.
(btw – that supports your theory that the higher end is holding on better than the lower end.)

[UCGal]

sdr –
I did not try to represent it as representative of the broader market. It was one example of high end distress in a home that based on sales price – should not have been in distress. If it can happen with one house, it can happen with more than one. But it does not represent the entire market.

You hold up the fabulous deal that you just got your client and admit it’s not a typical deal. Why do you object if someone brings up a different side of the coin?

There are high end sellers who are over extended. Just as there are high end sellers who can hold out for their wishing prices till they die.

Since this thread had touched upon both 92109 homes and high end equity homes not being in distress, it seemed like a valid data point. It’s not every day that you see a forclosure of that $ value.
(btw – that supports your theory that the higher end is holding on better than the lower end.)

[UCGal]

sdr –
I did not try to represent it as representative of the broader market. It was one example of high end distress in a home that based on sales price – should not have been in distress. If it can happen with one house, it can happen with more than one. But it does not represent the entire market.

You hold up the fabulous deal that you just got your client and admit it’s not a typical deal. Why do you object if someone brings up a different side of the coin?

There are high end sellers who are over extended. Just as there are high end sellers who can hold out for their wishing prices till they die.

Since this thread had touched upon both 92109 homes and high end equity homes not being in distress, it seemed like a valid data point. It’s not every day that you see a forclosure of that $ value.
(btw – that supports your theory that the higher end is holding on better than the lower end.)

[UCGal]

sdr –
I did not try to represent it as representative of the broader market. It was one example of high end distress in a home that based on sales price – should not have been in distress. If it can happen with one house, it can happen with more than one. But it does not represent the entire market.

You hold up the fabulous deal that you just got your client and admit it’s not a typical deal. Why do you object if someone brings up a different side of the coin?

There are high end sellers who are over extended. Just as there are high end sellers who can hold out for their wishing prices till they die.

Since this thread had touched upon both 92109 homes and high end equity homes not being in distress, it seemed like a valid data point. It’s not every day that you see a forclosure of that $ value.
(btw – that supports your theory that the higher end is holding on better than the lower end.)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal] . . . Here’s a 92109 example of what appeared to be a solid equity seller who wasn’t… Bought in 1995 for $760k. Listed in Oct 2009 for $3.85M, lowered the price in Oct 2010 to 3.39M. Foreclosed on yesterday.

Beautiful house (I’d live there.) But the owners appear to have pulled a lot of $$ out of it. (owed more than $2M) Then couldn’t get their wish price after more than a year on the market.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090059233-92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/Forums/RegionsandNeighborhoods/tabid/62/forumid/198/postid/114001/view/topic/Default.aspx

Even high end areas, even homes bought before the bubble, can be at risk.[/quote]

UCGal, I think you mean 92106 here, not 92109 (PB). I just looked at the pics of your property that went back to bene yesterday for the opening bid of $2.519M. It DOES appear that the 15-year owners put some of their ATM’d equity back into the property in the form of improvements. It is shocking to me that they were able to refinance and/or obtain a 2nd TD/HELOC one or more times and borrow a total of $2.25M or thereabouts ($2.36M with late fees/trustees fees). They originally paid $760K so their original loan was likely =<$608K.

It was listed for over a year at $3.4M after at least one price reduction. In order to avoid foreclosure, the sellers should have listed it for $2.6M straight “out of the gate” or just enough to pay their RE broker and share of closing costs and get out. This property’s location is ULTRA PRIME. I believe it may have sold for around that price. The reason it went back to bene on the steps is because the trustee’s sale was “cash only,” and a potential buyer of this trustee’s deed may have been saddled with evicting the defaulting trustor and his/her family, if they were to take title (and/or it could have had property tax and other tax liens that we don’t know about).

This seller in trouble wasted WAY TOO MUCH market time on an airy-fairy price, scaring off potential serious qualified buyers … and didn’t have the luxury of time on their hands to play this game. These seller(s) created all of their own problems, here, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal] . . . Here’s a 92109 example of what appeared to be a solid equity seller who wasn’t… Bought in 1995 for $760k. Listed in Oct 2009 for $3.85M, lowered the price in Oct 2010 to 3.39M. Foreclosed on yesterday.

Beautiful house (I’d live there.) But the owners appear to have pulled a lot of $$ out of it. (owed more than $2M) Then couldn’t get their wish price after more than a year on the market.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090059233-92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/Forums/RegionsandNeighborhoods/tabid/62/forumid/198/postid/114001/view/topic/Default.aspx

Even high end areas, even homes bought before the bubble, can be at risk.[/quote]

UCGal, I think you mean 92106 here, not 92109 (PB). I just looked at the pics of your property that went back to bene yesterday for the opening bid of $2.519M. It DOES appear that the 15-year owners put some of their ATM’d equity back into the property in the form of improvements. It is shocking to me that they were able to refinance and/or obtain a 2nd TD/HELOC one or more times and borrow a total of $2.25M or thereabouts ($2.36M with late fees/trustees fees). They originally paid $760K so their original loan was likely =<$608K.

It was listed for over a year at $3.4M after at least one price reduction. In order to avoid foreclosure, the sellers should have listed it for $2.6M straight “out of the gate” or just enough to pay their RE broker and share of closing costs and get out. This property’s location is ULTRA PRIME. I believe it may have sold for around that price. The reason it went back to bene on the steps is because the trustee’s sale was “cash only,” and a potential buyer of this trustee’s deed may have been saddled with evicting the defaulting trustor and his/her family, if they were to take title (and/or it could have had property tax and other tax liens that we don’t know about).

This seller in trouble wasted WAY TOO MUCH market time on an airy-fairy price, scaring off potential serious qualified buyers … and didn’t have the luxury of time on their hands to play this game. These seller(s) created all of their own problems, here, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal] . . . Here’s a 92109 example of what appeared to be a solid equity seller who wasn’t… Bought in 1995 for $760k. Listed in Oct 2009 for $3.85M, lowered the price in Oct 2010 to 3.39M. Foreclosed on yesterday.

Beautiful house (I’d live there.) But the owners appear to have pulled a lot of $$ out of it. (owed more than $2M) Then couldn’t get their wish price after more than a year on the market.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090059233-92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/Forums/RegionsandNeighborhoods/tabid/62/forumid/198/postid/114001/view/topic/Default.aspx

Even high end areas, even homes bought before the bubble, can be at risk.[/quote]

UCGal, I think you mean 92106 here, not 92109 (PB). I just looked at the pics of your property that went back to bene yesterday for the opening bid of $2.519M. It DOES appear that the 15-year owners put some of their ATM’d equity back into the property in the form of improvements. It is shocking to me that they were able to refinance and/or obtain a 2nd TD/HELOC one or more times and borrow a total of $2.25M or thereabouts ($2.36M with late fees/trustees fees). They originally paid $760K so their original loan was likely =<$608K.

It was listed for over a year at $3.4M after at least one price reduction. In order to avoid foreclosure, the sellers should have listed it for $2.6M straight “out of the gate” or just enough to pay their RE broker and share of closing costs and get out. This property’s location is ULTRA PRIME. I believe it may have sold for around that price. The reason it went back to bene on the steps is because the trustee’s sale was “cash only,” and a potential buyer of this trustee’s deed may have been saddled with evicting the defaulting trustor and his/her family, if they were to take title (and/or it could have had property tax and other tax liens that we don’t know about).

This seller in trouble wasted WAY TOO MUCH market time on an airy-fairy price, scaring off potential serious qualified buyers … and didn’t have the luxury of time on their hands to play this game. These seller(s) created all of their own problems, here, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal] . . . Here’s a 92109 example of what appeared to be a solid equity seller who wasn’t… Bought in 1995 for $760k. Listed in Oct 2009 for $3.85M, lowered the price in Oct 2010 to 3.39M. Foreclosed on yesterday.

Beautiful house (I’d live there.) But the owners appear to have pulled a lot of $$ out of it. (owed more than $2M) Then couldn’t get their wish price after more than a year on the market.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090059233-92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/Forums/RegionsandNeighborhoods/tabid/62/forumid/198/postid/114001/view/topic/Default.aspx

Even high end areas, even homes bought before the bubble, can be at risk.[/quote]

UCGal, I think you mean 92106 here, not 92109 (PB). I just looked at the pics of your property that went back to bene yesterday for the opening bid of $2.519M. It DOES appear that the 15-year owners put some of their ATM’d equity back into the property in the form of improvements. It is shocking to me that they were able to refinance and/or obtain a 2nd TD/HELOC one or more times and borrow a total of $2.25M or thereabouts ($2.36M with late fees/trustees fees). They originally paid $760K so their original loan was likely =<$608K.

It was listed for over a year at $3.4M after at least one price reduction. In order to avoid foreclosure, the sellers should have listed it for $2.6M straight “out of the gate” or just enough to pay their RE broker and share of closing costs and get out. This property’s location is ULTRA PRIME. I believe it may have sold for around that price. The reason it went back to bene on the steps is because the trustee’s sale was “cash only,” and a potential buyer of this trustee’s deed may have been saddled with evicting the defaulting trustor and his/her family, if they were to take title (and/or it could have had property tax and other tax liens that we don’t know about).

This seller in trouble wasted WAY TOO MUCH market time on an airy-fairy price, scaring off potential serious qualified buyers … and didn’t have the luxury of time on their hands to play this game. These seller(s) created all of their own problems, here, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal] . . . Here’s a 92109 example of what appeared to be a solid equity seller who wasn’t… Bought in 1995 for $760k. Listed in Oct 2009 for $3.85M, lowered the price in Oct 2010 to 3.39M. Foreclosed on yesterday.

Beautiful house (I’d live there.) But the owners appear to have pulled a lot of $$ out of it. (owed more than $2M) Then couldn’t get their wish price after more than a year on the market.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090059233-92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/Forums/RegionsandNeighborhoods/tabid/62/forumid/198/postid/114001/view/topic/Default.aspx

Even high end areas, even homes bought before the bubble, can be at risk.[/quote]

UCGal, I think you mean 92106 here, not 92109 (PB). I just looked at the pics of your property that went back to bene yesterday for the opening bid of $2.519M. It DOES appear that the 15-year owners put some of their ATM’d equity back into the property in the form of improvements. It is shocking to me that they were able to refinance and/or obtain a 2nd TD/HELOC one or more times and borrow a total of $2.25M or thereabouts ($2.36M with late fees/trustees fees). They originally paid $760K so their original loan was likely =<$608K.

It was listed for over a year at $3.4M after at least one price reduction. In order to avoid foreclosure, the sellers should have listed it for $2.6M straight “out of the gate” or just enough to pay their RE broker and share of closing costs and get out. This property’s location is ULTRA PRIME. I believe it may have sold for around that price. The reason it went back to bene on the steps is because the trustee’s sale was “cash only,” and a potential buyer of this trustee’s deed may have been saddled with evicting the defaulting trustor and his/her family, if they were to take title (and/or it could have had property tax and other tax liens that we don’t know about).

This seller in trouble wasted WAY TOO MUCH market time on an airy-fairy price, scaring off potential serious qualified buyers … and didn’t have the luxury of time on their hands to play this game. These seller(s) created all of their own problems, here, IMO.

[sd_matt]

Ok I skipped to the end here. Isn’t the new wild card here when the other countries start to lose faith in American debt?

[sd_matt]

Ok I skipped to the end here. Isn’t the new wild card here when the other countries start to lose faith in American debt?

[sd_matt]

Ok I skipped to the end here. Isn’t the new wild card here when the other countries start to lose faith in American debt?

[sd_matt]

Ok I skipped to the end here. Isn’t the new wild card here when the other countries start to lose faith in American debt?

[Author]

Posts