Is it just me?

[ucodegen]

uco post the address of the home and I can tell you what has gone on with it. Also just because it is 30% off from peak doesn’t mean it is priced well.

I don’t think it is priced well.. I think they need to take at least another $50k off. I also can’t give you addr because I live very close.. It could reveal who I am to neighbors. I do know that sales are going in on houses that are priced slightly below comps.. resulting in quick bidding wars which move the price up to equal or above recent comps. Whether these bidding wars result in a properly priced house can be debatable. Bidding wars are driven by emotion and while they result in the seller getting as much money for the property as possible, they don’t result in the best price for the buyer.

Also don’t confuse price or how far down a place is with a hot market. What I mean by a hot market is that there is alot of activity.

This, I disagree with. I consider it an active market but not a hot market. I don’t think that people selling their house and having to take a serious hair cut would consider it hot market either.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

No, socratt, I don’t think it’s just you. I feel like Alice a bit myself these days, wondering what’s real and what’s illusion.

There certainly appears to be some kind of “plot” going on, but I’m hazy as to what its ultimate goal is. One way of viewing it puts together a number of the factors (some rumored) which are in play:

1) Loads of houses being pried out of private, single-person hands via the foreclosure crisis.

2) Indeterminate, large numbers of these foreclosures are not coming onto the market. Is it because of the legislated delays last fall/winter? Or is it because the banks are selling them in blocs to “investors” (rumored)?

3) If these mysterious “investors” don’t have to put much down on these houses, can they rent them out and still have positive cash flow?

4) There was a column by a guy in the Atlantic, I’m sorry I don’t remember his name and the date exactly, but I believe it was this March. He claimed that unemployment was highest in the areas where homeownership was highest, and so it would be better for peoples’ employment prospects and flexibility if they rented! (I wrote and pointed out to him that this is a dead-end street when you are retired on a fixed income and rent keeps going up.)

So is this some kind of tops-down plot to reduce Americans’ homeownership, turning us into a nation of renters who can be charged whatever the market will bear (and then some)?

OK, setting aside the tinfoil, I think another factor in the real estate market being “so hot” in some areas is simply that there is, indeed, loads of pent-up demand out there. Lots of people (like me) desperately want to have a place of their own, instead of renting. However, they can only go for the ones they can afford so the areas that dropped down into the realms of affordability are now hopping. That’s my take.

Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).

[CricketOnTheHearth]

No, socratt, I don’t think it’s just you. I feel like Alice a bit myself these days, wondering what’s real and what’s illusion.

There certainly appears to be some kind of “plot” going on, but I’m hazy as to what its ultimate goal is. One way of viewing it puts together a number of the factors (some rumored) which are in play:

1) Loads of houses being pried out of private, single-person hands via the foreclosure crisis.

2) Indeterminate, large numbers of these foreclosures are not coming onto the market. Is it because of the legislated delays last fall/winter? Or is it because the banks are selling them in blocs to “investors” (rumored)?

3) If these mysterious “investors” don’t have to put much down on these houses, can they rent them out and still have positive cash flow?

4) There was a column by a guy in the Atlantic, I’m sorry I don’t remember his name and the date exactly, but I believe it was this March. He claimed that unemployment was highest in the areas where homeownership was highest, and so it would be better for peoples’ employment prospects and flexibility if they rented! (I wrote and pointed out to him that this is a dead-end street when you are retired on a fixed income and rent keeps going up.)

So is this some kind of tops-down plot to reduce Americans’ homeownership, turning us into a nation of renters who can be charged whatever the market will bear (and then some)?

OK, setting aside the tinfoil, I think another factor in the real estate market being “so hot” in some areas is simply that there is, indeed, loads of pent-up demand out there. Lots of people (like me) desperately want to have a place of their own, instead of renting. However, they can only go for the ones they can afford so the areas that dropped down into the realms of affordability are now hopping. That’s my take.

Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).

[CricketOnTheHearth]

No, socratt, I don’t think it’s just you. I feel like Alice a bit myself these days, wondering what’s real and what’s illusion.

There certainly appears to be some kind of “plot” going on, but I’m hazy as to what its ultimate goal is. One way of viewing it puts together a number of the factors (some rumored) which are in play:

1) Loads of houses being pried out of private, single-person hands via the foreclosure crisis.

2) Indeterminate, large numbers of these foreclosures are not coming onto the market. Is it because of the legislated delays last fall/winter? Or is it because the banks are selling them in blocs to “investors” (rumored)?

3) If these mysterious “investors” don’t have to put much down on these houses, can they rent them out and still have positive cash flow?

4) There was a column by a guy in the Atlantic, I’m sorry I don’t remember his name and the date exactly, but I believe it was this March. He claimed that unemployment was highest in the areas where homeownership was highest, and so it would be better for peoples’ employment prospects and flexibility if they rented! (I wrote and pointed out to him that this is a dead-end street when you are retired on a fixed income and rent keeps going up.)

So is this some kind of tops-down plot to reduce Americans’ homeownership, turning us into a nation of renters who can be charged whatever the market will bear (and then some)?

OK, setting aside the tinfoil, I think another factor in the real estate market being “so hot” in some areas is simply that there is, indeed, loads of pent-up demand out there. Lots of people (like me) desperately want to have a place of their own, instead of renting. However, they can only go for the ones they can afford so the areas that dropped down into the realms of affordability are now hopping. That’s my take.

Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).

[CricketOnTheHearth]

No, socratt, I don’t think it’s just you. I feel like Alice a bit myself these days, wondering what’s real and what’s illusion.

There certainly appears to be some kind of “plot” going on, but I’m hazy as to what its ultimate goal is. One way of viewing it puts together a number of the factors (some rumored) which are in play:

1) Loads of houses being pried out of private, single-person hands via the foreclosure crisis.

2) Indeterminate, large numbers of these foreclosures are not coming onto the market. Is it because of the legislated delays last fall/winter? Or is it because the banks are selling them in blocs to “investors” (rumored)?

3) If these mysterious “investors” don’t have to put much down on these houses, can they rent them out and still have positive cash flow?

4) There was a column by a guy in the Atlantic, I’m sorry I don’t remember his name and the date exactly, but I believe it was this March. He claimed that unemployment was highest in the areas where homeownership was highest, and so it would be better for peoples’ employment prospects and flexibility if they rented! (I wrote and pointed out to him that this is a dead-end street when you are retired on a fixed income and rent keeps going up.)

So is this some kind of tops-down plot to reduce Americans’ homeownership, turning us into a nation of renters who can be charged whatever the market will bear (and then some)?

OK, setting aside the tinfoil, I think another factor in the real estate market being “so hot” in some areas is simply that there is, indeed, loads of pent-up demand out there. Lots of people (like me) desperately want to have a place of their own, instead of renting. However, they can only go for the ones they can afford so the areas that dropped down into the realms of affordability are now hopping. That’s my take.

Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).

[CricketOnTheHearth]

No, socratt, I don’t think it’s just you. I feel like Alice a bit myself these days, wondering what’s real and what’s illusion.

There certainly appears to be some kind of “plot” going on, but I’m hazy as to what its ultimate goal is. One way of viewing it puts together a number of the factors (some rumored) which are in play:

1) Loads of houses being pried out of private, single-person hands via the foreclosure crisis.

2) Indeterminate, large numbers of these foreclosures are not coming onto the market. Is it because of the legislated delays last fall/winter? Or is it because the banks are selling them in blocs to “investors” (rumored)?

3) If these mysterious “investors” don’t have to put much down on these houses, can they rent them out and still have positive cash flow?

4) There was a column by a guy in the Atlantic, I’m sorry I don’t remember his name and the date exactly, but I believe it was this March. He claimed that unemployment was highest in the areas where homeownership was highest, and so it would be better for peoples’ employment prospects and flexibility if they rented! (I wrote and pointed out to him that this is a dead-end street when you are retired on a fixed income and rent keeps going up.)

So is this some kind of tops-down plot to reduce Americans’ homeownership, turning us into a nation of renters who can be charged whatever the market will bear (and then some)?

OK, setting aside the tinfoil, I think another factor in the real estate market being “so hot” in some areas is simply that there is, indeed, loads of pent-up demand out there. Lots of people (like me) desperately want to have a place of their own, instead of renting. However, they can only go for the ones they can afford so the areas that dropped down into the realms of affordability are now hopping. That’s my take.

Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).

[Reality]

[quote=SD Realtor]
As to optimism about the future I am not sure I would assume that. I would simply say that people have found a home they want to buy rather then rent. In fact most all of the buyers (at least those who I have been working with) feel that the economy is going to continue to sputter and unemployment will grow and that the housing market will continue to depreciate. They have the resources to outlast it, and they have made the choice to buy. Trying to figure out why people are buying is close to an exercise in futility.
[/quote]

I think P.T. Barnum was correct when he said something like you won’t go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?

[Reality]

[quote=SD Realtor]
As to optimism about the future I am not sure I would assume that. I would simply say that people have found a home they want to buy rather then rent. In fact most all of the buyers (at least those who I have been working with) feel that the economy is going to continue to sputter and unemployment will grow and that the housing market will continue to depreciate. They have the resources to outlast it, and they have made the choice to buy. Trying to figure out why people are buying is close to an exercise in futility.
[/quote]

I think P.T. Barnum was correct when he said something like you won’t go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?

[Reality]

[quote=SD Realtor]
As to optimism about the future I am not sure I would assume that. I would simply say that people have found a home they want to buy rather then rent. In fact most all of the buyers (at least those who I have been working with) feel that the economy is going to continue to sputter and unemployment will grow and that the housing market will continue to depreciate. They have the resources to outlast it, and they have made the choice to buy. Trying to figure out why people are buying is close to an exercise in futility.
[/quote]

I think P.T. Barnum was correct when he said something like you won’t go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?

[Reality]

[quote=SD Realtor]
As to optimism about the future I am not sure I would assume that. I would simply say that people have found a home they want to buy rather then rent. In fact most all of the buyers (at least those who I have been working with) feel that the economy is going to continue to sputter and unemployment will grow and that the housing market will continue to depreciate. They have the resources to outlast it, and they have made the choice to buy. Trying to figure out why people are buying is close to an exercise in futility.
[/quote]

I think P.T. Barnum was correct when he said something like you won’t go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?

[Reality]

[quote=SD Realtor]
As to optimism about the future I am not sure I would assume that. I would simply say that people have found a home they want to buy rather then rent. In fact most all of the buyers (at least those who I have been working with) feel that the economy is going to continue to sputter and unemployment will grow and that the housing market will continue to depreciate. They have the resources to outlast it, and they have made the choice to buy. Trying to figure out why people are buying is close to an exercise in futility.
[/quote]

I think P.T. Barnum was correct when he said something like you won’t go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?

[jpinpb]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).[/quote]

I vote for you as President!

[quote=JohnAlt91941]With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?
[/quote]

I’m still trying to figure that out as the bulls claim that still 85-90% are employed and taunt me by saying fear is keeping me stuck as a renter.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).[/quote]

I vote for you as President!

[quote=JohnAlt91941]With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?
[/quote]

I’m still trying to figure that out as the bulls claim that still 85-90% are employed and taunt me by saying fear is keeping me stuck as a renter.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).[/quote]

I vote for you as President!

[quote=JohnAlt91941]With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?
[/quote]

I’m still trying to figure that out as the bulls claim that still 85-90% are employed and taunt me by saying fear is keeping me stuck as a renter.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]Or maybe the reason the banks are clinging to the NODs like grim death is simply that if they let them blow up, they blow big holes in the banks’ balance sheets. Depending on the (actual, not Turner-rumored) state of said balance sheets, the banks may not be able to afford much more damage like that.

If this latter theory is correct, then what if the government were to pass some legislation that somehow let the banks have a one-time writedown of these houses, allowing them to mark-to-market and sell them without having to take the losses? I predict two things would happen:

1) Market prices would drop off a cliff and
2) Oodles of houses would suddenly appear. It would be a helicopter-drop of houses (fine by me).[/quote]

I vote for you as President!

[quote=JohnAlt91941]With unemployment in CA at 11% and possibly rising higher, how can it possibly be rational to buy or even worse bid against others?
[/quote]

I’m still trying to figure that out as the bulls claim that still 85-90% are employed and taunt me by saying fear is keeping me stuck as a renter.

[Author]

Posts