My Idea of Bottom

[waiting hawk]

People always wonder when a bottom is going to come in. It is not as hard as much think as the past will guide us into the future on a few items. After reading the S&L 90 page pdf bail out and a few other observations I would like to tell you when I will be buying as a few things will have to play out first.

1. People keep wondering why banks don’t just drop the price and sell the foreclosures. THEY CANT. Banks do not have the capital to take these loses onto their books as they would become totally insolvent. The government will ultimately step in and physically take these foreclosures off their sheets for them at the expense of the taxpayers. It is the only option I can foresee coming in the future. This is not new as they did the same in the 90’s with fewer amounts of foreclosed homes.

2. With the economy tanking and contracting further, the government via HUD will expand their revitalization areas to allow teachers, fire depts., and police officers the ability to buy the added HUD homes for 50% off. They currently have this program but it will ultimately be expanded. Additional HUD programs to get Americans to gain “The American Dream” will also expand with grants and loans that will need lower down payments

3. Watch foreclosures over a 6 month time frame. Home values do not have a prayer of rising in price if foreclosures continue to mount

4. From the last bubble if you bought in 1997vs 1995 you not only could’ve seen the bottom you would have not paid very much in price as values do not double within a year like most idiots believe 😉

5. Lastly a bottom gets worked in when everyone stops talking about it. At the top of the tech bubble the Nasdaq was over 5048.62. At 4000 we hit a bottom, then at 3000 we hit a bottom, then nobody paid attention or talked about it and it settled below half the original peak at 1,114.11 on Oct. 9, 2002. The Nasdaq had lost 78 percent of its value. The Nasdaq hung around 2000 for years after while nobody dared discussed buying into it. Same as after the 90’s housing bubble or the tech bubble, you would have lost more buying into the down than buying into the slow rise.

Just a little something for you all to ponder over 😉 Take it easy guys.

[patientlywaiting]

I agree with you waiting hawk. I would not buy anything at least until the recession has been declared AND we see some bank failures.

Small banks are hurting right now with construction loan defaults. They will go bankrupt by the dozens.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree.

values do not double within a year like most idiots believe

you would have lost more buying into the down than buying into the slow rise.

I keep trying to explain this to people. That they’re not going to “miss the bottom”. A few percent here or there for not perfectly timing a bottom is not a big deal; but catching a falling knife is.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree.

values do not double within a year like most idiots believe

you would have lost more buying into the down than buying into the slow rise.

I keep trying to explain this to people. That they’re not going to “miss the bottom”. A few percent here or there for not perfectly timing a bottom is not a big deal; but catching a falling knife is.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree.

values do not double within a year like most idiots believe

you would have lost more buying into the down than buying into the slow rise.

I keep trying to explain this to people. That they’re not going to “miss the bottom”. A few percent here or there for not perfectly timing a bottom is not a big deal; but catching a falling knife is.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree.

values do not double within a year like most idiots believe

you would have lost more buying into the down than buying into the slow rise.

I keep trying to explain this to people. That they’re not going to “miss the bottom”. A few percent here or there for not perfectly timing a bottom is not a big deal; but catching a falling knife is.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree.

values do not double within a year like most idiots believe

you would have lost more buying into the down than buying into the slow rise.

I keep trying to explain this to people. That they’re not going to “miss the bottom”. A few percent here or there for not perfectly timing a bottom is not a big deal; but catching a falling knife is.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

My idea of an ideal Bottom is J.Lo’s or Beyonce’s behind.

As for housing, I would tend to agree with Waiting Hawk here. It has to appear to get worse and some players must capitulate (bank failures). Also, buying within a few years after the bottom does probably will not matter that much.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

My idea of an ideal Bottom is J.Lo’s or Beyonce’s behind.

As for housing, I would tend to agree with Waiting Hawk here. It has to appear to get worse and some players must capitulate (bank failures). Also, buying within a few years after the bottom does probably will not matter that much.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

My idea of an ideal Bottom is J.Lo’s or Beyonce’s behind.

As for housing, I would tend to agree with Waiting Hawk here. It has to appear to get worse and some players must capitulate (bank failures). Also, buying within a few years after the bottom does probably will not matter that much.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

My idea of an ideal Bottom is J.Lo’s or Beyonce’s behind.

As for housing, I would tend to agree with Waiting Hawk here. It has to appear to get worse and some players must capitulate (bank failures). Also, buying within a few years after the bottom does probably will not matter that much.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

My idea of an ideal Bottom is J.Lo’s or Beyonce’s behind.

As for housing, I would tend to agree with Waiting Hawk here. It has to appear to get worse and some players must capitulate (bank failures). Also, buying within a few years after the bottom does probably will not matter that much.

[patientlywaiting]

I agree with you waiting hawk. I would not buy anything at least until the recession has been declared AND we see some bank failures.

Small banks are hurting right now with construction loan defaults. They will go bankrupt by the dozens.

[patientlywaiting]

I agree with you waiting hawk. I would not buy anything at least until the recession has been declared AND we see some bank failures.

Small banks are hurting right now with construction loan defaults. They will go bankrupt by the dozens.

[patientlywaiting]

I agree with you waiting hawk. I would not buy anything at least until the recession has been declared AND we see some bank failures.

Small banks are hurting right now with construction loan defaults. They will go bankrupt by the dozens.

[patientlywaiting]

I agree with you waiting hawk. I would not buy anything at least until the recession has been declared AND we see some bank failures.

Small banks are hurting right now with construction loan defaults. They will go bankrupt by the dozens.

[robson]

Good summary. Regarding #1, it will be very interesting to see what factors ultimately “force” the gov to do this. Needless to say, if it is presumed that this must happen at some point, then the conditions that would warrant this (national economy, home prices, stock market levels) would be a bit worse than they are today.

Regarding #3, are you simply tracking NODs as a signal of future foreclosures, or employing some other method? At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?

[robson]

Good summary. Regarding #1, it will be very interesting to see what factors ultimately “force” the gov to do this. Needless to say, if it is presumed that this must happen at some point, then the conditions that would warrant this (national economy, home prices, stock market levels) would be a bit worse than they are today.

Regarding #3, are you simply tracking NODs as a signal of future foreclosures, or employing some other method? At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?

[robson]

Good summary. Regarding #1, it will be very interesting to see what factors ultimately “force” the gov to do this. Needless to say, if it is presumed that this must happen at some point, then the conditions that would warrant this (national economy, home prices, stock market levels) would be a bit worse than they are today.

Regarding #3, are you simply tracking NODs as a signal of future foreclosures, or employing some other method? At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?

[robson]

Good summary. Regarding #1, it will be very interesting to see what factors ultimately “force” the gov to do this. Needless to say, if it is presumed that this must happen at some point, then the conditions that would warrant this (national economy, home prices, stock market levels) would be a bit worse than they are today.

Regarding #3, are you simply tracking NODs as a signal of future foreclosures, or employing some other method? At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?

[robson]

Good summary. Regarding #1, it will be very interesting to see what factors ultimately “force” the gov to do this. Needless to say, if it is presumed that this must happen at some point, then the conditions that would warrant this (national economy, home prices, stock market levels) would be a bit worse than they are today.

Regarding #3, are you simply tracking NODs as a signal of future foreclosures, or employing some other method? At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?

[cr]

Re: #1 – By taking them off their books the government would have to pay book value for them or the banks would probably be better off selling them. Of course the answer to that is print more money, but then what? The government will sell them all at a loss? Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA? That will only increase inflation and force more downward pressure on prices.

Maybe they will hoard them until the next bubble.

[robson]

But hoarding would mean millions of vacant homes across the country which would be vandalized over the years and by the time the next bubble hit they wouldn’t even be livable. I don’t understand why banks don’t just sack up and start renting to people in the traditional way. At this point a “rent unit” at a bank would be much more valuable than a “mortgage unit.” Seriously though, is there a law against this or why has it not happened?

[waiting hawk]

“At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?”

Very easy question. When they simply stop rising and fall in a 6 month timeline. The existing foreclosures alone would stall any price rises.

“Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA?”

HUD will be taking the houses off banks, they did it in the past and they will in the future. This is a given as Congress is already talking about it.

Read about the last bailout from Fannie:
http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_0101_ely.pdf

[Anonymous]

This housing valuation site has San Diego at fair market value right now whereas LA is about 30% overvalued and Miami is 40% overvalued. Reading the analysis it seems like there may be another 6-10 quarter’s to go before it is undervalued by 15-20% and then starts to creep back up.

https://www.nationalcity.com/main/micro-site/economics/commentary-analysis/pages/housing-valuation-analysis.asp?WT.vanity=HouseValuation

[Ex-SD]

OMH:

IMHO, that housing valuation chart is all wet. San Diego doesn’t have enough of the population who makes enough income to buy all the homes that are presently on the market at the present prices. When a zillion more fall into foreclosure and prices keep driven down, we will see prices that are far lower than that chart predicts.

[Ex-SD]

OMH:

IMHO, that housing valuation chart is all wet. San Diego doesn’t have enough of the population who makes enough income to buy all the homes that are presently on the market at the present prices. When a zillion more fall into foreclosure and prices keep driven down, we will see prices that are far lower than that chart predicts.

[Ex-SD]

OMH:

IMHO, that housing valuation chart is all wet. San Diego doesn’t have enough of the population who makes enough income to buy all the homes that are presently on the market at the present prices. When a zillion more fall into foreclosure and prices keep driven down, we will see prices that are far lower than that chart predicts.

[Ex-SD]

OMH:

IMHO, that housing valuation chart is all wet. San Diego doesn’t have enough of the population who makes enough income to buy all the homes that are presently on the market at the present prices. When a zillion more fall into foreclosure and prices keep driven down, we will see prices that are far lower than that chart predicts.

[Ex-SD]

OMH:

IMHO, that housing valuation chart is all wet. San Diego doesn’t have enough of the population who makes enough income to buy all the homes that are presently on the market at the present prices. When a zillion more fall into foreclosure and prices keep driven down, we will see prices that are far lower than that chart predicts.

[patientlywaiting]

OMH, I wouldn’t surprised to see National City on the list of failed banks before this is over.

[waiting hawk]

I told ya back on March 5th,

“1. People keep wondering why banks don’t just drop the price and sell the foreclosures. THEY CANT. Banks do not have the capital to take these loses onto their books as they would become totally insolvent. The government will ultimately step in and physically take these foreclosures off their sheets for them at the expense of the taxpayers. It is the only option I can foresee coming in the future. This is not new as they did the same in the 90’s with fewer amounts of foreclosed homes.”

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Here’s what I think the ideal bottom should look like :

[img_assist|nid=8575|title=Hopefully this is what the bottom looks like|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=88|height=124]

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Here’s what I think the ideal bottom should look like :

[img_assist|nid=8575|title=Hopefully this is what the bottom looks like|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=88|height=124]

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Here’s what I think the ideal bottom should look like :

[img_assist|nid=8575|title=Hopefully this is what the bottom looks like|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=88|height=124]

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Here’s what I think the ideal bottom should look like :

[img_assist|nid=8575|title=Hopefully this is what the bottom looks like|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=88|height=124]

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Here’s what I think the ideal bottom should look like :

[img_assist|nid=8575|title=Hopefully this is what the bottom looks like|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=88|height=124]

[waiting hawk]

I told ya back on March 5th,

“1. People keep wondering why banks don’t just drop the price and sell the foreclosures. THEY CANT. Banks do not have the capital to take these loses onto their books as they would become totally insolvent. The government will ultimately step in and physically take these foreclosures off their sheets for them at the expense of the taxpayers. It is the only option I can foresee coming in the future. This is not new as they did the same in the 90’s with fewer amounts of foreclosed homes.”

[waiting hawk]

I told ya back on March 5th,

“1. People keep wondering why banks don’t just drop the price and sell the foreclosures. THEY CANT. Banks do not have the capital to take these loses onto their books as they would become totally insolvent. The government will ultimately step in and physically take these foreclosures off their sheets for them at the expense of the taxpayers. It is the only option I can foresee coming in the future. This is not new as they did the same in the 90’s with fewer amounts of foreclosed homes.”

[waiting hawk]

I told ya back on March 5th,

“1. People keep wondering why banks don’t just drop the price and sell the foreclosures. THEY CANT. Banks do not have the capital to take these loses onto their books as they would become totally insolvent. The government will ultimately step in and physically take these foreclosures off their sheets for them at the expense of the taxpayers. It is the only option I can foresee coming in the future. This is not new as they did the same in the 90’s with fewer amounts of foreclosed homes.”

[waiting hawk]

I told ya back on March 5th,

“1. People keep wondering why banks don’t just drop the price and sell the foreclosures. THEY CANT. Banks do not have the capital to take these loses onto their books as they would become totally insolvent. The government will ultimately step in and physically take these foreclosures off their sheets for them at the expense of the taxpayers. It is the only option I can foresee coming in the future. This is not new as they did the same in the 90’s with fewer amounts of foreclosed homes.”

[patientlywaiting]

OMH, I wouldn’t surprised to see National City on the list of failed banks before this is over.

[patientlywaiting]

OMH, I wouldn’t surprised to see National City on the list of failed banks before this is over.

[patientlywaiting]

OMH, I wouldn’t surprised to see National City on the list of failed banks before this is over.

[patientlywaiting]

OMH, I wouldn’t surprised to see National City on the list of failed banks before this is over.

[Anonymous]

This housing valuation site has San Diego at fair market value right now whereas LA is about 30% overvalued and Miami is 40% overvalued. Reading the analysis it seems like there may be another 6-10 quarter’s to go before it is undervalued by 15-20% and then starts to creep back up.

https://www.nationalcity.com/main/micro-site/economics/commentary-analysis/pages/housing-valuation-analysis.asp?WT.vanity=HouseValuation

[Anonymous]

This housing valuation site has San Diego at fair market value right now whereas LA is about 30% overvalued and Miami is 40% overvalued. Reading the analysis it seems like there may be another 6-10 quarter’s to go before it is undervalued by 15-20% and then starts to creep back up.

https://www.nationalcity.com/main/micro-site/economics/commentary-analysis/pages/housing-valuation-analysis.asp?WT.vanity=HouseValuation

[Anonymous]

This housing valuation site has San Diego at fair market value right now whereas LA is about 30% overvalued and Miami is 40% overvalued. Reading the analysis it seems like there may be another 6-10 quarter’s to go before it is undervalued by 15-20% and then starts to creep back up.

https://www.nationalcity.com/main/micro-site/economics/commentary-analysis/pages/housing-valuation-analysis.asp?WT.vanity=HouseValuation

[Anonymous]

This housing valuation site has San Diego at fair market value right now whereas LA is about 30% overvalued and Miami is 40% overvalued. Reading the analysis it seems like there may be another 6-10 quarter’s to go before it is undervalued by 15-20% and then starts to creep back up.

https://www.nationalcity.com/main/micro-site/economics/commentary-analysis/pages/housing-valuation-analysis.asp?WT.vanity=HouseValuation

[waiting hawk]

“At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?”

Very easy question. When they simply stop rising and fall in a 6 month timeline. The existing foreclosures alone would stall any price rises.

“Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA?”

HUD will be taking the houses off banks, they did it in the past and they will in the future. This is a given as Congress is already talking about it.

Read about the last bailout from Fannie:
http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_0101_ely.pdf

[waiting hawk]

“At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?”

Very easy question. When they simply stop rising and fall in a 6 month timeline. The existing foreclosures alone would stall any price rises.

“Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA?”

HUD will be taking the houses off banks, they did it in the past and they will in the future. This is a given as Congress is already talking about it.

Read about the last bailout from Fannie:
http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_0101_ely.pdf

[waiting hawk]

“At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?”

Very easy question. When they simply stop rising and fall in a 6 month timeline. The existing foreclosures alone would stall any price rises.

“Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA?”

HUD will be taking the houses off banks, they did it in the past and they will in the future. This is a given as Congress is already talking about it.

Read about the last bailout from Fannie:
http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_0101_ely.pdf

[waiting hawk]

“At what level of foreclosures would you consider a bottom?”

Very easy question. When they simply stop rising and fall in a 6 month timeline. The existing foreclosures alone would stall any price rises.

“Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA?”

HUD will be taking the houses off banks, they did it in the past and they will in the future. This is a given as Congress is already talking about it.

Read about the last bailout from Fannie:
http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_0101_ely.pdf

[robson]

But hoarding would mean millions of vacant homes across the country which would be vandalized over the years and by the time the next bubble hit they wouldn’t even be livable. I don’t understand why banks don’t just sack up and start renting to people in the traditional way. At this point a “rent unit” at a bank would be much more valuable than a “mortgage unit.” Seriously though, is there a law against this or why has it not happened?

[robson]

But hoarding would mean millions of vacant homes across the country which would be vandalized over the years and by the time the next bubble hit they wouldn’t even be livable. I don’t understand why banks don’t just sack up and start renting to people in the traditional way. At this point a “rent unit” at a bank would be much more valuable than a “mortgage unit.” Seriously though, is there a law against this or why has it not happened?

[robson]

But hoarding would mean millions of vacant homes across the country which would be vandalized over the years and by the time the next bubble hit they wouldn’t even be livable. I don’t understand why banks don’t just sack up and start renting to people in the traditional way. At this point a “rent unit” at a bank would be much more valuable than a “mortgage unit.” Seriously though, is there a law against this or why has it not happened?

[robson]

But hoarding would mean millions of vacant homes across the country which would be vandalized over the years and by the time the next bubble hit they wouldn’t even be livable. I don’t understand why banks don’t just sack up and start renting to people in the traditional way. At this point a “rent unit” at a bank would be much more valuable than a “mortgage unit.” Seriously though, is there a law against this or why has it not happened?

[cr]

Re: #1 – By taking them off their books the government would have to pay book value for them or the banks would probably be better off selling them. Of course the answer to that is print more money, but then what? The government will sell them all at a loss? Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA? That will only increase inflation and force more downward pressure on prices.

Maybe they will hoard them until the next bubble.

[cr]

Re: #1 – By taking them off their books the government would have to pay book value for them or the banks would probably be better off selling them. Of course the answer to that is print more money, but then what? The government will sell them all at a loss? Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA? That will only increase inflation and force more downward pressure on prices.

Maybe they will hoard them until the next bubble.

[cr]

Re: #1 – By taking them off their books the government would have to pay book value for them or the banks would probably be better off selling them. Of course the answer to that is print more money, but then what? The government will sell them all at a loss? Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA? That will only increase inflation and force more downward pressure on prices.

Maybe they will hoard them until the next bubble.

[cr]

Re: #1 – By taking them off their books the government would have to pay book value for them or the banks would probably be better off selling them. Of course the answer to that is print more money, but then what? The government will sell them all at a loss? Through who, FMAE, FMAC, OFHEO, FHA? That will only increase inflation and force more downward pressure on prices.

Maybe they will hoard them until the next bubble.

[DWCAP]

Specifically, our model
has a standard deviation in house price valuations
of +/-15 percent, meaning that any valuation
between 15 percent overvalued and 15 percent
undervalued should be considered statistically
normal.

Basically they are saying that because historical valuations swing so wide, we cant control for it. So a 500k house could be 575k and still be considered fairly valued. It could also be that a house at 425k would meet the same valuation of “fair”. So basically they cant differeniate between 425k and 575k as that falls in their margine of error. That is a rather wide spread don’t ya think?

Plus, just a guess, but they are most likey using the median house price, and we all know the problems with using that as your gage. (if I am wrong please correct, I couldnt find how they identified a price in each area)

[DWCAP]

Specifically, our model
has a standard deviation in house price valuations
of +/-15 percent, meaning that any valuation
between 15 percent overvalued and 15 percent
undervalued should be considered statistically
normal.

Basically they are saying that because historical valuations swing so wide, we cant control for it. So a 500k house could be 575k and still be considered fairly valued. It could also be that a house at 425k would meet the same valuation of “fair”. So basically they cant differeniate between 425k and 575k as that falls in their margine of error. That is a rather wide spread don’t ya think?

Plus, just a guess, but they are most likey using the median house price, and we all know the problems with using that as your gage. (if I am wrong please correct, I couldnt find how they identified a price in each area)

[DWCAP]

Specifically, our model
has a standard deviation in house price valuations
of +/-15 percent, meaning that any valuation
between 15 percent overvalued and 15 percent
undervalued should be considered statistically
normal.

Basically they are saying that because historical valuations swing so wide, we cant control for it. So a 500k house could be 575k and still be considered fairly valued. It could also be that a house at 425k would meet the same valuation of “fair”. So basically they cant differeniate between 425k and 575k as that falls in their margine of error. That is a rather wide spread don’t ya think?

Plus, just a guess, but they are most likey using the median house price, and we all know the problems with using that as your gage. (if I am wrong please correct, I couldnt find how they identified a price in each area)

[DWCAP]

Specifically, our model
has a standard deviation in house price valuations
of +/-15 percent, meaning that any valuation
between 15 percent overvalued and 15 percent
undervalued should be considered statistically
normal.

Basically they are saying that because historical valuations swing so wide, we cant control for it. So a 500k house could be 575k and still be considered fairly valued. It could also be that a house at 425k would meet the same valuation of “fair”. So basically they cant differeniate between 425k and 575k as that falls in their margine of error. That is a rather wide spread don’t ya think?

Plus, just a guess, but they are most likey using the median house price, and we all know the problems with using that as your gage. (if I am wrong please correct, I couldnt find how they identified a price in each area)

[DWCAP]

Specifically, our model
has a standard deviation in house price valuations
of +/-15 percent, meaning that any valuation
between 15 percent overvalued and 15 percent
undervalued should be considered statistically
normal.

Basically they are saying that because historical valuations swing so wide, we cant control for it. So a 500k house could be 575k and still be considered fairly valued. It could also be that a house at 425k would meet the same valuation of “fair”. So basically they cant differeniate between 425k and 575k as that falls in their margine of error. That is a rather wide spread don’t ya think?

Plus, just a guess, but they are most likey using the median house price, and we all know the problems with using that as your gage. (if I am wrong please correct, I couldnt find how they identified a price in each area)

[Author]

Posts