Shadow inventory finally being released ?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
The last RE cycle topped in ~1989/1990, so that ratio would make sense for 1990. Prices in some very desirable areas crashed ~40% during the downturn of the early 90s, at they didn’t have this massive credit bubble to contend with.

To be sure, things are MUCH better today than they were in ~2004-2007, but when you consider the very large risks to our economy, I think things are still priced optimistically.[/quote]
You seem to discount the interest rate. The ratio of price to income is similar to 1990, yet in 1990, interest rate was much higher. What do you think that ratio would be if people in 1990 can get <5% 30 year fixed rates?

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.

Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

[quote=CA renter]
Dave,

You’ve often made these snarky comments, assuming that you know what people think they “deserve” out of life. You’ve made this comment to me as well, though you have no idea what we are looking for, nor do you know what our resources are. Sorry, buy you’re out of line on this.

In our case, we are looking for homes in older neighborhoods, homes that are comparable in size and quality to what we grew up in. We don’t drive fancy cars (drive our cars into the ground, and buy the next one for cash), and don’t wear fancy clothing, go on exotic vacations, etc. We are extremely simple people looking for a house near work, for all the reasons Scarlett mentioned above.
[/quote]

“Extremely simple” is subjective and relative to the times in which you live. I have a feeling that folks living in 1960 would not find your lifestyle “extremely simple,” although perhaps by today’s standards it is.

Your exact size requirements for your “extremely simple” house are conspicuously absent. How many square feet are we talking about here (as I don’t know what size house you grew up in)? Inquiring minds and all… I’m betting it’s not 1200 square feet.

[quote=CA renter]
People in my husband’s profession — with the same employer, doing the same job (actually fewer requirements back then) — were able to buy “normal” homes near work on a single income a couple of decades ago. Now, people who work there are not able to buy those *same* homes on two incomes. When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.

There is no need for you to always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults. Can’t you just debate the topic without being snarky and arrogant? I know you’re smart enough to do it, so why fall into the habits of those who can’t hold their own in a debate?[/quote]

I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.

Where your beef with SoCal housing is concerned, I think the *real* problem is that housing in Shiller’s so-called glamour markets (e.g., the attractive parts of SoCal) has increased in real terms at a faster rate than in the other, more mundane markets (e.g., Cleveland and St. Louis) over time. So, while it may have been easier for Average Joe to live in NCC – to use just one example – 30 years ago… now it ain’t. Now, it’s just as easy for Average Joe to live in Cleveland as it has ever been… but we’re talking SoCal, which is where YOU want to live. And, maybe just maybe, you’ll always be priced out of the market based on what you’re *willing* to spend – because it’s simply not enough relative to what others are willing to spend. So, I think the real problem is not that there’s not plenty of affordable housing out there, in general – even relative to the halcyon days of “decades ago” – but rather that you don’t want to live in the places where this affordable housing exists.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]. . . the kind of buyers I described are lifecycle buyers who are hedged in this market with other real estate. Time has already shown that NINJA buyers were realtively uncommon in our area. Lastly, the buyers we are talking about are far more sensitive to what they want than price.[/quote]

This is a good topic to bring up. Being in the “lifecycle-buyer” demographic myself, I can tell you that several of my “peers” are just waiting for the moment they turn 59.5 years old so they can retire their measly $12K, $37K or $59K mortgages. These are just my “peers” that do not already own their homes outright. Several also have rental properties – not “accidental” rentals they themselves had to move out of and couldn’t sell – these are properties they bought one “dog” at a time (cheaply), fixed up and immediately put into rental service for investment purposes. One former co-worker of mine, a retired SD police officer (now about 65), has owned 44 SFR’s (maybe has other ret cop(s) as “equity partners” on 2 or 3 of them) in 92114 (w/a few trickling in 92113 and 91945) for 25-40 years. His longest beat was the Skyline substation. There’s nothing smarter than sticking with the turf that you know inside and out. He DOES have help managing his properties and most are under Section 8 contract. I know another female retired SUHSD teacher (now about 62) who owns at least a dozen SFR’s in older areas of 91913 (non-MR areas). One is her principal residence and she manages the others herself.

I guess what I’m saying here is there IS a lot of money in the baby-boomer demographic, even in common former worker-bees aka “regular people.” You can’t judge a book by its cover. What this demographic wants for their final home is IMPORTANT. For instance, if I don’t get my perfectly flat driveway, no steps to the front door, one-story only property with a rock or brick FP to the ceiling by the time I’m 62, then WHEN will I get another chance to buy it??

My experience with this demographic (and also being there myself) is that no, they won’t overpay but when they see a property that is exactly what they want for their possibly “final” home, they REALIZE it may not come around again for YEARS and they don’t have YEARS to wait. IOW, if you are already intimately familiar with the area you will be purchasing in, there is no need for analysis paralysis. You just make the best deal you possibly can and move forward :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]. . . the kind of buyers I described are lifecycle buyers who are hedged in this market with other real estate. Time has already shown that NINJA buyers were realtively uncommon in our area. Lastly, the buyers we are talking about are far more sensitive to what they want than price.[/quote]

This is a good topic to bring up. Being in the “lifecycle-buyer” demographic myself, I can tell you that several of my “peers” are just waiting for the moment they turn 59.5 years old so they can retire their measly $12K, $37K or $59K mortgages. These are just my “peers” that do not already own their homes outright. Several also have rental properties – not “accidental” rentals they themselves had to move out of and couldn’t sell – these are properties they bought one “dog” at a time (cheaply), fixed up and immediately put into rental service for investment purposes. One former co-worker of mine, a retired SD police officer (now about 65), has owned 44 SFR’s (maybe has other ret cop(s) as “equity partners” on 2 or 3 of them) in 92114 (w/a few trickling in 92113 and 91945) for 25-40 years. His longest beat was the Skyline substation. There’s nothing smarter than sticking with the turf that you know inside and out. He DOES have help managing his properties and most are under Section 8 contract. I know another female retired SUHSD teacher (now about 62) who owns at least a dozen SFR’s in older areas of 91913 (non-MR areas). One is her principal residence and she manages the others herself.

I guess what I’m saying here is there IS a lot of money in the baby-boomer demographic, even in common former worker-bees aka “regular people.” You can’t judge a book by its cover. What this demographic wants for their final home is IMPORTANT. For instance, if I don’t get my perfectly flat driveway, no steps to the front door, one-story only property with a rock or brick FP to the ceiling by the time I’m 62, then WHEN will I get another chance to buy it??

My experience with this demographic (and also being there myself) is that no, they won’t overpay but when they see a property that is exactly what they want for their possibly “final” home, they REALIZE it may not come around again for YEARS and they don’t have YEARS to wait. IOW, if you are already intimately familiar with the area you will be purchasing in, there is no need for analysis paralysis. You just make the best deal you possibly can and move forward :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]. . . the kind of buyers I described are lifecycle buyers who are hedged in this market with other real estate. Time has already shown that NINJA buyers were realtively uncommon in our area. Lastly, the buyers we are talking about are far more sensitive to what they want than price.[/quote]

This is a good topic to bring up. Being in the “lifecycle-buyer” demographic myself, I can tell you that several of my “peers” are just waiting for the moment they turn 59.5 years old so they can retire their measly $12K, $37K or $59K mortgages. These are just my “peers” that do not already own their homes outright. Several also have rental properties – not “accidental” rentals they themselves had to move out of and couldn’t sell – these are properties they bought one “dog” at a time (cheaply), fixed up and immediately put into rental service for investment purposes. One former co-worker of mine, a retired SD police officer (now about 65), has owned 44 SFR’s (maybe has other ret cop(s) as “equity partners” on 2 or 3 of them) in 92114 (w/a few trickling in 92113 and 91945) for 25-40 years. His longest beat was the Skyline substation. There’s nothing smarter than sticking with the turf that you know inside and out. He DOES have help managing his properties and most are under Section 8 contract. I know another female retired SUHSD teacher (now about 62) who owns at least a dozen SFR’s in older areas of 91913 (non-MR areas). One is her principal residence and she manages the others herself.

I guess what I’m saying here is there IS a lot of money in the baby-boomer demographic, even in common former worker-bees aka “regular people.” You can’t judge a book by its cover. What this demographic wants for their final home is IMPORTANT. For instance, if I don’t get my perfectly flat driveway, no steps to the front door, one-story only property with a rock or brick FP to the ceiling by the time I’m 62, then WHEN will I get another chance to buy it??

My experience with this demographic (and also being there myself) is that no, they won’t overpay but when they see a property that is exactly what they want for their possibly “final” home, they REALIZE it may not come around again for YEARS and they don’t have YEARS to wait. IOW, if you are already intimately familiar with the area you will be purchasing in, there is no need for analysis paralysis. You just make the best deal you possibly can and move forward :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]. . . the kind of buyers I described are lifecycle buyers who are hedged in this market with other real estate. Time has already shown that NINJA buyers were realtively uncommon in our area. Lastly, the buyers we are talking about are far more sensitive to what they want than price.[/quote]

This is a good topic to bring up. Being in the “lifecycle-buyer” demographic myself, I can tell you that several of my “peers” are just waiting for the moment they turn 59.5 years old so they can retire their measly $12K, $37K or $59K mortgages. These are just my “peers” that do not already own their homes outright. Several also have rental properties – not “accidental” rentals they themselves had to move out of and couldn’t sell – these are properties they bought one “dog” at a time (cheaply), fixed up and immediately put into rental service for investment purposes. One former co-worker of mine, a retired SD police officer (now about 65), has owned 44 SFR’s (maybe has other ret cop(s) as “equity partners” on 2 or 3 of them) in 92114 (w/a few trickling in 92113 and 91945) for 25-40 years. His longest beat was the Skyline substation. There’s nothing smarter than sticking with the turf that you know inside and out. He DOES have help managing his properties and most are under Section 8 contract. I know another female retired SUHSD teacher (now about 62) who owns at least a dozen SFR’s in older areas of 91913 (non-MR areas). One is her principal residence and she manages the others herself.

I guess what I’m saying here is there IS a lot of money in the baby-boomer demographic, even in common former worker-bees aka “regular people.” You can’t judge a book by its cover. What this demographic wants for their final home is IMPORTANT. For instance, if I don’t get my perfectly flat driveway, no steps to the front door, one-story only property with a rock or brick FP to the ceiling by the time I’m 62, then WHEN will I get another chance to buy it??

My experience with this demographic (and also being there myself) is that no, they won’t overpay but when they see a property that is exactly what they want for their possibly “final” home, they REALIZE it may not come around again for YEARS and they don’t have YEARS to wait. IOW, if you are already intimately familiar with the area you will be purchasing in, there is no need for analysis paralysis. You just make the best deal you possibly can and move forward :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]. . . the kind of buyers I described are lifecycle buyers who are hedged in this market with other real estate. Time has already shown that NINJA buyers were realtively uncommon in our area. Lastly, the buyers we are talking about are far more sensitive to what they want than price.[/quote]

This is a good topic to bring up. Being in the “lifecycle-buyer” demographic myself, I can tell you that several of my “peers” are just waiting for the moment they turn 59.5 years old so they can retire their measly $12K, $37K or $59K mortgages. These are just my “peers” that do not already own their homes outright. Several also have rental properties – not “accidental” rentals they themselves had to move out of and couldn’t sell – these are properties they bought one “dog” at a time (cheaply), fixed up and immediately put into rental service for investment purposes. One former co-worker of mine, a retired SD police officer (now about 65), has owned 44 SFR’s (maybe has other ret cop(s) as “equity partners” on 2 or 3 of them) in 92114 (w/a few trickling in 92113 and 91945) for 25-40 years. His longest beat was the Skyline substation. There’s nothing smarter than sticking with the turf that you know inside and out. He DOES have help managing his properties and most are under Section 8 contract. I know another female retired SUHSD teacher (now about 62) who owns at least a dozen SFR’s in older areas of 91913 (non-MR areas). One is her principal residence and she manages the others herself.

I guess what I’m saying here is there IS a lot of money in the baby-boomer demographic, even in common former worker-bees aka “regular people.” You can’t judge a book by its cover. What this demographic wants for their final home is IMPORTANT. For instance, if I don’t get my perfectly flat driveway, no steps to the front door, one-story only property with a rock or brick FP to the ceiling by the time I’m 62, then WHEN will I get another chance to buy it??

My experience with this demographic (and also being there myself) is that no, they won’t overpay but when they see a property that is exactly what they want for their possibly “final” home, they REALIZE it may not come around again for YEARS and they don’t have YEARS to wait. IOW, if you are already intimately familiar with the area you will be purchasing in, there is no need for analysis paralysis. You just make the best deal you possibly can and move forward :=]

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??
[/quote]

LOL – I’ll take the bite.
I’m a native San Diegan fast approaching age 50. From 1961-65 lived in Clairemont, near Balboa and Genesee. House was a 3 br/2ba about 1200 sf. We moved because it was crowded for a family of 4. No family room… just living room. 5000sf lot – so not a huge lot. In other words – even back then 1200 for a family with 3 kids was crowded.

My parents then bought a REO in UC. 2016 sf. Great house to grow up in – but it was the BOONIES. Back then UTC didn’t exist. 52 didn’t exist. 805 didn’t exist. Even Genesee didn’t connect UC to Clairemont… The only way in and out was on Regents Rd to Clairemont Mesa Blvd. (and then cut over on Moraga to Balboa to get to the 5 freeway.)

I bought the house from my dad. (not inherited – paid market value… a 2000% profit for the 35 years my parents owned it). So I’m living in the exact same model/size/lot/location that my parents chose to raise their kids. And my particular street has several 2nd gen families. 3 others that I know for sure – there may be more… I suspect as the parents age – there will be more in the future. It’s a good neighborhood and the houses are fine.

One of the differences… My parents bought with just one income. And they bought when they were in their mid 30’s. They had to carry two mortgages because it was a down market and they kept the Clairemont house as a rental till the market improved. We needed just over 1 income (refi in 2009 brought our budget to where we live on one income – bank/fund my dreams of early retirement with the other.) My mom went to work when I was entering jr. high… and her income paid for our college.

Another difference: we were older when we bought – and had nice equity from previous homes – so we paid off a huge portion right from the get go. Having savings/equity from previous homes made it affordable.

Not sure we could have swung (at least within our comfort zone) if we didn’t have that large down… We wouldn’t have had that large down at the age my parents bought the house.

So… comparing apples to apples. My parents were able to afford the same house at a younger age on just one income. My dad was an engineer, so am I.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??
[/quote]

LOL – I’ll take the bite.
I’m a native San Diegan fast approaching age 50. From 1961-65 lived in Clairemont, near Balboa and Genesee. House was a 3 br/2ba about 1200 sf. We moved because it was crowded for a family of 4. No family room… just living room. 5000sf lot – so not a huge lot. In other words – even back then 1200 for a family with 3 kids was crowded.

My parents then bought a REO in UC. 2016 sf. Great house to grow up in – but it was the BOONIES. Back then UTC didn’t exist. 52 didn’t exist. 805 didn’t exist. Even Genesee didn’t connect UC to Clairemont… The only way in and out was on Regents Rd to Clairemont Mesa Blvd. (and then cut over on Moraga to Balboa to get to the 5 freeway.)

I bought the house from my dad. (not inherited – paid market value… a 2000% profit for the 35 years my parents owned it). So I’m living in the exact same model/size/lot/location that my parents chose to raise their kids. And my particular street has several 2nd gen families. 3 others that I know for sure – there may be more… I suspect as the parents age – there will be more in the future. It’s a good neighborhood and the houses are fine.

One of the differences… My parents bought with just one income. And they bought when they were in their mid 30’s. They had to carry two mortgages because it was a down market and they kept the Clairemont house as a rental till the market improved. We needed just over 1 income (refi in 2009 brought our budget to where we live on one income – bank/fund my dreams of early retirement with the other.) My mom went to work when I was entering jr. high… and her income paid for our college.

Another difference: we were older when we bought – and had nice equity from previous homes – so we paid off a huge portion right from the get go. Having savings/equity from previous homes made it affordable.

Not sure we could have swung (at least within our comfort zone) if we didn’t have that large down… We wouldn’t have had that large down at the age my parents bought the house.

So… comparing apples to apples. My parents were able to afford the same house at a younger age on just one income. My dad was an engineer, so am I.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??
[/quote]

LOL – I’ll take the bite.
I’m a native San Diegan fast approaching age 50. From 1961-65 lived in Clairemont, near Balboa and Genesee. House was a 3 br/2ba about 1200 sf. We moved because it was crowded for a family of 4. No family room… just living room. 5000sf lot – so not a huge lot. In other words – even back then 1200 for a family with 3 kids was crowded.

My parents then bought a REO in UC. 2016 sf. Great house to grow up in – but it was the BOONIES. Back then UTC didn’t exist. 52 didn’t exist. 805 didn’t exist. Even Genesee didn’t connect UC to Clairemont… The only way in and out was on Regents Rd to Clairemont Mesa Blvd. (and then cut over on Moraga to Balboa to get to the 5 freeway.)

I bought the house from my dad. (not inherited – paid market value… a 2000% profit for the 35 years my parents owned it). So I’m living in the exact same model/size/lot/location that my parents chose to raise their kids. And my particular street has several 2nd gen families. 3 others that I know for sure – there may be more… I suspect as the parents age – there will be more in the future. It’s a good neighborhood and the houses are fine.

One of the differences… My parents bought with just one income. And they bought when they were in their mid 30’s. They had to carry two mortgages because it was a down market and they kept the Clairemont house as a rental till the market improved. We needed just over 1 income (refi in 2009 brought our budget to where we live on one income – bank/fund my dreams of early retirement with the other.) My mom went to work when I was entering jr. high… and her income paid for our college.

Another difference: we were older when we bought – and had nice equity from previous homes – so we paid off a huge portion right from the get go. Having savings/equity from previous homes made it affordable.

Not sure we could have swung (at least within our comfort zone) if we didn’t have that large down… We wouldn’t have had that large down at the age my parents bought the house.

So… comparing apples to apples. My parents were able to afford the same house at a younger age on just one income. My dad was an engineer, so am I.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??
[/quote]

LOL – I’ll take the bite.
I’m a native San Diegan fast approaching age 50. From 1961-65 lived in Clairemont, near Balboa and Genesee. House was a 3 br/2ba about 1200 sf. We moved because it was crowded for a family of 4. No family room… just living room. 5000sf lot – so not a huge lot. In other words – even back then 1200 for a family with 3 kids was crowded.

My parents then bought a REO in UC. 2016 sf. Great house to grow up in – but it was the BOONIES. Back then UTC didn’t exist. 52 didn’t exist. 805 didn’t exist. Even Genesee didn’t connect UC to Clairemont… The only way in and out was on Regents Rd to Clairemont Mesa Blvd. (and then cut over on Moraga to Balboa to get to the 5 freeway.)

I bought the house from my dad. (not inherited – paid market value… a 2000% profit for the 35 years my parents owned it). So I’m living in the exact same model/size/lot/location that my parents chose to raise their kids. And my particular street has several 2nd gen families. 3 others that I know for sure – there may be more… I suspect as the parents age – there will be more in the future. It’s a good neighborhood and the houses are fine.

One of the differences… My parents bought with just one income. And they bought when they were in their mid 30’s. They had to carry two mortgages because it was a down market and they kept the Clairemont house as a rental till the market improved. We needed just over 1 income (refi in 2009 brought our budget to where we live on one income – bank/fund my dreams of early retirement with the other.) My mom went to work when I was entering jr. high… and her income paid for our college.

Another difference: we were older when we bought – and had nice equity from previous homes – so we paid off a huge portion right from the get go. Having savings/equity from previous homes made it affordable.

Not sure we could have swung (at least within our comfort zone) if we didn’t have that large down… We wouldn’t have had that large down at the age my parents bought the house.

So… comparing apples to apples. My parents were able to afford the same house at a younger age on just one income. My dad was an engineer, so am I.

[Author]

Posts