short sale in encinitas ranch – good value?

[Eugene]

…

In California, interest-only loans accounted for 61% of the mortgages taken out to buy homes in the first two months of this year [2005], up from 47% in 2004 and less than 2% in 2002, according to LoanPerformance, a unit of First American Corp. Option ARMs, which can result in negative amortization, accounted for nearly one-third of jumbo mortgages — currently loans above $359,650 — in the fourth quarter of 2004, up from roughly 6% in the first quarter of that year.

[Eugene]

…

In California, interest-only loans accounted for 61% of the mortgages taken out to buy homes in the first two months of this year [2005], up from 47% in 2004 and less than 2% in 2002, according to LoanPerformance, a unit of First American Corp. Option ARMs, which can result in negative amortization, accounted for nearly one-third of jumbo mortgages — currently loans above $359,650 — in the fourth quarter of 2004, up from roughly 6% in the first quarter of that year.

[Eugene]

…

In California, interest-only loans accounted for 61% of the mortgages taken out to buy homes in the first two months of this year [2005], up from 47% in 2004 and less than 2% in 2002, according to LoanPerformance, a unit of First American Corp. Option ARMs, which can result in negative amortization, accounted for nearly one-third of jumbo mortgages — currently loans above $359,650 — in the fourth quarter of 2004, up from roughly 6% in the first quarter of that year.

[Eugene]

…

In California, interest-only loans accounted for 61% of the mortgages taken out to buy homes in the first two months of this year [2005], up from 47% in 2004 and less than 2% in 2002, according to LoanPerformance, a unit of First American Corp. Option ARMs, which can result in negative amortization, accounted for nearly one-third of jumbo mortgages — currently loans above $359,650 — in the fourth quarter of 2004, up from roughly 6% in the first quarter of that year.

[SD Realtor]

esmith you have a peculiar way of addressing directed points. I thought I was pretty clear.

If you do not want to address my points in a more direct manner then so be it.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

esmith you have a peculiar way of addressing directed points. I thought I was pretty clear.

If you do not want to address my points in a more direct manner then so be it.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

esmith you have a peculiar way of addressing directed points. I thought I was pretty clear.

If you do not want to address my points in a more direct manner then so be it.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

esmith you have a peculiar way of addressing directed points. I thought I was pretty clear.

If you do not want to address my points in a more direct manner then so be it.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

esmith you have a peculiar way of addressing directed points. I thought I was pretty clear.

If you do not want to address my points in a more direct manner then so be it.

SD Realtor

[Eugene]

I agree with most of your points with possible exception of the last one. Yes, today’s renters with six- or seven-digit sums in liquid investments are better positioned to take advantage of rock-bottom prices of 2009+ than today’s homeowners. Yes, houses are less affordable today than they were in 2003 (duh!) That’s precisely why prices are going to fall. At least to 2003 affordability level if not lower. (Probably lower if 2003 affordability level means zero down and 45% debt-to-income, and 2010 homebuyer needs a 20% down payment and 30% debt-to-income). I don’t think that wealthy people can buy off enough houses in Encinitas to keep them unaffordable to poorer people indefinitely.

[Eugene]

I agree with most of your points with possible exception of the last one. Yes, today’s renters with six- or seven-digit sums in liquid investments are better positioned to take advantage of rock-bottom prices of 2009+ than today’s homeowners. Yes, houses are less affordable today than they were in 2003 (duh!) That’s precisely why prices are going to fall. At least to 2003 affordability level if not lower. (Probably lower if 2003 affordability level means zero down and 45% debt-to-income, and 2010 homebuyer needs a 20% down payment and 30% debt-to-income). I don’t think that wealthy people can buy off enough houses in Encinitas to keep them unaffordable to poorer people indefinitely.

[Eugene]

I agree with most of your points with possible exception of the last one. Yes, today’s renters with six- or seven-digit sums in liquid investments are better positioned to take advantage of rock-bottom prices of 2009+ than today’s homeowners. Yes, houses are less affordable today than they were in 2003 (duh!) That’s precisely why prices are going to fall. At least to 2003 affordability level if not lower. (Probably lower if 2003 affordability level means zero down and 45% debt-to-income, and 2010 homebuyer needs a 20% down payment and 30% debt-to-income). I don’t think that wealthy people can buy off enough houses in Encinitas to keep them unaffordable to poorer people indefinitely.

[Eugene]

I agree with most of your points with possible exception of the last one. Yes, today’s renters with six- or seven-digit sums in liquid investments are better positioned to take advantage of rock-bottom prices of 2009+ than today’s homeowners. Yes, houses are less affordable today than they were in 2003 (duh!) That’s precisely why prices are going to fall. At least to 2003 affordability level if not lower. (Probably lower if 2003 affordability level means zero down and 45% debt-to-income, and 2010 homebuyer needs a 20% down payment and 30% debt-to-income). I don’t think that wealthy people can buy off enough houses in Encinitas to keep them unaffordable to poorer people indefinitely.

[Eugene]

I agree with most of your points with possible exception of the last one. Yes, today’s renters with six- or seven-digit sums in liquid investments are better positioned to take advantage of rock-bottom prices of 2009+ than today’s homeowners. Yes, houses are less affordable today than they were in 2003 (duh!) That’s precisely why prices are going to fall. At least to 2003 affordability level if not lower. (Probably lower if 2003 affordability level means zero down and 45% debt-to-income, and 2010 homebuyer needs a 20% down payment and 30% debt-to-income). I don’t think that wealthy people can buy off enough houses in Encinitas to keep them unaffordable to poorer people indefinitely.

[SD Realtor]

“I don’t think that wealthy people can buy off enough houses in Encinitas to keep them unaffordable to poorer people indefinitely.”

Yeah you are right there. They will not take all of them.

“Yes, houses are less affordable today than they were in 2003 (duh!)”

I blew this one. What I was trying to imply here was that the number of people who could afford the 2003 home in Encinitas in 2003, will be less for a correlating situation in say 2010. Mostly due to tighter lending standards and possibly due to higher interest rates that I assume will produce a vastly different lending environment.

So that last point was not to compare affordability of now verses then but percentage of the population that could afford a corresponding pricing in the future… (hard to illustrate the point but I think you know what I mean)

I can be selfish and say for people who may not be wealthy but who have been stockpiling cash, (like myself and others on this board) we should be okay as long as we exercise patience as you are preaching.

Anyways I’ll let it go. As Ex-sd says peace.

SD Realtor

[Author]

Posts