What are your thoughts? Housing going UP or DOWN?

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]BG
That sounds about right for the typical Chula Vista elderly couple. Not everyone lives in CV or coastal county. The examples are all over the board. With that said very few of the greatest genration inerited anything at all. Most were immigrants or 1st generation americans. Now inheritances are far more common for boomers than they were for parents of boomers.[/quote]

Very true, but you also have to consider the fact that Boomers tend to have MUCH more debt than the “Greatest Generation,” so instead of adding to their own wealth, they might just be going from negative $300K net worth to zero. That’s certainly better than nothing, but not necessarily enough to make them buy up all kinds of high-end houses.

BTW, even in your example where they have a $1MM estate tax, the kids are SELLING property, not buying it…or, they might sell some and buy some other properties, having a neutral effect on supply/demand/prices.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]BG
Again I never claimed it would save the mid to upper housing market. It is all additive and no one can deny that it will have an impact. How much we dont know. I said they “only children” and admitted not everyone is an only child. I also said that my examples are skewed to the upper mid/high end as that is where and who I meet socially. I also said that people whose parent live in lower priced ZIP are likely to buy lower priced homes. I dont get what points you are contesting as I already pointed out all the possibilities yopu mentioned.

My biggest issue is the most bearish pick apart each example as not being capable of solving our problems but dont make an allowance for all of the examples being additive on a collective. Every little but helps and there are lots of little bits coming from different directions. We dotn need one thing to solve the ills of our economic downturns we need lots of things coming together. I try to point out each brick in the wall as I come upon them.[/quote]

sdr,

Inheritance is certainly one possible way for people to obtain enough money to prop up housing prices…however, I’d guess that a lot of that “Greatest Generation” money is tied up in housing. In order for the kids to get to the money, they have to sell a house, and if they’re going to be getting ~$1MM+, chances are the houses they sell will be in “desirable” neighborhoods. Essentially, while they might be willing to buy an expensive house with their new-found cash, they will most likely have to sell another one in order to do it, which means that it’s really not a net gain in demand.[/quote]

From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]BG
Again I never claimed it would save the mid to upper housing market. It is all additive and no one can deny that it will have an impact. How much we dont know. I said they “only children” and admitted not everyone is an only child. I also said that my examples are skewed to the upper mid/high end as that is where and who I meet socially. I also said that people whose parent live in lower priced ZIP are likely to buy lower priced homes. I dont get what points you are contesting as I already pointed out all the possibilities yopu mentioned.

My biggest issue is the most bearish pick apart each example as not being capable of solving our problems but dont make an allowance for all of the examples being additive on a collective. Every little but helps and there are lots of little bits coming from different directions. We dotn need one thing to solve the ills of our economic downturns we need lots of things coming together. I try to point out each brick in the wall as I come upon them.[/quote]

sdr,

Inheritance is certainly one possible way for people to obtain enough money to prop up housing prices…however, I’d guess that a lot of that “Greatest Generation” money is tied up in housing. In order for the kids to get to the money, they have to sell a house, and if they’re going to be getting ~$1MM+, chances are the houses they sell will be in “desirable” neighborhoods. Essentially, while they might be willing to buy an expensive house with their new-found cash, they will most likely have to sell another one in order to do it, which means that it’s really not a net gain in demand.[/quote]

From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]BG
Again I never claimed it would save the mid to upper housing market. It is all additive and no one can deny that it will have an impact. How much we dont know. I said they “only children” and admitted not everyone is an only child. I also said that my examples are skewed to the upper mid/high end as that is where and who I meet socially. I also said that people whose parent live in lower priced ZIP are likely to buy lower priced homes. I dont get what points you are contesting as I already pointed out all the possibilities yopu mentioned.

My biggest issue is the most bearish pick apart each example as not being capable of solving our problems but dont make an allowance for all of the examples being additive on a collective. Every little but helps and there are lots of little bits coming from different directions. We dotn need one thing to solve the ills of our economic downturns we need lots of things coming together. I try to point out each brick in the wall as I come upon them.[/quote]

sdr,

Inheritance is certainly one possible way for people to obtain enough money to prop up housing prices…however, I’d guess that a lot of that “Greatest Generation” money is tied up in housing. In order for the kids to get to the money, they have to sell a house, and if they’re going to be getting ~$1MM+, chances are the houses they sell will be in “desirable” neighborhoods. Essentially, while they might be willing to buy an expensive house with their new-found cash, they will most likely have to sell another one in order to do it, which means that it’s really not a net gain in demand.[/quote]

From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]BG
Again I never claimed it would save the mid to upper housing market. It is all additive and no one can deny that it will have an impact. How much we dont know. I said they “only children” and admitted not everyone is an only child. I also said that my examples are skewed to the upper mid/high end as that is where and who I meet socially. I also said that people whose parent live in lower priced ZIP are likely to buy lower priced homes. I dont get what points you are contesting as I already pointed out all the possibilities yopu mentioned.

My biggest issue is the most bearish pick apart each example as not being capable of solving our problems but dont make an allowance for all of the examples being additive on a collective. Every little but helps and there are lots of little bits coming from different directions. We dotn need one thing to solve the ills of our economic downturns we need lots of things coming together. I try to point out each brick in the wall as I come upon them.[/quote]

sdr,

Inheritance is certainly one possible way for people to obtain enough money to prop up housing prices…however, I’d guess that a lot of that “Greatest Generation” money is tied up in housing. In order for the kids to get to the money, they have to sell a house, and if they’re going to be getting ~$1MM+, chances are the houses they sell will be in “desirable” neighborhoods. Essentially, while they might be willing to buy an expensive house with their new-found cash, they will most likely have to sell another one in order to do it, which means that it’s really not a net gain in demand.[/quote]

From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]BG
Again I never claimed it would save the mid to upper housing market. It is all additive and no one can deny that it will have an impact. How much we dont know. I said they “only children” and admitted not everyone is an only child. I also said that my examples are skewed to the upper mid/high end as that is where and who I meet socially. I also said that people whose parent live in lower priced ZIP are likely to buy lower priced homes. I dont get what points you are contesting as I already pointed out all the possibilities yopu mentioned.

My biggest issue is the most bearish pick apart each example as not being capable of solving our problems but dont make an allowance for all of the examples being additive on a collective. Every little but helps and there are lots of little bits coming from different directions. We dotn need one thing to solve the ills of our economic downturns we need lots of things coming together. I try to point out each brick in the wall as I come upon them.[/quote]

sdr,

Inheritance is certainly one possible way for people to obtain enough money to prop up housing prices…however, I’d guess that a lot of that “Greatest Generation” money is tied up in housing. In order for the kids to get to the money, they have to sell a house, and if they’re going to be getting ~$1MM+, chances are the houses they sell will be in “desirable” neighborhoods. Essentially, while they might be willing to buy an expensive house with their new-found cash, they will most likely have to sell another one in order to do it, which means that it’s really not a net gain in demand.[/quote]

From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes, flu, I believe the vast majority of “greatest generation” homeowners in CA paid off their houses many, many years ago and did not borrow on the property again. Up until about 1964, 20-year fully-amortized fixed loans were still common. I don’t believe 30-year loans came into being until the late fifties. The average Prop. 13 property taxes on my block for original owners (or their heirs) who still own the property today is only $760 per yr.

[quote=CA Renter]Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.[/quote]

If I was an heir of a CA homeowner whose taxes were protected by Prop. 13 (both my parents resided out of state when they died], I would find a way to buy out my siblings from a stepped up appraisal for the date of death and take the property. The condition or location would be unimportant to me. It can always be repaired/remodeled. If I didn’t want to live in that ‘hood anymore, I would rent it. An heir WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY in their lifetime to obtain that tax treatment. Getting an estate deed or quit claim from a relative is the ONLY way to pass this coveted benefit down.

I agree that a baby boomer selling their current property to buy another one to retire in INCREASES RE TRANSACTIONS for the practitioners but there is no net effect on inventory. Quoting the First Tuesday article, page 2 (posted above),

“first tuesday forecasts a solid return of buyers to the housing market by 2015 , probably peaking in 2018, as the next and larger generation (Generation Y) of homebuyers looks to purchase their first residence. This influx of new homebuyers coincides perfectly with the beginning of the retirement boom, which will release thousands of boomer SFRs onto the market.

It remains to be seen, however, whether these old suburban SFRs will be of interest to young homebuyers. Signs indicate that demand, among the young as well as the old, will be for commuter-friendly property closer to the jobs and culture in urban centers. It will be the job of builders to create these urban residences, and the duty of brokers and agents to bring them to the public.” (emphasis added)

I agree that the “under 40” generation (maybe even a little older than that) typically does NOT want mom and dad’s 50’s to 70’s rambling ranch or large two story on a large lot. They’re not wired for CAT-5 and the under 40 crowd, in particular, cannot envision what the place would look like with a minor or slightly major facelift and xeriscape (to save water). It seems they would rather live further out of town in a “planned community” and pay MR and HOA. This is sad to me because most of these large suburban houses in CA to be dumped by downsizing baby boomers and even depresssion-era owners (born abt. 1930-1945) in the coming years are situated on large lots in some of the BEST and FINEST locations in the state which can never be duplicated :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes, flu, I believe the vast majority of “greatest generation” homeowners in CA paid off their houses many, many years ago and did not borrow on the property again. Up until about 1964, 20-year fully-amortized fixed loans were still common. I don’t believe 30-year loans came into being until the late fifties. The average Prop. 13 property taxes on my block for original owners (or their heirs) who still own the property today is only $760 per yr.

[quote=CA Renter]Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.[/quote]

If I was an heir of a CA homeowner whose taxes were protected by Prop. 13 (both my parents resided out of state when they died], I would find a way to buy out my siblings from a stepped up appraisal for the date of death and take the property. The condition or location would be unimportant to me. It can always be repaired/remodeled. If I didn’t want to live in that ‘hood anymore, I would rent it. An heir WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY in their lifetime to obtain that tax treatment. Getting an estate deed or quit claim from a relative is the ONLY way to pass this coveted benefit down.

I agree that a baby boomer selling their current property to buy another one to retire in INCREASES RE TRANSACTIONS for the practitioners but there is no net effect on inventory. Quoting the First Tuesday article, page 2 (posted above),

“first tuesday forecasts a solid return of buyers to the housing market by 2015 , probably peaking in 2018, as the next and larger generation (Generation Y) of homebuyers looks to purchase their first residence. This influx of new homebuyers coincides perfectly with the beginning of the retirement boom, which will release thousands of boomer SFRs onto the market.

It remains to be seen, however, whether these old suburban SFRs will be of interest to young homebuyers. Signs indicate that demand, among the young as well as the old, will be for commuter-friendly property closer to the jobs and culture in urban centers. It will be the job of builders to create these urban residences, and the duty of brokers and agents to bring them to the public.” (emphasis added)

I agree that the “under 40” generation (maybe even a little older than that) typically does NOT want mom and dad’s 50’s to 70’s rambling ranch or large two story on a large lot. They’re not wired for CAT-5 and the under 40 crowd, in particular, cannot envision what the place would look like with a minor or slightly major facelift and xeriscape (to save water). It seems they would rather live further out of town in a “planned community” and pay MR and HOA. This is sad to me because most of these large suburban houses in CA to be dumped by downsizing baby boomers and even depresssion-era owners (born abt. 1930-1945) in the coming years are situated on large lots in some of the BEST and FINEST locations in the state which can never be duplicated :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes, flu, I believe the vast majority of “greatest generation” homeowners in CA paid off their houses many, many years ago and did not borrow on the property again. Up until about 1964, 20-year fully-amortized fixed loans were still common. I don’t believe 30-year loans came into being until the late fifties. The average Prop. 13 property taxes on my block for original owners (or their heirs) who still own the property today is only $760 per yr.

[quote=CA Renter]Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.[/quote]

If I was an heir of a CA homeowner whose taxes were protected by Prop. 13 (both my parents resided out of state when they died], I would find a way to buy out my siblings from a stepped up appraisal for the date of death and take the property. The condition or location would be unimportant to me. It can always be repaired/remodeled. If I didn’t want to live in that ‘hood anymore, I would rent it. An heir WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY in their lifetime to obtain that tax treatment. Getting an estate deed or quit claim from a relative is the ONLY way to pass this coveted benefit down.

I agree that a baby boomer selling their current property to buy another one to retire in INCREASES RE TRANSACTIONS for the practitioners but there is no net effect on inventory. Quoting the First Tuesday article, page 2 (posted above),

“first tuesday forecasts a solid return of buyers to the housing market by 2015 , probably peaking in 2018, as the next and larger generation (Generation Y) of homebuyers looks to purchase their first residence. This influx of new homebuyers coincides perfectly with the beginning of the retirement boom, which will release thousands of boomer SFRs onto the market.

It remains to be seen, however, whether these old suburban SFRs will be of interest to young homebuyers. Signs indicate that demand, among the young as well as the old, will be for commuter-friendly property closer to the jobs and culture in urban centers. It will be the job of builders to create these urban residences, and the duty of brokers and agents to bring them to the public.” (emphasis added)

I agree that the “under 40” generation (maybe even a little older than that) typically does NOT want mom and dad’s 50’s to 70’s rambling ranch or large two story on a large lot. They’re not wired for CAT-5 and the under 40 crowd, in particular, cannot envision what the place would look like with a minor or slightly major facelift and xeriscape (to save water). It seems they would rather live further out of town in a “planned community” and pay MR and HOA. This is sad to me because most of these large suburban houses in CA to be dumped by downsizing baby boomers and even depresssion-era owners (born abt. 1930-1945) in the coming years are situated on large lots in some of the BEST and FINEST locations in the state which can never be duplicated :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes, flu, I believe the vast majority of “greatest generation” homeowners in CA paid off their houses many, many years ago and did not borrow on the property again. Up until about 1964, 20-year fully-amortized fixed loans were still common. I don’t believe 30-year loans came into being until the late fifties. The average Prop. 13 property taxes on my block for original owners (or their heirs) who still own the property today is only $760 per yr.

[quote=CA Renter]Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.[/quote]

If I was an heir of a CA homeowner whose taxes were protected by Prop. 13 (both my parents resided out of state when they died], I would find a way to buy out my siblings from a stepped up appraisal for the date of death and take the property. The condition or location would be unimportant to me. It can always be repaired/remodeled. If I didn’t want to live in that ‘hood anymore, I would rent it. An heir WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY in their lifetime to obtain that tax treatment. Getting an estate deed or quit claim from a relative is the ONLY way to pass this coveted benefit down.

I agree that a baby boomer selling their current property to buy another one to retire in INCREASES RE TRANSACTIONS for the practitioners but there is no net effect on inventory. Quoting the First Tuesday article, page 2 (posted above),

“first tuesday forecasts a solid return of buyers to the housing market by 2015 , probably peaking in 2018, as the next and larger generation (Generation Y) of homebuyers looks to purchase their first residence. This influx of new homebuyers coincides perfectly with the beginning of the retirement boom, which will release thousands of boomer SFRs onto the market.

It remains to be seen, however, whether these old suburban SFRs will be of interest to young homebuyers. Signs indicate that demand, among the young as well as the old, will be for commuter-friendly property closer to the jobs and culture in urban centers. It will be the job of builders to create these urban residences, and the duty of brokers and agents to bring them to the public.” (emphasis added)

I agree that the “under 40” generation (maybe even a little older than that) typically does NOT want mom and dad’s 50’s to 70’s rambling ranch or large two story on a large lot. They’re not wired for CAT-5 and the under 40 crowd, in particular, cannot envision what the place would look like with a minor or slightly major facelift and xeriscape (to save water). It seems they would rather live further out of town in a “planned community” and pay MR and HOA. This is sad to me because most of these large suburban houses in CA to be dumped by downsizing baby boomers and even depresssion-era owners (born abt. 1930-1945) in the coming years are situated on large lots in some of the BEST and FINEST locations in the state which can never be duplicated :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]From what I know, the folks from the greatest generation (If you’re talking pre-baby-boomer) already have their homes paid off, and with $1000/year property tax.[/quote]

Yes, flu, I believe the vast majority of “greatest generation” homeowners in CA paid off their houses many, many years ago and did not borrow on the property again. Up until about 1964, 20-year fully-amortized fixed loans were still common. I don’t believe 30-year loans came into being until the late fifties. The average Prop. 13 property taxes on my block for original owners (or their heirs) who still own the property today is only $760 per yr.

[quote=CA Renter]Yes. I’m referring to their heirs of the Greatest Generation who would either move into their (paid off) parents house (realeasing their current home onto the market as a sale or rental), or they would have to sell the home in order to settle the estate, or sell it in order to buy another one more to their liking.[/quote]

If I was an heir of a CA homeowner whose taxes were protected by Prop. 13 (both my parents resided out of state when they died], I would find a way to buy out my siblings from a stepped up appraisal for the date of death and take the property. The condition or location would be unimportant to me. It can always be repaired/remodeled. If I didn’t want to live in that ‘hood anymore, I would rent it. An heir WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY in their lifetime to obtain that tax treatment. Getting an estate deed or quit claim from a relative is the ONLY way to pass this coveted benefit down.

I agree that a baby boomer selling their current property to buy another one to retire in INCREASES RE TRANSACTIONS for the practitioners but there is no net effect on inventory. Quoting the First Tuesday article, page 2 (posted above),

“first tuesday forecasts a solid return of buyers to the housing market by 2015 , probably peaking in 2018, as the next and larger generation (Generation Y) of homebuyers looks to purchase their first residence. This influx of new homebuyers coincides perfectly with the beginning of the retirement boom, which will release thousands of boomer SFRs onto the market.

It remains to be seen, however, whether these old suburban SFRs will be of interest to young homebuyers. Signs indicate that demand, among the young as well as the old, will be for commuter-friendly property closer to the jobs and culture in urban centers. It will be the job of builders to create these urban residences, and the duty of brokers and agents to bring them to the public.” (emphasis added)

I agree that the “under 40” generation (maybe even a little older than that) typically does NOT want mom and dad’s 50’s to 70’s rambling ranch or large two story on a large lot. They’re not wired for CAT-5 and the under 40 crowd, in particular, cannot envision what the place would look like with a minor or slightly major facelift and xeriscape (to save water). It seems they would rather live further out of town in a “planned community” and pay MR and HOA. This is sad to me because most of these large suburban houses in CA to be dumped by downsizing baby boomers and even depresssion-era owners (born abt. 1930-1945) in the coming years are situated on large lots in some of the BEST and FINEST locations in the state which can never be duplicated :={

[capeman]

I’m in escrow on my first home right now so I can say with high confidence that housing is going down…

[capeman]

I’m in escrow on my first home right now so I can say with high confidence that housing is going down…

[capeman]

I’m in escrow on my first home right now so I can say with high confidence that housing is going down…

[capeman]

I’m in escrow on my first home right now so I can say with high confidence that housing is going down…

[Author]

Posts