What are your thoughts? Housing going UP or DOWN?

[sdrealtor]

Softness for the rest of the year and then price strength next year. Its the way it traditionally goes.

As an aside I have just seen two examples of something I used to write about a couple years ago here that would help the higher end markets. I’m taking about the upcoming wealth transfer and here are the two examples.

I have a really nice townhouse listing in Laguna right now. It is an awesome property by far the nicest location, lot (has a yard) and upgrades far and above others in complex. Its much nicer than any comps and we needed a strong cash buyer who would recognize that. Just got an offer, the buyer is about 60 years old and has lived in a working class neighborhood in Long Beach his whole life. Owns his house nearly free and clear. His 83 yr old mother just passed away and he inherited $1.2M as well as her free and clear house worth about $700K. I saw the death certificate, brokerage statements and will so I know this is all accurate. He offered all cash (about $800K). He’s selling her house and keeping his as rental which will generate about $2K net income. He could have gone alot bigger but he’s getting a great place and will retire comfortably now.

Second example, spoke to friend whose neighbor (late 40’s) is moving. Sold their house just under $1M and netted a couple hundred K on the sale. They got rid of the $700K mortgage and are buying a $1.8M house all cash. They just sold a beach house up in LA that was left to them when father died last year as well as a couple $M more.

Not saying this is going to save the market but I just saw this twice this week. The wealth transfer from our paretns generation to the baby boomers is very real and it is coming as we speak.

[UCGal]

My non-educated, not in the trenches, gut feeling is that it will be flat to trending down. Unless the house has great finishes AND great location AND something else extra like an oversized lot and cul-de-sac location.

I see anecdotal evidence of higher prices on nice houses in good locations. But if the house has any problem with location or fit/finish then it’s trending down.

I follow my neighborhood (south University City) pretty closely. Those houses that have issues are either staying on the market or dropping in price before selling. Those houses that are on quiet streets, back to a canyon, fixed up nice, seem to get a premium.

Here are examples of recent sales.
A house that fetched a premium, IMO… I’ve been inside this house, it’s nice.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100026173-5844_Dirac_St_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s on a nice, quiet, dead end street, canyon and Mt. Soledad view, nice pool. Lot is 10k sf (typical is 5k in this neighborhood)

Here’s a similarly sized house that sold for more than $100k less, same schools, also a dead end street. Also a large lot… but it was beat inside (had been a rental).
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100020116-4311_Robbins_St_San_Diego_CA_92122

And another house, similar size that sold for less than the premium one…
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100010498-4695_Pauling_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s got nice enough finishes (not high end, but nice, clean, etc). Lot is 5k., street is a feeder street for the sub-neighborhood.

Based on seeing things like this – I see some houses going up in value if they have the perfect combination of location, finishes, etc. If the finishes are off, or if the location is less wonderful, the price seems to be declining.

Here’s an example of a house chasing the market down.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030678-4327_Benhurst_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s nice – but the lot size is standard (5k), it backs to the main street, and it’s way overpriced. It’s been listed under 5 different MLS#’s in the past 18 months… chasing the market down. It’s not premium enough to fetch the premium price. Even with $150k off the original list price, it’s not selling.

[UCGal]

My non-educated, not in the trenches, gut feeling is that it will be flat to trending down. Unless the house has great finishes AND great location AND something else extra like an oversized lot and cul-de-sac location.

I see anecdotal evidence of higher prices on nice houses in good locations. But if the house has any problem with location or fit/finish then it’s trending down.

I follow my neighborhood (south University City) pretty closely. Those houses that have issues are either staying on the market or dropping in price before selling. Those houses that are on quiet streets, back to a canyon, fixed up nice, seem to get a premium.

Here are examples of recent sales.
A house that fetched a premium, IMO… I’ve been inside this house, it’s nice.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100026173-5844_Dirac_St_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s on a nice, quiet, dead end street, canyon and Mt. Soledad view, nice pool. Lot is 10k sf (typical is 5k in this neighborhood)

Here’s a similarly sized house that sold for more than $100k less, same schools, also a dead end street. Also a large lot… but it was beat inside (had been a rental).
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100020116-4311_Robbins_St_San_Diego_CA_92122

And another house, similar size that sold for less than the premium one…
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100010498-4695_Pauling_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s got nice enough finishes (not high end, but nice, clean, etc). Lot is 5k., street is a feeder street for the sub-neighborhood.

Based on seeing things like this – I see some houses going up in value if they have the perfect combination of location, finishes, etc. If the finishes are off, or if the location is less wonderful, the price seems to be declining.

Here’s an example of a house chasing the market down.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030678-4327_Benhurst_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s nice – but the lot size is standard (5k), it backs to the main street, and it’s way overpriced. It’s been listed under 5 different MLS#’s in the past 18 months… chasing the market down. It’s not premium enough to fetch the premium price. Even with $150k off the original list price, it’s not selling.

[UCGal]

My non-educated, not in the trenches, gut feeling is that it will be flat to trending down. Unless the house has great finishes AND great location AND something else extra like an oversized lot and cul-de-sac location.

I see anecdotal evidence of higher prices on nice houses in good locations. But if the house has any problem with location or fit/finish then it’s trending down.

I follow my neighborhood (south University City) pretty closely. Those houses that have issues are either staying on the market or dropping in price before selling. Those houses that are on quiet streets, back to a canyon, fixed up nice, seem to get a premium.

Here are examples of recent sales.
A house that fetched a premium, IMO… I’ve been inside this house, it’s nice.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100026173-5844_Dirac_St_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s on a nice, quiet, dead end street, canyon and Mt. Soledad view, nice pool. Lot is 10k sf (typical is 5k in this neighborhood)

Here’s a similarly sized house that sold for more than $100k less, same schools, also a dead end street. Also a large lot… but it was beat inside (had been a rental).
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100020116-4311_Robbins_St_San_Diego_CA_92122

And another house, similar size that sold for less than the premium one…
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100010498-4695_Pauling_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s got nice enough finishes (not high end, but nice, clean, etc). Lot is 5k., street is a feeder street for the sub-neighborhood.

Based on seeing things like this – I see some houses going up in value if they have the perfect combination of location, finishes, etc. If the finishes are off, or if the location is less wonderful, the price seems to be declining.

Here’s an example of a house chasing the market down.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030678-4327_Benhurst_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s nice – but the lot size is standard (5k), it backs to the main street, and it’s way overpriced. It’s been listed under 5 different MLS#’s in the past 18 months… chasing the market down. It’s not premium enough to fetch the premium price. Even with $150k off the original list price, it’s not selling.

[UCGal]

My non-educated, not in the trenches, gut feeling is that it will be flat to trending down. Unless the house has great finishes AND great location AND something else extra like an oversized lot and cul-de-sac location.

I see anecdotal evidence of higher prices on nice houses in good locations. But if the house has any problem with location or fit/finish then it’s trending down.

I follow my neighborhood (south University City) pretty closely. Those houses that have issues are either staying on the market or dropping in price before selling. Those houses that are on quiet streets, back to a canyon, fixed up nice, seem to get a premium.

Here are examples of recent sales.
A house that fetched a premium, IMO… I’ve been inside this house, it’s nice.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100026173-5844_Dirac_St_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s on a nice, quiet, dead end street, canyon and Mt. Soledad view, nice pool. Lot is 10k sf (typical is 5k in this neighborhood)

Here’s a similarly sized house that sold for more than $100k less, same schools, also a dead end street. Also a large lot… but it was beat inside (had been a rental).
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100020116-4311_Robbins_St_San_Diego_CA_92122

And another house, similar size that sold for less than the premium one…
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100010498-4695_Pauling_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s got nice enough finishes (not high end, but nice, clean, etc). Lot is 5k., street is a feeder street for the sub-neighborhood.

Based on seeing things like this – I see some houses going up in value if they have the perfect combination of location, finishes, etc. If the finishes are off, or if the location is less wonderful, the price seems to be declining.

Here’s an example of a house chasing the market down.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030678-4327_Benhurst_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s nice – but the lot size is standard (5k), it backs to the main street, and it’s way overpriced. It’s been listed under 5 different MLS#’s in the past 18 months… chasing the market down. It’s not premium enough to fetch the premium price. Even with $150k off the original list price, it’s not selling.

[UCGal]

My non-educated, not in the trenches, gut feeling is that it will be flat to trending down. Unless the house has great finishes AND great location AND something else extra like an oversized lot and cul-de-sac location.

I see anecdotal evidence of higher prices on nice houses in good locations. But if the house has any problem with location or fit/finish then it’s trending down.

I follow my neighborhood (south University City) pretty closely. Those houses that have issues are either staying on the market or dropping in price before selling. Those houses that are on quiet streets, back to a canyon, fixed up nice, seem to get a premium.

Here are examples of recent sales.
A house that fetched a premium, IMO… I’ve been inside this house, it’s nice.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100026173-5844_Dirac_St_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s on a nice, quiet, dead end street, canyon and Mt. Soledad view, nice pool. Lot is 10k sf (typical is 5k in this neighborhood)

Here’s a similarly sized house that sold for more than $100k less, same schools, also a dead end street. Also a large lot… but it was beat inside (had been a rental).
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100020116-4311_Robbins_St_San_Diego_CA_92122

And another house, similar size that sold for less than the premium one…
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100010498-4695_Pauling_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s got nice enough finishes (not high end, but nice, clean, etc). Lot is 5k., street is a feeder street for the sub-neighborhood.

Based on seeing things like this – I see some houses going up in value if they have the perfect combination of location, finishes, etc. If the finishes are off, or if the location is less wonderful, the price seems to be declining.

Here’s an example of a house chasing the market down.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030678-4327_Benhurst_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92122
It’s nice – but the lot size is standard (5k), it backs to the main street, and it’s way overpriced. It’s been listed under 5 different MLS#’s in the past 18 months… chasing the market down. It’s not premium enough to fetch the premium price. Even with $150k off the original list price, it’s not selling.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]Not saying this is going to save the market but I just saw this twice this week. The wealth transfer from our paretns generation to the baby boomers is very real and it is coming as we speak.[/quote]

I don’t disagree that this happens… heck I’ve experienced it (to a much smaller degree!!!) when my dad passed away 2.5 years ago. But I think it’s not as common in the scale (size of inheritance) that you mention. I think more typical would be a few hundred thousand – maybe enough to pay off or pay down a small mortgage, but not enough to blow on a big house with big upkeep.

And it’s a trend that will be going away… I’ve read so many articles about the boomers underfunding their retirement and living beyond their means. Granted, the boomer generation didn’t start till 1946 – so the oldest are only 64. I’ve seen this myself with older coworkers and family who didn’t get serious about retirement till their late 40’s, and or spent retirement savings on their childrens college fund. Their kids may have good educations, but now the parents have mortgages into retirement years and can’t retire.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]Not saying this is going to save the market but I just saw this twice this week. The wealth transfer from our paretns generation to the baby boomers is very real and it is coming as we speak.[/quote]

I don’t disagree that this happens… heck I’ve experienced it (to a much smaller degree!!!) when my dad passed away 2.5 years ago. But I think it’s not as common in the scale (size of inheritance) that you mention. I think more typical would be a few hundred thousand – maybe enough to pay off or pay down a small mortgage, but not enough to blow on a big house with big upkeep.

And it’s a trend that will be going away… I’ve read so many articles about the boomers underfunding their retirement and living beyond their means. Granted, the boomer generation didn’t start till 1946 – so the oldest are only 64. I’ve seen this myself with older coworkers and family who didn’t get serious about retirement till their late 40’s, and or spent retirement savings on their childrens college fund. Their kids may have good educations, but now the parents have mortgages into retirement years and can’t retire.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]Not saying this is going to save the market but I just saw this twice this week. The wealth transfer from our paretns generation to the baby boomers is very real and it is coming as we speak.[/quote]

I don’t disagree that this happens… heck I’ve experienced it (to a much smaller degree!!!) when my dad passed away 2.5 years ago. But I think it’s not as common in the scale (size of inheritance) that you mention. I think more typical would be a few hundred thousand – maybe enough to pay off or pay down a small mortgage, but not enough to blow on a big house with big upkeep.

And it’s a trend that will be going away… I’ve read so many articles about the boomers underfunding their retirement and living beyond their means. Granted, the boomer generation didn’t start till 1946 – so the oldest are only 64. I’ve seen this myself with older coworkers and family who didn’t get serious about retirement till their late 40’s, and or spent retirement savings on their childrens college fund. Their kids may have good educations, but now the parents have mortgages into retirement years and can’t retire.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]Not saying this is going to save the market but I just saw this twice this week. The wealth transfer from our paretns generation to the baby boomers is very real and it is coming as we speak.[/quote]

I don’t disagree that this happens… heck I’ve experienced it (to a much smaller degree!!!) when my dad passed away 2.5 years ago. But I think it’s not as common in the scale (size of inheritance) that you mention. I think more typical would be a few hundred thousand – maybe enough to pay off or pay down a small mortgage, but not enough to blow on a big house with big upkeep.

And it’s a trend that will be going away… I’ve read so many articles about the boomers underfunding their retirement and living beyond their means. Granted, the boomer generation didn’t start till 1946 – so the oldest are only 64. I’ve seen this myself with older coworkers and family who didn’t get serious about retirement till their late 40’s, and or spent retirement savings on their childrens college fund. Their kids may have good educations, but now the parents have mortgages into retirement years and can’t retire.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]Not saying this is going to save the market but I just saw this twice this week. The wealth transfer from our paretns generation to the baby boomers is very real and it is coming as we speak.[/quote]

I don’t disagree that this happens… heck I’ve experienced it (to a much smaller degree!!!) when my dad passed away 2.5 years ago. But I think it’s not as common in the scale (size of inheritance) that you mention. I think more typical would be a few hundred thousand – maybe enough to pay off or pay down a small mortgage, but not enough to blow on a big house with big upkeep.

And it’s a trend that will be going away… I’ve read so many articles about the boomers underfunding their retirement and living beyond their means. Granted, the boomer generation didn’t start till 1946 – so the oldest are only 64. I’ve seen this myself with older coworkers and family who didn’t get serious about retirement till their late 40’s, and or spent retirement savings on their childrens college fund. Their kids may have good educations, but now the parents have mortgages into retirement years and can’t retire.

[sdrealtor]

A few responses. Its not coming from the boomer but rather the boomers parents. Its a trend that will continue for 20 years or more. Around here those arent big numbers. An old house in CM owned free and clear in a nice location is already 400 to 500K. I know my mother who is turning 80 next week has never owned a stock in her life. Its all CD’s and Bonds for her and always has been. These assets are very liquid and while the returns havent been good lately the principal is intact.

One example was a big house but they got rid of a 700K mortgage which has got to be at least $4K per month. That will pay for alot more than monthly maintennace on a big property. The other was a late boomer who bought conservatively (under $800K) what he could have afforded without the inheritance. The inheritance gave him the ability to pay cash and to retire in a few years.

Lastly $1M is not alot these days for elderly parents to have accumulated particularly if they owned a home in SoCal. Many are much bigger than $1M. The biggest issue is how many siblings there are. Both of these were only children. The pot gets smaller when its split 3 or 4 ways.

[sdrealtor]

A few responses. Its not coming from the boomer but rather the boomers parents. Its a trend that will continue for 20 years or more. Around here those arent big numbers. An old house in CM owned free and clear in a nice location is already 400 to 500K. I know my mother who is turning 80 next week has never owned a stock in her life. Its all CD’s and Bonds for her and always has been. These assets are very liquid and while the returns havent been good lately the principal is intact.

One example was a big house but they got rid of a 700K mortgage which has got to be at least $4K per month. That will pay for alot more than monthly maintennace on a big property. The other was a late boomer who bought conservatively (under $800K) what he could have afforded without the inheritance. The inheritance gave him the ability to pay cash and to retire in a few years.

Lastly $1M is not alot these days for elderly parents to have accumulated particularly if they owned a home in SoCal. Many are much bigger than $1M. The biggest issue is how many siblings there are. Both of these were only children. The pot gets smaller when its split 3 or 4 ways.

[sdrealtor]

A few responses. Its not coming from the boomer but rather the boomers parents. Its a trend that will continue for 20 years or more. Around here those arent big numbers. An old house in CM owned free and clear in a nice location is already 400 to 500K. I know my mother who is turning 80 next week has never owned a stock in her life. Its all CD’s and Bonds for her and always has been. These assets are very liquid and while the returns havent been good lately the principal is intact.

One example was a big house but they got rid of a 700K mortgage which has got to be at least $4K per month. That will pay for alot more than monthly maintennace on a big property. The other was a late boomer who bought conservatively (under $800K) what he could have afforded without the inheritance. The inheritance gave him the ability to pay cash and to retire in a few years.

Lastly $1M is not alot these days for elderly parents to have accumulated particularly if they owned a home in SoCal. Many are much bigger than $1M. The biggest issue is how many siblings there are. Both of these were only children. The pot gets smaller when its split 3 or 4 ways.

[sdrealtor]

A few responses. Its not coming from the boomer but rather the boomers parents. Its a trend that will continue for 20 years or more. Around here those arent big numbers. An old house in CM owned free and clear in a nice location is already 400 to 500K. I know my mother who is turning 80 next week has never owned a stock in her life. Its all CD’s and Bonds for her and always has been. These assets are very liquid and while the returns havent been good lately the principal is intact.

One example was a big house but they got rid of a 700K mortgage which has got to be at least $4K per month. That will pay for alot more than monthly maintennace on a big property. The other was a late boomer who bought conservatively (under $800K) what he could have afforded without the inheritance. The inheritance gave him the ability to pay cash and to retire in a few years.

Lastly $1M is not alot these days for elderly parents to have accumulated particularly if they owned a home in SoCal. Many are much bigger than $1M. The biggest issue is how many siblings there are. Both of these were only children. The pot gets smaller when its split 3 or 4 ways.

[Author]

Posts