Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM in reply to: Where is the inventory, where is the inventory, where is the inventory… #741316
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=treehugger]As a potential buyer right now it is tough! Prices are good, interest rates are great, yet inventory sucks! I hope once we get out of this feeding frenzy spring season things will balance out.
If it is a regular sale-turnkey property it goes pending within hours of hitting the mls. I saw a house that was fantastic, regular sale folks had owned it for 10+ years beautiful, definitely over all the comps for the neighborhood, went pending with multiple full price offers in days. If it is overpriced and needs some work it sits….we put in an offer a few weeks back on a foreclosure, bank countered at full list price. We walked. Now bank has reduced the price significantly and we are going for it again.
I am continuing to stalk my favorite neighborhoods….really want that phenom deal in Ocean Hills (92056) or 92081….takes patience, which is not a virtue I possess.[/quote]
treehugger, I really think you will be able to land yourself a deal on something you like in O’side or Vista. If you don’t mind my asking, do you (or your spouse) work at Camp Pendleton?
April 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM in reply to: Where is the inventory, where is the inventory, where is the inventory… #741313Participant[quote=desmond]How about some of the experts on this site come up with the reasons there is no inventory. I have heard for years that people would sell when home prices go back up, yet there is no inventory?[/quote]
OK, desmond, I’ll take the bait ;=]
I’ve stated this before here, but I’ll reiterate with a slightly different slant …
I don’t think “people” (longtime owners of prime properties in the best hands) are necessarily looking for 2005-2006 to repeat itself. They are more concerned with putting their well-maintained properties on the market (that they may have many thousands of dollars of “sweat equity” invested in over the years) at 1999 to 2002 prices in order to even get any offers! Most youngish buyers today not only want everything “perfect” but if they have school-age children, the schools in seller’s attendance area must be “top notch” as well. If there are anything this buyer pool perceives as “flaws” in seller’s property even if it isn’t really a “flaw” (such as a T-lock shingle roof in those areas where they are common), they are believed to just want to “lowball” even a circa 2002 asking price!
I think “equity-sellers” would list if they didn’t think it would be a waste of time in that they believe they would only get offers reflecting their property’s value 10-15 years ago. 1999-2002 was long before routine “loose lending” led to the millenium boom and subsequent crash, yet many areas’ recent sales prices seem to have “over-corrected” to this era, mainly due to lazy (and ignorant, obviously out-of-area) lenders have been foregoing so much debt of late to consummate a short sale that they allowed their deadbeat homedebtors to sell at prices well under the current market.
The current sentiment out there among “would-be sellers” is that the vast majority of current buyers (with families) only want a deeply discounted bargain, preferably with as low a PPSF as possible. This seems to be THE most important buying consideration (even if the buyers don’t really need it, won’t be able to use it and can’t afford to furnish it)! They want this so much that they are often VERY flexible on zip code and area, even at the expense of greatly increasing their daily commute! Thus, they end up migrating to areas with heavy distress (where larger homes were built during the millenium boom and originally “creatively financed”) where they can find a multitude of distressed sellers to sell to them at a deep discount (w/their lender(s) permission, of course). However, it’s only a “deep discount” of millenium boom pricing (which was grossly inflated due to loose lending practices) so is not really “discounted” but listed at what it SHOULD have sold for in the first place. The “perception” of a “deep discount” in distressed areas is there among buyers, however.
All along, these buyers could have considered an older property in a GREAT low-or-no-distress location with a motivated seller who would have been willing to sell at 2003 pricing but however well-located and convenient it might be, alas, it is probably too “flawed” for the above reasons.
So the longtime “equity owners” just keep their properties off the market (even rent them out if need be) to await a time where all the “perceived deep discounts” are gone. Until there is again a preponderance of “equity” or “traditional” listings over “distressed” listings (my guess is 80% (equity)/20% distressed or better), these “potential sellers” will not list. They have these choices because they have been “prudent” and played by the rules over the years or own free and clear.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]Heres the thing, the difference between a house with no MR and a comparable with MR would not be $840k vs $800k. Similar sized and upgraded and updated homes in established neighborhoods without MR are often times $100-150k above newer homes in MR communities. This differential of course is because of not just lack of MR, but also because of higher % of distress. In these situations, the MR payoff would be fraction of that price difference. Knowing that one can pay off the MR should open people up to buy in MR communities, not stay away from it. Insistence on steering clear from MR with complete disregard to the premium you would have to pay otherwise simply close you off from potential opportunities.[/quote]
I disagree with the emphasized statement, ocrenter. The properties in established areas tend to have a bigger lot, often a MUCH bigger lot. That land in conjunction with its location is what causes the properties in “established areas” have more value than the ones in newer-developed areas. It has nothing to do with the absence or presence of MR. The MR communities in SD County are situated within developer-formed CFD’s on land left over from the “prime land” which was already built upon. It wasn’t built on prior to a CFD formation and the resultant infusion of bond $$ for infrastruction because it was impractical for a developer to do so, mainly due to lack of roads and utilities at the ready.
I agree that the level of distress on a tract directly correlates to the presence of MR there and the amount of MR each parcel is encumbered with.
edit: another factor that adds value to an “established area” over a newer “MR-encumbered area” is mature landscaping. You can’t buy this with any amount of money so its value depends upon the value a particular buyer places upon it.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I dont agree. It screams there is a price to pay to live in a new house in prime area of SD. Personally my MR goes toward improvements to the San Dieguito schools. I think thats a good investment and I am happy to pay the $800 every year. I donate more than that to other charities every year any way. To me this is a tax deductible (at least for now) contribution I make. Unlike the things I give to charities which make me feel good, I actually get some benefit from this.[/quote]
The emphasized portion of this statement assumes that ALL *new* subdivisions built since 1987 in SD County are situated in “prime areas.” NOTHING could be further from the truth, IMO.
Because a property has a MR encumbrance does NOT mean it is located in a “prime” area or even a “desirable” area. It only means its subdivision was built since 1987 with the use of MR bond $$.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I think you need to re-read what he wrote and check your math. He wrote maybe $10,000 to $20,000 more for paid off MR on a house with $5400 annual MR (payoff = $58,000). And I think thats a fairly big maybe. His opinion is very much in line with mine that paying them off wont get you close to a dollar for dollar return. A 2 to 4X the annual MR payment seems like a reasonable boost in value for paid off MR but I wouldnt expect more. Paying them off could be a wise choice if you stay long term but most likely wouldnt if you wanted to boost resale value only.[/quote]
Overall, I agree with this statement but not even sure one can recover ANY prepaid MR upon sale, due to 99.9% of the recent surrounding sold comps reflecting sale prices taking into account the MR encumbrance.
April 5, 2012 at 3:34 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #741167Participant[quote=UCGal]Markmax –
If you had to guess – how many delegates do you think Paul will end up with?[/quote]I think this number would be hard to guess at present because they have probably infiltrated other campaigns and so are currently disguised as another candidate’s “delegate.” And so are these “delegates” having their own RP-strategy meetings in the broom closet of another candidate’s headquarters?
I think we’ll have to wait a few more months to find out ;=]
ParticipantMy tract’s CC&R’s (yes, from back in the day) do not allow poultry or swine along with some variations of humans (which the Unruh Act thankfully superseded) …
I’m sure the “no poultry or swine” provision still stands, however.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]I guess I had the first kid on credit but I was pretty sure I could afford the next two. But I wa feeling pretty bullish on my future when I had the first.[/quote]
scaredy, you should STILL be bullish on your future. I don’t see your “loyal” repeat-client base going anywhere except possibly to the Big House . . . and then return to avail themselves of your services at a later date :=}
No worries….
Participantdumbrenter, “welfare” (incl “food stamps”) as we know it was not in existence during the Great Depression and WWII. Neither were housing assistance programs as we know them today. “Social Security” did not even come into existence until 1935 and this was only the OASDI program (did not include SSD and SSI). Many families running ranches and farms back then looked upon kids as another hand to help with all the daily chores of existence (older than about 6 years old). Families couldn’t CHOOSE (except by abstinence) on whether to have more children as there was no birth control in existence. Unmarried pregnant women brought “shame” to their families and were sent away to have their child and give it up. Most married women had their children at home and were lucky to find a “qualified” midwife to assist them. Maternal and infant death in childbirth was MUCH higher it is than today.
http://www.researchetcinc.com/articles/article/5887345/100302.htm
There were COUNTLESS American orphans given up for adoption because their parents lost their land or one of them died and the remaining parent could not take care of all the kids and farm the land and/or leave to seek work, too. Some kids were lucky enough to land with relatives who had more stable (paid for) homes but MANY siblings were split up among whomever could afford to put them up or even adopt them, whether or not they lived in a different city or state. If they were sick and/or chronically unemployed, many desperate parents voluntarily left their children in “charity children’s homes” for what they thought was for the good of the child, only to return after obtaining some money and/or a place for their children to live and find they had been “adopted” by a distant familie(s). Too poor to hire legal counsel, they were forced to get on with their lives.
….There is no doubt that the black market flourished in the 1930s and 1940s in Tennessee, New York and elsewhere. A U.S. Senate subcommittee in 1955 heard testimony about rings in Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Wichita.
Those hearings were convened partly in response to the misdeeds of Georgia Tann, the director of a respected children’s home in Memphis, Tenn. Authorities discovered in 1950 that, for more than a decade, hundreds of the homes’ children had been part of adoption-for-profit schemes.
Some newborns were stolen from mothers who were told that their babies had died. Older children were taken from poor families after a corrupt judge terminated parental rights.
Tann died of cancer days before the investigation was completed, but the state later won a civil lawsuit against her estate…
http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~msroots/BMA/BMGEN1.htm
Today, people have CHOICES on whether to have kids or not. Many, it seems, have children whether or not they can “afford” them because they know there will be a government program to assist them if they are unable to support their children. This wasn’t always the case.
The responsible thing to do in this day and age is to have only the children you can afford, IMHO.
Participant[quote=BKlawyer]Great questions/comments. A SCOTUS case recently came down that said BK judges don’t have the Constitutional authority that other Federal judges have so their decisions are not valid or binding. This hiccup will confound Congress, members of which are not sure where to find their copy of the Constitution for reference since they don’t make decisions based on it. So I don’t think Congress will act until citizens are in the streets with pitchforks and torches (this summer??).
I’ve seen a number of RE scams whereby people invest trust deeds for houses which are rehabbed, sec. 8, etc. I know of one where the proponents neglected to file the trust deeds so all the money invested (many millions) was unsecured (ooops!).
Our Cal. Gov. Crusty the Clown recently amended the law to give relief to those who short sale houses to get around the recourse effect of Non-PMSI 2d mortgages. Problem is, he has no control over the IRS, so even if you are the camel who can fit through the eye of the needle, you still may end up with a substantial federal tax liability.
My crystal ball is cloudy other than no good will come from the Govt. any time soon. Everyone proceeds at their own risk and many will end up on my doorstep.[/quote]LOL…
Thanks for sharing your experiences, BKlawyer!
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]CW
There is neither an easy nor reliable way for me to measure this so I dont try because I wouldnt trust the numbers I got. On the otherhand, the old adage that 80% of the sales are done by 20% of the people still holds true. The make up of that 20% has changed and many of the old guard have fallen off. Its too broad to say it doesnt bode well for realtors because it does for some like me. When it was easy any blonde with a Lexus could be a realtor and survive. In this environment they cant and people who are good at dealing with complex situations rise to the occassion. I have never been busier.[/quote]That’s what I figured. REALIST doesn’t break down “distressed” listings over non-distressed listings and it would be difficult and time consuming to do manually, esp since they change in composition every day.
That old (80/20) adage has applied since the dawn of time. Many agents don’t care about their production numbers. They have a full or part-time job doing something else and RE commissions are not and never have been their primary source of income. There are many, many people who are licensed for the primary purpose of handling occasional transactions for themselves, family and friends. Many, many CA attorneys are licensed RE Brokers and only occasionally broker RE transactions. Licensed attorneys and CPA’s in CA don’t have to have four years consecutive RE Salesperson experience to take the broker exam. They can sit for the exam by paying the fee only.
Lots of people are good and dealing with “complex situations” and unraveling thorny problems . . . myself included. In fact, my middle name is “Fineprint.” This doesn’t mean they couldn’t successfully complete a “short sale.” (I completed two during the “gulf war malaise” [’91-’92]) in which in one of the transactions, sellers filed for Chapter 7 in the middle of escrow. Yes, it DID close but it took 153 days and two BK hgs. This was in an era where little was known about SS’s.
To shed some light on why I choose not to work in the RE biz, I am at a point in my life where I don’t feel I need to take a lot of sh!t from people anymore (been there, done that for YEARS). The nature of the beast of this biz is that you often work hard for (often flaky) buyers/sellers for no pay who end up deciding not to purchase or remove their listing after you have spent lots of time and money on them. I need to be paid for what I do …. nothing more/nothing less. To each his own.
I don’t have any respect for people that have bled the “equity” out of their propertie(s) and then “cry wolf” because they can no longer afford to keep them. I have a fundamental problem with lenders not currently adhering to CA nonjudicial foreclosure procedures set up for them to sustain no more than 111 or 141 days of loss. If they all adhered to CA law (like 90% of them did in the past), there would be no need for SS’s because they would sustain far less loss foreclosing and reselling the property.
I lack respect for these “deadbeat wanna-be sellers” because, in the absence of millenium-boom purchasing (where they paid too much for the property with ONE purchase-money TD), their stories are all the same. They took money out of their properties to live on, enhance their lifestyles or for whatever reason and now think they should have a remedy against foreclosure. They should have thought of the ramifications of potential bad credit when they took the money out of the property and/or when they decided to stiff their lender(s).
I don’t buy that it is cheaper for lenders to sell short than foreclose. Those lenders selling short are only doing so after sustaining 9-36 mos of loss whilst the mortgage often resets with deferred interest during the process, making their HUGE losses upon short sale due to their own malaise.
Second and subsequent TD holders have ALWAYS been able to bid at trustee sales and take the first TD note “subject-to” with no qualifying. If they did this early on (in a timely TS scheduled 111 days of default on older loans), they likely would get more than a “few thousand” or 6% of the face value of the remaining balance of their note upon resale. This is because they can (and did) take control of the property after three business days, rent back to the occupant or evict the occupant and fix the property up to sell themselves! This is what they did in the past. This is FAR preferable to getting shafted in a SS. Of course, before MBS, the vast majority of these 2nd TD investors were local.
The non-judicial foreclosure procedure is not being followed in CA and THIS is what led to this slow meltdown/standoff/f-u’d whatever-you-want-to-call-it RE market we have before us today.
And btw, if you were referring to me as one of the “old guard,” I am still licensed but left (P/T) RE sales long before this “millenium boom” debacle set in and have never been a “blonde. ;=]
Signed,
Bearishgurl “Fineprint” Morgan
PS: btw, you can never take away the knowledge of the “old guard.” It is what it is.
Participantpri_dk, thanks for posting this map. I bookmarked it.
I discussed this “dust bowl” migration here before as it applies to San Diego.
These “American refugees” left their barren, windblown hometowns, stripped of all natural resources, in droves for CA, lured by wartime defense jobs advertised in their own local newspapers!
http://piggington.com/why_i_am_leaving_san_diego?page=4
They packed up their families in station wagons and their trailers to the gills and headed west …. CA or BUST!
For instance, the Bay Park flats was an original settlement of defense workers …. almost ALL from Oklahoma! Now deceased, many of their small houses (with knotty-pine kitchen and built-ins, lol) have been passed down to their children and grandchildren.
Read stories of why these many thousands of Americans left the only home they ever knew to migrate west during that era:
They obviously felt they had nothing more to lose….
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker]Do you have the ratio of distressed sales over total sales? DQNews says it is over 50% in SoCal. That doesn’t bode well for realtors as the sales might keep declining for the year because there will be less inventory and eventually there is a standoff.
Even many of the standard sales now are flipper homes with a turn around time within 90 days. So the real statistics is alarming.[/quote]Agree with all of this, carlsbadworker, but I tried in vain to get sdr to answer this for us.
http://piggington.com/weekly_inventory_report
Perhaps the answer is not readily apparent the way the info on REALIST is set up.
If there ends of being a “standoff” between few sellers and many buyers, my take is that the sellers will prevail (IF they are “equity sellers”).
Participant[quote=EconProf]…The trouble with buying used is transaction costs of at least 10%. There is the biggie of sales tax, but also the huge difference between wholesale and retail if you buy at a dealer. Yes, you can take the time and trouble to buy from an owner, but most car owners, like delusional home sellers, are in love with their overpriced car. I don’t have the patience to educate them. Plus, you don’t really know what you are going to get. Just buy new and take good care of it![/quote]
EconProf, I’m not sure what you mean by “transaction costs” but a title transfer fee in CA is $15, the seller is required to smog the vehicle and as a used vehicle buyer, you don’t have to replace the registration sticker until the month it is due. You also must know that a private party doesn’t have to give you a bill of sale reflecting the “exact” price you paid him/her for the vehicle, and, in any case, your sales taxes would be MUCH higher if you bought from a dealer and the dealer would collect them from you. I’ve had good luck throughout my life buying private party vehicles. I’ve always insisted on having the owner’s service records. I didn’t feel they were “in love” with the vehicles they needed to sell. In a few cases, they couldn’t make the payments anymore and wanted to get out of their auto loan they had already paid on for a 2-3 yrs without damaging their credit. I went to their lender with these sellers and paid off ONLY their loan and the lender mailed me the pink slip. The old owners didn’t recover any money at all!
In used vehicle purchases, cash talks. I’m glad to hear that buying new works for you but I will never pay the premium (even if I had unlimited funds). It’s just throwing thousands of dollars down the drain, IMO.
-
AuthorPosts
