Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participanthttp://piggington.com/weekly_inventory_reporttake_2
LOL!
Obviously, the data cannot be culled in such a way as to determine the percentage of “distressed” current listings in SD County …. yes … or no?
This is the $64M question!
Or could it be that the answer to it turns out to be the “elephant in the room” that is being “purposely avoided.”
If so, should we all try to “guess” the reason for that?
How’s about another Pigg ask the same question on the “take2” thread! Feel free to “rephrase it,” lol.
ParticipantGosh …. I’m so sorry to hear your “client” wasn’t able to get an offer in on it. You must have been too late getting over to that “circus,” no?
ParticipantI understand all this. As I already stated twice on this thread, I’m interested in knowing, “What is the percentage of listings that are NOT currently in escrow that are ‘distressed?'”
Given the numbers that were presented the way they were, it is difficult to discern the answer to this question.
“contingent” seems to be a “sugar-coated” way of saying an offer on a SS has been “accepted” by a party who doesn’t have the authority to accept the offer and put the property into escrow (the underwater “trustor”). I’m not saying that’s anybody’s fault here. It could just be the way the data prints out when asked for.
In addition, I’m interested in the percentage of “active” listings that are actually REO’s, if it is possible to ask for and receive that data.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Bearishgurl, those seniors have houses paid for free and clear, so what are they complaining about? They can make believe
the bubble never happened. They’ll be in a better world anyway.The kids who inherit the houses should be thankful.[/quote]
brian, reread my post. No one is “complaining” here. I have a concern that due to the very advanced age of some of my neighbors, that their homes may have to be sold in the next two years (or turned into rentals, which is preferable right now) for a variety of reasons. They are very charming, well-built homes but most are smallish and dated with wall heaters and sash windows. The vast majority of the survivors of the “greatest generation” don’t give a whit about these things.
If their children/heirs do not live in this county and will not return, they will likely just dump these properties on the market “as is” when they or the owners’ estate takes possession because they have nothing to lose except the “Prop 13” tax treatment. All will likely sell for $250K to $285K. This doesn’t bode well for the asking price I want so I would prefer all this happens AFTER I wish to sell and move … not before.
Of course, we can’t control these things, lol …. I’m always free to rent my property and go (instead of sell), as well. The $400-500 mo probable positive cash flow will come in handy as I wait for a “better day.”
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]A contingent property means there is already an offer accepted by the seller.
It is not an active property.[/quote]
What’s the difference between “contingent” and “pending” then? My understanding was that “pendings” also had an offer accepted by the seller and were currently “in escrow.”
In a SS, “contingent” would obviously mean that since the “seller” accepted an offer (lol), it in no way means their lender(s) will accept it, which means the listing could still be “active,” that is, unless the affected lender(s) already approved the price and terms and earnest money has been deposited into escrow.
Therefore, it appears that a good portion of today’s “contingent” listings could still be “active” listings or have a great potential to become immediately “active” again, since no earnest money has been deposited with escrow.
I understand the data sdr has put out but it is misleading because one cannot determine the true percentage of actual “distressed” active listings from it. I’m not attributing any blame here. I’ve never subscribed to RE market data under the REALIST format and perhaps that’s how it’s laid out and sorted.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
Agree, flu, except in this climate they want to “steal” them. If they can’t, they’ll pass.[/quote]
Underwriting is stricter. Good downpayment is necessary. Homeownership by well qualified borrowers is historically high.
Big portions of buyers are investors so why should they not try to “steal” some buys.
I’m trying to steal one at 60% off peak. Hoping the lender will approve the short sale.Don’t be bitter BG. As Realtors would tell you, if you can afford your house, the price drops don’t matter. Just enjoy your home. I know easier said than done.[/quote]
I agree, brian. If I was an investor, I would only want properties I could “steal” as well as tenants can be flaky – even after signing a lease. And the amount of rent a potential buyer THINKS they can collect on a consistent basis may not be what they can get in reality.
I don’t have anything to be “bitter” about. I just checked avail listings within about a 6-block radius around me this morning and only found ONE SS pending and no REO’s.
The problem I have is very old homeowners around me who own “free and clear.” If they should pass on or have move to board and care or their children’s houses, their kids/heirs will just dump their property for whatever they can get (today’s prices) since most are smallish houses that they likely don’t want to modernize and/or occupy themselves.
Since there is no mortgage, these kids/heirs have nothing to lose except the “Prop 13” protection.
I’m just hoping all my senior neighbors keep “hanging in there” for at least two more years :=)
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]…
SD County
Active 7335
Cont 4359
Pending 4795Ratio of Actives to cont/pendings 0.80
NCC
Active 1717
Cont 584
Pending 809Ratio of Actives to cont/pendings 1.23
…[/quote]
If I’m reading this right, “contingents” represent short-sale listings which are NOT in escrow yet.
In other words, there are actually 11,694 (active/”contingent”) listings on the market in SD County, with 2301 of those located in nirvana (NCC).
Out of the 11,694 “active/contingent” listings in the county, 62.7% of them are “traditional sales or REOs” and 37.3% of them are “SS listings.”
Out of the 2301 listings in nirvana, 74.6% of them are “traditional sales or REOs” and 25.4% of them are “SS listings.”
Do I have this info correct?
Is there a way to break out the “traditional sale/REO” percentage of current listings into which is which? In other words, for the county’s 62.7% overall, it could be 45% “traditional sales” and 17.7% “REO’s.”
I want to know what the “real” percentage of current “distressed” listings is.
Participant[quote=flu]Not really, the house is fine. I used up all my money for the year on investment housing. It took 6 hard months of research to find them.
So I hope this settle any of you skeptics out there that still think there aren’t enough strong buyers out there looking for good properties…
BG, you reading?[/quote]
Agree, flu, except in this climate they want to “steal” them. If they can’t, they’ll pass.
The OP “passed” on this smallish blue/white cosmetic-fixer rental-type “SS” listing for $280K in MM (because it was too slow in processing the SS and he bought elsewhere in the interim?). The “seller/lender” immediately reduced the price to $270K when the OP backed out. Another poster stated it may end up going for $240K and it may very well do that.
When a home-debtor is “short-selling,” it’s no skin off their neck to sell “their” property for way below the recent comparable sold comps because it’s “funny money” for which they won’t be liable to pay back. Homedebtors are beginning to list “their” properties “short” en masse now, whether they can afford the payments or not. They can just hide their assets with a third party (or slip them into retirement funds) and then tell their lender they’re “broke” and unemployed (to compel them to “take it in the shorts”).
When these lenders finally get worn down (because they’re too stupid to foreclose in a timely manner) and agree to sell these strategic short-sellers’ properties deeply short …. walaaa! One more (undervalued) sold comp is good for six months in the immediate area and …. drumroll …. that price is now the “new normal.”
REO’s don’t generally sell as deeply discounted as SS’s do as the Big Banks are spending an avg of $5,700 on each SFR to “fix them up” after taking title and before marketing them at retail price (or close to it). I agree with the other posters who stated that SS’s (most of them probably “strategic” by now) are dragging down the values of surrounding property and causing mass “artificial undervaluation.”
As I’ve posted before, this is all due to “lender malaise.”
Potential-buyer Piggs out there seem to be whining about lack of available inventory and the above-described problem is the sole reason.
You can’t have it both ways.
March 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM in reply to: OT-Contest to guess the occupant of beautiful new building in RSF #739649Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Again. The why doesn’t matter. The what is does[/quote]
Ahh, but the “why” DOES matter…..the “why” ALWAYS matters!
How are you going to fix the problem if you don’t understand how you got into it in the first place?
Oh, yeah, that’s right. As a City, look in the mirror and pretend your “red herrings” never existed … and those “in charge” never acted in their own self-interests. File for BK. Or better yet …..
Blame the unions.
That sounds more “palatable” for the time being.
LOL….
March 9, 2012 at 3:48 PM in reply to: OT-Contest to guess the occupant of beautiful new building in RSF #739647Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Is that a very long way of saying “I went broke because I won the lottery?”
Urban sprawl red herring aside, look at Vallejo’s post BK budget
Police reduce from 155 to 92 officers.
Fire reduce from 9 companies to 5. That’s 122 to 85Their budget is 28.6% pension and health benefits for current and existing retires
40% of salaries and benefits are benefits and works comp.
Next years projection calls for the pension piece to increase from $11.7 to $13.7 million
That’s on a $65.4 million budget To keep it balanced they’re projecting a 40% reduction in health benefits and a 25% cut to retiree health.
Why Rthey thought they could give them away is immaterial
http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.gov[/quote%5D
Well, after an ultra-quick online perusal, we can start our “study” of the failure of Vallejo with the closed Naval Shipyards as our first “red herring,” the partially-developed “CFD 2002-1” (both comm’l and residential – similar to Liberty Stn in SD).
David Glasgow Farragut founded the Mare Island Shipyard in 1854, and the Navy closed the yard in 1996. During that period, over 500 ships, including nuclear submarines, were built at Mare Island Naval Shipyard.
Wait for the following document to load. Parcel maps are on the last pages.
That’s just ONE massive CFD, created in 2002 on former Federal Govm’t land … Just a start for you to munch on, nsr. Later, I’ll research Vallejo’s council minutes to learn exactly when (not “if”) they “enhanced” their retirement plan and “retiree healthcare benefits,” due to their “newfound riches” from CFD 2002-1 (and other backroom developer deals) lol …..
Keep ’em coming, nsr….I need a city/county who is on the verge of BK who has NOT succumbed to developer “bribes” and initial CFD bond $$ in the last decade.
March 9, 2012 at 10:59 AM in reply to: OT-Contest to guess the occupant of beautiful new building in RSF #739630Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=no_such_reality]Look at Vallejo and Stockton. San Jose. CalPERs strong armed Vallejo. The retirement benefits were largely protected. All the rest of the city services where largely stripped. Is that what the city government workers are fighting to get? Their pension at the cost of the entire city?[/quote]
All the evidence points to “yes.”
Protect the income of those who are not even working, at the expense of everything else.
In the pages and pages posts here by CAR and and BG, with thousands of words of cut/paste details, there is not a single mention of what happened to these cities.
Pure denial.
“Talk about everything but the actual issue. Just pretend it never happened. Just pretend it is not happening still.
Our union reps wrote the laws in a backroom deal. Now the law protects my income! Schools, services and the citizens be damned…”[/quote]
pri_dk and nsr:
First of all, I haven’t “cut and pasted” anything here OR written pages and pages about this subject. No offense to any other Pigg, but I don’t need to as I have a near-photographic memory of the “street view.”
Secondly, unions don’t write or make laws. Your elected officials do.
The exorbitant pension obligation shortfalls you are seeing in some CA counties and municipalities (incl the City of SD) is NOT due to old formulas used to calculate the more paltry annuites paid to those former employees who retired (or took deferred retirement) before 2002 and are still alive to collect them. It is due to later supervisor and council votes in each jurisdiction which allowed existing employees (incl the “voters,” lol) to “enhance” their retirement benefits in the following ways: (a) by paying in a larger portion of their biweekly pay into their respective (ret) systems; (b) for those eligible to retire, “bank” their pensions and still stay on the payroll (DROP), and (c) count overtime into the employees’ highest one-year pay or three-years pay for pension calculation purposes (“pension spiking,” now mostly rescinded everywhere).
How did these brilliant ideas come about and why were these votes for “enhanced” systems made?? I’ll tell you why:
By about 2001, in CA jurisdictions which still had open space to build, cities and counties were flush with developer fees and the additional property tax which resulted from subdividing that vacant land. Their retirement systems’ investments had been doing well in the stock market tech run up. At this time, it was not known that health care premiums would double and triple within the next decade as they had been staying the same or going up a few dollars (if anything) in previous years. In any case, the “enhanced pension” promises were later made to their respective union bargaining units by each jurisdiction without a guaranteed healthcare subsidy, to cover themselves in this regard.
In the case of the County of SD, the supervisor vote for the “enhanced pension” occurred in March 2002 and was subsequently offered as a “carrot” by the county to its unions beginning June 2002 (in lieu of their traditional 4-5% annual raises). The union reps, of course, took the offer after it was explained to their members.
btw, those supervisors who voted in the “enhanced” SD County pension formulas? Having no term limits, all five are still at their posts today and have been for the last 18-20 years. Ask yourself why this is so.
We all know what happened next. Developer-fee collection and property-tax collection went thru the roof in CA!! Some jurisdictions doubled and then tripled their planning dept staffs (only to later lay nearly all of them off). Even after the state confiscated their (Teeter) portion of the property taxes and the portion to fund courts and prisons (AB-233 funds), these “developing” municipalities and counties still felt rich!! In addition, MR bonds were paying for roads, libraries and new fire and police stns (which required new hires), but counties still collected the underlying (Prop 13) portion of each *new* parcel! This was a windfall to local jurisdictions!! Some of their retirement associations invested pension-obligations in what later proved to be worthless (MBS and derivative) hedge funds which ended up depleting their reserves they had set aside for projected pension obligations. The fund mgrs who made those risky investments were summarily sh!tcanned but that didn’t bring back the lost $$.
You might surmise that I should be “angry” or “envious” that I didn’t hang around long enough to receive an “enhanced” pension but I’m not. I didn’t have the payroll deductions for it taken from my pay. And if I become very sick or disabled in the future and/or Medicare becomes insolvent before I turn 65, I am guaranteed health coverage for life (at a huge cost to me), but it is there and is NOT underwritten. (I currently have an HDHP which has a $5K annual deductible and an $8K in annual coinsurance provision.) The retirees on the “enhanced” plan don’t have a HC guarantee and don’t have the small HC subsidy that we do.
I’ve personally served multiple stints at that (collective bargaining) table (even overnights) and can tell you that this experience was very enlightening, to say the least. It takes two to tango in there. I accept reality and know that collective bargaining is deeply imbedded in state law. It is what it is and these jobs are what they are. Everybody in there is on the same page in that regard. And that’s where the similarity parts ways.
What does this all boil down to? In a nutshell, there are two causes of CA city/county insolvency . . . well three, if you count Pollyanna-ish supervisors/council members. “Urban sprawl” is the (underlying) culprit…. and the success of “urban sprawl” was fueled primarily by easy money during the “millenium boom.”
In CA, these “enhanced” pensions would have never been voted in by the PTB had it not been for the infusion of massive developer fees and new and future property taxes to collect on endless new parcels that were permitted on previous wasteland.
“Urban sprawl” in CA had (and has) much more “far-reaching ramifications” than its residents are willing to admit. It has devastated many counties in this state. It is, truly, California’s “elephant in the room.”
Name me ONE city or county in this state who is on the verge of BK (on acct of an insolvent pension system) who did NOT succumb to the developer-fee and MR-bond enticement in the last decade or had and has their precious “open space” locked up from further development.
Go on . . . I’ll be waiting right here :=]
Participant[quote=desmond]One more thing, each place that we have moved to we watched crumble. The first was Valencia, 91354, were some newly built townhomes that sold for $600K they started dropping when we moved in in 2005 and now most are in foreclosure or on the market for under 300k. Then we moved to another neighborhood in 91355, homes started being vacated and we noticed extended families moving back home. Even the “exclusive” Hope Ranch in Santa Barbara,93110, was turning sour when we moved out.[/quote]
desmond, this is unfortunate but just be thankful you were only renters.
If you don’t mind, I’d just like to ask you:
“In hindsight, would you attribute the ‘crumbling’ of these areas to unnecessary ‘urban sprawl’ and available ‘easy-qualifying’ to buy into them at the time?”
Participant[quote=ucodegen] . . . As for the study of NPD, I am quite familiar with it. I had to live with a parent afflicted with the disorder, which if you check back, I did post about. . . .[/quote]
I wouldn’t be able to find the post you speak of, uco, but this statement speaks volumes about your current “mindset.” I didn’t have a parent with NPD but I could well imagine it must have been a “hard row to hoe” for you, especially while a minor. Have you ever heard of “inverted narcissism?”
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency
Truly, I understand your position, now …. you likely felt you had no choice but to take whatever treatment was dished out to you all those years.
I’m very sorry for what you had to go thru, uco.
Could I just ask you though, if the shoe were on the other foot . . . that is, if YOU were receiving dozens of repeated unsolicited, overt and blatant insults by ONE individual, whether personally or online, how would YOU handle it??
I will concede that narcissism is a legal set of behaviors and that it affects an unknown but good percentage of the population.
I was taught a few valuable concepts early on, however, which have served me well throughout life: Those are:
* To call a spade a spade (person, place or thing). It is what it is, nothing more or less. Persons who have an innate need to continually “sugar-coat” another person, idea, place or thing are automatically suspect and are covering something up. That something is usually the elephant in the room.
* If one wants to fully understand what (or who) they are actually looking at or considering getting involved in, they would be best served by knowing what (or who) it was. If they don’t have this information, it is best to ask someone who does know. Otherwise, they risk making very bad decisions that could affect them for a long time. Again, this applies to a person, place or thing.
* Unless mentally or developmentally disabled, all adults bear personal responsibility for their own behavior.
I have no anger here. If I was “angry,” as you imply, I wouldn’t be participating on this forum and would be doing something else, instead.
I wish you well, uco.
March 8, 2012 at 11:01 AM in reply to: OT-Contest to guess the occupant of beautiful new building in RSF #739572Participant[quote=no_such_reality]. . . BG wisecracked about them of being able to collect (their pensions) anyway earlier in the thread.[/quote] (clarification added)
nsr, I don’t “wisecrack” about things like this. It’s actually the law.
You can join your “friends,” pri_dk and sdr in their “legislation-writing sessions.”
I’ll be standing by to proofread or assist in any way I can :=}
-
AuthorPosts
