Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
Participant[quote=davelj]
[quote=urbanrealtor]
3: The mean rate (taken over the course of the year) for closings in downtown is about 75/month.
The instantaneous rate of change on this is highly correlated to season (about 50 per october to march and about 100 per month april to september) but it works out the same. About 900 per year. Currently, there is about 400 active for sale in 92101 with roughly translates to about 5 months of inventory.
In a distress-heavy area, that is an impressive mean closing speed.
There are currently about 139 pendings listed in 92101. That means there are approximately 3 units for every one buyer as of today.
If you ask Jim Klinge about this, he will probably tell you that this is a healthy ratio with a just a hint of tilting toward a seller’s market.
[/quote]I just wonder how much inventory is *really* out there. Again, I think most of the specuvestors are gone or will be gone by year’s end (2011). Now we’re seeing some unemployment-related foreclosures and short sales, but those are slowing down. So, my REAL question is how many new, unoccupied, un-owned units are sitting in downtown’s inventory. For example, how many units in Bayside have been purchased (to use just one example)? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 1,000 new units sitting in inventory downtown. Having said that… I just don’t know. I’m pretty sure that I can get my hands on that data soon, though. But if you know these actual numbers, by all means… inquiring minds and all. I’d love to be wrong about this.[/quote]
urbanrealtor might be right about downtown. Here are the numbers I just got from a research firm (they don’t have an agenda, but it doesn’t mean their numbers are correct).
There are ~10,300 condo units downtown. There are currently ~325 resale units for sale. There are ~245 new developer units for sale (far fewer than I thought). There are ~75 units sold/month, so that’s about 7.5 months of inventory.
On the one hand there have got to be a lot of underwater borrowers in downtown (still), so that’s inventory-in-waiting. On the other hand, there have been a sh*tpile of foreclosures over the last several years so the weakest hands are out of the market. In addition, zero new units have hit the market for almost a year-and-a-half. And we won’t see any new units for at least 2.5 – 3 years (that’s at least a year before anyone breaks ground plus 1.5 – 2 years to completion). So… supply and demand are rapidly coming into equilibrium downtown… which is what happens when building grinds to a complete halt.
Anecdotally, where my building is concerned, we had about 25 units for sale at one time, mostly bank-owned. Now we’re down to six units for sale. Almost 40% of the units have changed hands over the last three years. Anyhow, just a datapoint.
The only current building downtown relates to (1) the new library, (2) expansion of SD City College, and (3) two subsidized apartment buildings. That’s it.
So, I have to agree with urbanrealtor – it doesn’t look too bad downtown from a supply-demand perspective, which surprises me.
Participant[quote=davelj]
[quote=urbanrealtor]
3: The mean rate (taken over the course of the year) for closings in downtown is about 75/month.
The instantaneous rate of change on this is highly correlated to season (about 50 per october to march and about 100 per month april to september) but it works out the same. About 900 per year. Currently, there is about 400 active for sale in 92101 with roughly translates to about 5 months of inventory.
In a distress-heavy area, that is an impressive mean closing speed.
There are currently about 139 pendings listed in 92101. That means there are approximately 3 units for every one buyer as of today.
If you ask Jim Klinge about this, he will probably tell you that this is a healthy ratio with a just a hint of tilting toward a seller’s market.
[/quote]I just wonder how much inventory is *really* out there. Again, I think most of the specuvestors are gone or will be gone by year’s end (2011). Now we’re seeing some unemployment-related foreclosures and short sales, but those are slowing down. So, my REAL question is how many new, unoccupied, un-owned units are sitting in downtown’s inventory. For example, how many units in Bayside have been purchased (to use just one example)? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 1,000 new units sitting in inventory downtown. Having said that… I just don’t know. I’m pretty sure that I can get my hands on that data soon, though. But if you know these actual numbers, by all means… inquiring minds and all. I’d love to be wrong about this.[/quote]
urbanrealtor might be right about downtown. Here are the numbers I just got from a research firm (they don’t have an agenda, but it doesn’t mean their numbers are correct).
There are ~10,300 condo units downtown. There are currently ~325 resale units for sale. There are ~245 new developer units for sale (far fewer than I thought). There are ~75 units sold/month, so that’s about 7.5 months of inventory.
On the one hand there have got to be a lot of underwater borrowers in downtown (still), so that’s inventory-in-waiting. On the other hand, there have been a sh*tpile of foreclosures over the last several years so the weakest hands are out of the market. In addition, zero new units have hit the market for almost a year-and-a-half. And we won’t see any new units for at least 2.5 – 3 years (that’s at least a year before anyone breaks ground plus 1.5 – 2 years to completion). So… supply and demand are rapidly coming into equilibrium downtown… which is what happens when building grinds to a complete halt.
Anecdotally, where my building is concerned, we had about 25 units for sale at one time, mostly bank-owned. Now we’re down to six units for sale. Almost 40% of the units have changed hands over the last three years. Anyhow, just a datapoint.
The only current building downtown relates to (1) the new library, (2) expansion of SD City College, and (3) two subsidized apartment buildings. That’s it.
So, I have to agree with urbanrealtor – it doesn’t look too bad downtown from a supply-demand perspective, which surprises me.
Participant[quote=davelj]
[quote=urbanrealtor]
3: The mean rate (taken over the course of the year) for closings in downtown is about 75/month.
The instantaneous rate of change on this is highly correlated to season (about 50 per october to march and about 100 per month april to september) but it works out the same. About 900 per year. Currently, there is about 400 active for sale in 92101 with roughly translates to about 5 months of inventory.
In a distress-heavy area, that is an impressive mean closing speed.
There are currently about 139 pendings listed in 92101. That means there are approximately 3 units for every one buyer as of today.
If you ask Jim Klinge about this, he will probably tell you that this is a healthy ratio with a just a hint of tilting toward a seller’s market.
[/quote]I just wonder how much inventory is *really* out there. Again, I think most of the specuvestors are gone or will be gone by year’s end (2011). Now we’re seeing some unemployment-related foreclosures and short sales, but those are slowing down. So, my REAL question is how many new, unoccupied, un-owned units are sitting in downtown’s inventory. For example, how many units in Bayside have been purchased (to use just one example)? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 1,000 new units sitting in inventory downtown. Having said that… I just don’t know. I’m pretty sure that I can get my hands on that data soon, though. But if you know these actual numbers, by all means… inquiring minds and all. I’d love to be wrong about this.[/quote]
urbanrealtor might be right about downtown. Here are the numbers I just got from a research firm (they don’t have an agenda, but it doesn’t mean their numbers are correct).
There are ~10,300 condo units downtown. There are currently ~325 resale units for sale. There are ~245 new developer units for sale (far fewer than I thought). There are ~75 units sold/month, so that’s about 7.5 months of inventory.
On the one hand there have got to be a lot of underwater borrowers in downtown (still), so that’s inventory-in-waiting. On the other hand, there have been a sh*tpile of foreclosures over the last several years so the weakest hands are out of the market. In addition, zero new units have hit the market for almost a year-and-a-half. And we won’t see any new units for at least 2.5 – 3 years (that’s at least a year before anyone breaks ground plus 1.5 – 2 years to completion). So… supply and demand are rapidly coming into equilibrium downtown… which is what happens when building grinds to a complete halt.
Anecdotally, where my building is concerned, we had about 25 units for sale at one time, mostly bank-owned. Now we’re down to six units for sale. Almost 40% of the units have changed hands over the last three years. Anyhow, just a datapoint.
The only current building downtown relates to (1) the new library, (2) expansion of SD City College, and (3) two subsidized apartment buildings. That’s it.
So, I have to agree with urbanrealtor – it doesn’t look too bad downtown from a supply-demand perspective, which surprises me.
Participant[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.
One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.
Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.
I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).
The punch line:
“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1
Participant[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.
One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.
Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.
I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).
The punch line:
“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1
Participant[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.
One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.
Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.
I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).
The punch line:
“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1
Participant[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.
One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.
Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.
I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).
The punch line:
“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1
Participant[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.
One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.
Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.
I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).
The punch line:
“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1
Participant[quote=walterwhite]Oh I’ve been nothing for a long time now. Unrelated to anything. I’m just drained[/quote]
Spoken like the real Walter White… hey, things are looking up, though – the new season starts in just a few months.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]Oh I’ve been nothing for a long time now. Unrelated to anything. I’m just drained[/quote]
Spoken like the real Walter White… hey, things are looking up, though – the new season starts in just a few months.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]Oh I’ve been nothing for a long time now. Unrelated to anything. I’m just drained[/quote]
Spoken like the real Walter White… hey, things are looking up, though – the new season starts in just a few months.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]Oh I’ve been nothing for a long time now. Unrelated to anything. I’m just drained[/quote]
Spoken like the real Walter White… hey, things are looking up, though – the new season starts in just a few months.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]Oh I’ve been nothing for a long time now. Unrelated to anything. I’m just drained[/quote]
Spoken like the real Walter White… hey, things are looking up, though – the new season starts in just a few months.
Participant[quote=Ren]…I’m respected by the people I admire and whose opinions matter to me,…[/quote]
Most people believe this about themselves, whether it’s true or not (just as most people think they’re underpaid). There are all sorts of cognitive biases at work here, including confirmation bias, self-serving bias, belief bias… I could go on. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but rather that you’re not objective on this issue (nor is anyone about themselves), which makes it a mildly ridiculous statement unless preceded by “I *believe* that…”.
[quote=Ren]
…and I get to run over the people who deserve it.[/quote]Of which there is no shortage, in my experience.
-
AuthorPosts
