Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
drboom
Participant[quote=pri_dk]
[quote=PatentGuy]Do any of you really believe that if taxed were raised […] the deficit will be any less five or ten years from now?[/quote]Yes.
I even saw it happen. It was a magical thing, we called it a “surplus.” It existed in a time we called “the late 1990s.”[/quote]
Please don’t trot out this canard. The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.
The Shrub and Obama both continued the dishonesty.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Dr B
Again you are stretching a RE agents role beyond what they are charged to do.[/quote]Perhaps. But you know when someone walks in the door whether they have any business buying or not; you’re one of the good guys and at least try to do the right thing by your own account.
I’m not talking about you, however, I’m talking about systemic problems. Market incentives just don’t align agents’ and consumers’ interests.
[quote]Additionally houses dont always have easy to identify well-understood values in relation to things like incomes and prevailing rents. For example, prices in SF and NYC have never in recent history been anywhere close to being in line with either.[/quote]
Even in those two extreme and artificially distorted cases (rent control in both cities, etc.), the laws of economics still hold true: beyond a certain percentage of household income lies mortgage madness–sooner or later.
Lots of people in both cities have been beneficiaries of bubble economics, so they aren’t the best examples. I was working in Silly Valley and The City in 1999-2000–it was quite a party, but it wasn’t real life. That party faltered but never really stopped for certain parts of that crowd (I know because I still talk to and work with some of them).
[quote]Here’s another more local example. In 2001, the house next door sold for $550K and it was way out of whack with rents and incomes in the area. Obviously that house was worth considerably more a couple years ago but it has never been worth less and is still worth about $250K more than that. By any long term quantitative measure one could have looked at back in 2001 it was not a good deal. History of course tells a very different story and it will never approach that $550K price again.[/quote]
Accounting for inflation and selling costs, it would have to be worth $730k+ for the owner to even get his money back out. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but it doesn’t take going back a decade in nominal dollars to incur a loss.
I do agree that in an absolute sense something is “worth” exactly what someone will pay for it, but is that what we’re talking about?
[quote]PS you didnt hear any of us on this board saying it was a great time to buy in 2008 or 2009.[/quote]
No, everyone was afraid of being called a permabull or worse. 😉
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Dr B
Again you are stretching a RE agents role beyond what they are charged to do.[/quote]Perhaps. But you know when someone walks in the door whether they have any business buying or not; you’re one of the good guys and at least try to do the right thing by your own account.
I’m not talking about you, however, I’m talking about systemic problems. Market incentives just don’t align agents’ and consumers’ interests.
[quote]Additionally houses dont always have easy to identify well-understood values in relation to things like incomes and prevailing rents. For example, prices in SF and NYC have never in recent history been anywhere close to being in line with either.[/quote]
Even in those two extreme and artificially distorted cases (rent control in both cities, etc.), the laws of economics still hold true: beyond a certain percentage of household income lies mortgage madness–sooner or later.
Lots of people in both cities have been beneficiaries of bubble economics, so they aren’t the best examples. I was working in Silly Valley and The City in 1999-2000–it was quite a party, but it wasn’t real life. That party faltered but never really stopped for certain parts of that crowd (I know because I still talk to and work with some of them).
[quote]Here’s another more local example. In 2001, the house next door sold for $550K and it was way out of whack with rents and incomes in the area. Obviously that house was worth considerably more a couple years ago but it has never been worth less and is still worth about $250K more than that. By any long term quantitative measure one could have looked at back in 2001 it was not a good deal. History of course tells a very different story and it will never approach that $550K price again.[/quote]
Accounting for inflation and selling costs, it would have to be worth $730k+ for the owner to even get his money back out. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but it doesn’t take going back a decade in nominal dollars to incur a loss.
I do agree that in an absolute sense something is “worth” exactly what someone will pay for it, but is that what we’re talking about?
[quote]PS you didnt hear any of us on this board saying it was a great time to buy in 2008 or 2009.[/quote]
No, everyone was afraid of being called a permabull or worse. 😉
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Dr B
Again you are stretching a RE agents role beyond what they are charged to do.[/quote]Perhaps. But you know when someone walks in the door whether they have any business buying or not; you’re one of the good guys and at least try to do the right thing by your own account.
I’m not talking about you, however, I’m talking about systemic problems. Market incentives just don’t align agents’ and consumers’ interests.
[quote]Additionally houses dont always have easy to identify well-understood values in relation to things like incomes and prevailing rents. For example, prices in SF and NYC have never in recent history been anywhere close to being in line with either.[/quote]
Even in those two extreme and artificially distorted cases (rent control in both cities, etc.), the laws of economics still hold true: beyond a certain percentage of household income lies mortgage madness–sooner or later.
Lots of people in both cities have been beneficiaries of bubble economics, so they aren’t the best examples. I was working in Silly Valley and The City in 1999-2000–it was quite a party, but it wasn’t real life. That party faltered but never really stopped for certain parts of that crowd (I know because I still talk to and work with some of them).
[quote]Here’s another more local example. In 2001, the house next door sold for $550K and it was way out of whack with rents and incomes in the area. Obviously that house was worth considerably more a couple years ago but it has never been worth less and is still worth about $250K more than that. By any long term quantitative measure one could have looked at back in 2001 it was not a good deal. History of course tells a very different story and it will never approach that $550K price again.[/quote]
Accounting for inflation and selling costs, it would have to be worth $730k+ for the owner to even get his money back out. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but it doesn’t take going back a decade in nominal dollars to incur a loss.
I do agree that in an absolute sense something is “worth” exactly what someone will pay for it, but is that what we’re talking about?
[quote]PS you didnt hear any of us on this board saying it was a great time to buy in 2008 or 2009.[/quote]
No, everyone was afraid of being called a permabull or worse. 😉
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Dr B
Again you are stretching a RE agents role beyond what they are charged to do.[/quote]Perhaps. But you know when someone walks in the door whether they have any business buying or not; you’re one of the good guys and at least try to do the right thing by your own account.
I’m not talking about you, however, I’m talking about systemic problems. Market incentives just don’t align agents’ and consumers’ interests.
[quote]Additionally houses dont always have easy to identify well-understood values in relation to things like incomes and prevailing rents. For example, prices in SF and NYC have never in recent history been anywhere close to being in line with either.[/quote]
Even in those two extreme and artificially distorted cases (rent control in both cities, etc.), the laws of economics still hold true: beyond a certain percentage of household income lies mortgage madness–sooner or later.
Lots of people in both cities have been beneficiaries of bubble economics, so they aren’t the best examples. I was working in Silly Valley and The City in 1999-2000–it was quite a party, but it wasn’t real life. That party faltered but never really stopped for certain parts of that crowd (I know because I still talk to and work with some of them).
[quote]Here’s another more local example. In 2001, the house next door sold for $550K and it was way out of whack with rents and incomes in the area. Obviously that house was worth considerably more a couple years ago but it has never been worth less and is still worth about $250K more than that. By any long term quantitative measure one could have looked at back in 2001 it was not a good deal. History of course tells a very different story and it will never approach that $550K price again.[/quote]
Accounting for inflation and selling costs, it would have to be worth $730k+ for the owner to even get his money back out. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but it doesn’t take going back a decade in nominal dollars to incur a loss.
I do agree that in an absolute sense something is “worth” exactly what someone will pay for it, but is that what we’re talking about?
[quote]PS you didnt hear any of us on this board saying it was a great time to buy in 2008 or 2009.[/quote]
No, everyone was afraid of being called a permabull or worse. 😉
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Dr B
Again you are stretching a RE agents role beyond what they are charged to do.[/quote]Perhaps. But you know when someone walks in the door whether they have any business buying or not; you’re one of the good guys and at least try to do the right thing by your own account.
I’m not talking about you, however, I’m talking about systemic problems. Market incentives just don’t align agents’ and consumers’ interests.
[quote]Additionally houses dont always have easy to identify well-understood values in relation to things like incomes and prevailing rents. For example, prices in SF and NYC have never in recent history been anywhere close to being in line with either.[/quote]
Even in those two extreme and artificially distorted cases (rent control in both cities, etc.), the laws of economics still hold true: beyond a certain percentage of household income lies mortgage madness–sooner or later.
Lots of people in both cities have been beneficiaries of bubble economics, so they aren’t the best examples. I was working in Silly Valley and The City in 1999-2000–it was quite a party, but it wasn’t real life. That party faltered but never really stopped for certain parts of that crowd (I know because I still talk to and work with some of them).
[quote]Here’s another more local example. In 2001, the house next door sold for $550K and it was way out of whack with rents and incomes in the area. Obviously that house was worth considerably more a couple years ago but it has never been worth less and is still worth about $250K more than that. By any long term quantitative measure one could have looked at back in 2001 it was not a good deal. History of course tells a very different story and it will never approach that $550K price again.[/quote]
Accounting for inflation and selling costs, it would have to be worth $730k+ for the owner to even get his money back out. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but it doesn’t take going back a decade in nominal dollars to incur a loss.
I do agree that in an absolute sense something is “worth” exactly what someone will pay for it, but is that what we’re talking about?
[quote]PS you didnt hear any of us on this board saying it was a great time to buy in 2008 or 2009.[/quote]
No, everyone was afraid of being called a permabull or worse. 😉
ParticipantUR and sdr laid out nicely why I think interests aren’t aligned.
[quote=urbanrealtor]Generally, home prices are 7-10 times per capita income depending on demand.
Mid 2003 the price coefficient was 8.5 or 9 in San Diego (pretty middle of the road).
It was not until a year later that home prices started to become broadly decoupled from income fundamentals.
In short, 2003 was not a crazy year except in hindsight.[/quote]UR, unless Rich Toscano’s graphs are off, the multiplier was over 10X in mid-2003 and climbing. That was the highest it had been for two generations. I for one had been ranting about absurd house prices for at least a year by then, but I don’t have a blog to point to so you’ll have to take my word for it.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The same house would go for the same nominal price now.
Still about $400k.[/quote]Factoring in inflation, the time value of money in the down payment (if any, admittedly) and selling costs, that’s at least a $80k loss if not more. Better than the stock market, maybe, but stuffing money in a mattress would have worked better.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The DIY in question sold it in mid-late 2005 for more than 500 btw.[/quote]
If we are to judge the wisdom of an investment by flippers’ standards, then this forum is a funny place to do it. Arguing that a greater fool came along in time to avert disaster is not persuasive. Most people lose their shirts trying to time markets unless they have inside information.
[quote=urbanrealtor]I can only show you the past info and give you my analysis of it and tell you if this deal looks good at a relative level right now.[/quote]
As long as everyone understands what’s going on, I have absolutely no problem with a skilled technician rendering a spot price opinion. But everyone knows that’s not how it generally works. “It’s a good deal!” is about as far as it goes, which is why I think comps aren’t as useful as you seem to think.
If you want to do a real analysis of the RB deal, compute the rent multiple. Otherwise we’re just comparing bulbs in a tulip craze.
[quote=sdrealtor]The agent didnt make the decision to buy a home, the buyer does. The agents job is to help them do what they want and getting them a better deal in the current market is doing a good job for their client. Some of us look out for our clients long term financial well being but by definition that is not our role.[/quote]
In an ideal world with inhumanly well-behaved operators, yes. But the incentive for agents on both sides of the transaction is to close a deal, so corners get cut.
The chant of “it’s a great time to buy” never stopped from the beginning of the boom right through the crash. I heard it everywhere in ’08 and ’09, even from my own agent–whom I consider a fairly bright guy. He didn’t know how to respond when I said “No, it’s not really a great time at all”. Looking at the graphs on the front page of this site, I’d say I was right: 2009 was at best an “acceptable” time to buy, but not “great”.
Houses have well-understood values in relation to other things, namely incomes and prevailing rents. To call a specific house a “good deal” without reference to those two things is simply drinking the speculative Kool-Aid. A competent analysis would take those factors and more into consideration. It’s not hard to do, even for a rube like me.
If you think that kind of analysis is beyond the scope of any real estate professional, how about posting a disclaimer to that effect in your office?
Cheers!
ParticipantUR and sdr laid out nicely why I think interests aren’t aligned.
[quote=urbanrealtor]Generally, home prices are 7-10 times per capita income depending on demand.
Mid 2003 the price coefficient was 8.5 or 9 in San Diego (pretty middle of the road).
It was not until a year later that home prices started to become broadly decoupled from income fundamentals.
In short, 2003 was not a crazy year except in hindsight.[/quote]UR, unless Rich Toscano’s graphs are off, the multiplier was over 10X in mid-2003 and climbing. That was the highest it had been for two generations. I for one had been ranting about absurd house prices for at least a year by then, but I don’t have a blog to point to so you’ll have to take my word for it.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The same house would go for the same nominal price now.
Still about $400k.[/quote]Factoring in inflation, the time value of money in the down payment (if any, admittedly) and selling costs, that’s at least a $80k loss if not more. Better than the stock market, maybe, but stuffing money in a mattress would have worked better.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The DIY in question sold it in mid-late 2005 for more than 500 btw.[/quote]
If we are to judge the wisdom of an investment by flippers’ standards, then this forum is a funny place to do it. Arguing that a greater fool came along in time to avert disaster is not persuasive. Most people lose their shirts trying to time markets unless they have inside information.
[quote=urbanrealtor]I can only show you the past info and give you my analysis of it and tell you if this deal looks good at a relative level right now.[/quote]
As long as everyone understands what’s going on, I have absolutely no problem with a skilled technician rendering a spot price opinion. But everyone knows that’s not how it generally works. “It’s a good deal!” is about as far as it goes, which is why I think comps aren’t as useful as you seem to think.
If you want to do a real analysis of the RB deal, compute the rent multiple. Otherwise we’re just comparing bulbs in a tulip craze.
[quote=sdrealtor]The agent didnt make the decision to buy a home, the buyer does. The agents job is to help them do what they want and getting them a better deal in the current market is doing a good job for their client. Some of us look out for our clients long term financial well being but by definition that is not our role.[/quote]
In an ideal world with inhumanly well-behaved operators, yes. But the incentive for agents on both sides of the transaction is to close a deal, so corners get cut.
The chant of “it’s a great time to buy” never stopped from the beginning of the boom right through the crash. I heard it everywhere in ’08 and ’09, even from my own agent–whom I consider a fairly bright guy. He didn’t know how to respond when I said “No, it’s not really a great time at all”. Looking at the graphs on the front page of this site, I’d say I was right: 2009 was at best an “acceptable” time to buy, but not “great”.
Houses have well-understood values in relation to other things, namely incomes and prevailing rents. To call a specific house a “good deal” without reference to those two things is simply drinking the speculative Kool-Aid. A competent analysis would take those factors and more into consideration. It’s not hard to do, even for a rube like me.
If you think that kind of analysis is beyond the scope of any real estate professional, how about posting a disclaimer to that effect in your office?
Cheers!
ParticipantUR and sdr laid out nicely why I think interests aren’t aligned.
[quote=urbanrealtor]Generally, home prices are 7-10 times per capita income depending on demand.
Mid 2003 the price coefficient was 8.5 or 9 in San Diego (pretty middle of the road).
It was not until a year later that home prices started to become broadly decoupled from income fundamentals.
In short, 2003 was not a crazy year except in hindsight.[/quote]UR, unless Rich Toscano’s graphs are off, the multiplier was over 10X in mid-2003 and climbing. That was the highest it had been for two generations. I for one had been ranting about absurd house prices for at least a year by then, but I don’t have a blog to point to so you’ll have to take my word for it.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The same house would go for the same nominal price now.
Still about $400k.[/quote]Factoring in inflation, the time value of money in the down payment (if any, admittedly) and selling costs, that’s at least a $80k loss if not more. Better than the stock market, maybe, but stuffing money in a mattress would have worked better.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The DIY in question sold it in mid-late 2005 for more than 500 btw.[/quote]
If we are to judge the wisdom of an investment by flippers’ standards, then this forum is a funny place to do it. Arguing that a greater fool came along in time to avert disaster is not persuasive. Most people lose their shirts trying to time markets unless they have inside information.
[quote=urbanrealtor]I can only show you the past info and give you my analysis of it and tell you if this deal looks good at a relative level right now.[/quote]
As long as everyone understands what’s going on, I have absolutely no problem with a skilled technician rendering a spot price opinion. But everyone knows that’s not how it generally works. “It’s a good deal!” is about as far as it goes, which is why I think comps aren’t as useful as you seem to think.
If you want to do a real analysis of the RB deal, compute the rent multiple. Otherwise we’re just comparing bulbs in a tulip craze.
[quote=sdrealtor]The agent didnt make the decision to buy a home, the buyer does. The agents job is to help them do what they want and getting them a better deal in the current market is doing a good job for their client. Some of us look out for our clients long term financial well being but by definition that is not our role.[/quote]
In an ideal world with inhumanly well-behaved operators, yes. But the incentive for agents on both sides of the transaction is to close a deal, so corners get cut.
The chant of “it’s a great time to buy” never stopped from the beginning of the boom right through the crash. I heard it everywhere in ’08 and ’09, even from my own agent–whom I consider a fairly bright guy. He didn’t know how to respond when I said “No, it’s not really a great time at all”. Looking at the graphs on the front page of this site, I’d say I was right: 2009 was at best an “acceptable” time to buy, but not “great”.
Houses have well-understood values in relation to other things, namely incomes and prevailing rents. To call a specific house a “good deal” without reference to those two things is simply drinking the speculative Kool-Aid. A competent analysis would take those factors and more into consideration. It’s not hard to do, even for a rube like me.
If you think that kind of analysis is beyond the scope of any real estate professional, how about posting a disclaimer to that effect in your office?
Cheers!
ParticipantUR and sdr laid out nicely why I think interests aren’t aligned.
[quote=urbanrealtor]Generally, home prices are 7-10 times per capita income depending on demand.
Mid 2003 the price coefficient was 8.5 or 9 in San Diego (pretty middle of the road).
It was not until a year later that home prices started to become broadly decoupled from income fundamentals.
In short, 2003 was not a crazy year except in hindsight.[/quote]UR, unless Rich Toscano’s graphs are off, the multiplier was over 10X in mid-2003 and climbing. That was the highest it had been for two generations. I for one had been ranting about absurd house prices for at least a year by then, but I don’t have a blog to point to so you’ll have to take my word for it.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The same house would go for the same nominal price now.
Still about $400k.[/quote]Factoring in inflation, the time value of money in the down payment (if any, admittedly) and selling costs, that’s at least a $80k loss if not more. Better than the stock market, maybe, but stuffing money in a mattress would have worked better.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The DIY in question sold it in mid-late 2005 for more than 500 btw.[/quote]
If we are to judge the wisdom of an investment by flippers’ standards, then this forum is a funny place to do it. Arguing that a greater fool came along in time to avert disaster is not persuasive. Most people lose their shirts trying to time markets unless they have inside information.
[quote=urbanrealtor]I can only show you the past info and give you my analysis of it and tell you if this deal looks good at a relative level right now.[/quote]
As long as everyone understands what’s going on, I have absolutely no problem with a skilled technician rendering a spot price opinion. But everyone knows that’s not how it generally works. “It’s a good deal!” is about as far as it goes, which is why I think comps aren’t as useful as you seem to think.
If you want to do a real analysis of the RB deal, compute the rent multiple. Otherwise we’re just comparing bulbs in a tulip craze.
[quote=sdrealtor]The agent didnt make the decision to buy a home, the buyer does. The agents job is to help them do what they want and getting them a better deal in the current market is doing a good job for their client. Some of us look out for our clients long term financial well being but by definition that is not our role.[/quote]
In an ideal world with inhumanly well-behaved operators, yes. But the incentive for agents on both sides of the transaction is to close a deal, so corners get cut.
The chant of “it’s a great time to buy” never stopped from the beginning of the boom right through the crash. I heard it everywhere in ’08 and ’09, even from my own agent–whom I consider a fairly bright guy. He didn’t know how to respond when I said “No, it’s not really a great time at all”. Looking at the graphs on the front page of this site, I’d say I was right: 2009 was at best an “acceptable” time to buy, but not “great”.
Houses have well-understood values in relation to other things, namely incomes and prevailing rents. To call a specific house a “good deal” without reference to those two things is simply drinking the speculative Kool-Aid. A competent analysis would take those factors and more into consideration. It’s not hard to do, even for a rube like me.
If you think that kind of analysis is beyond the scope of any real estate professional, how about posting a disclaimer to that effect in your office?
Cheers!
ParticipantUR and sdr laid out nicely why I think interests aren’t aligned.
[quote=urbanrealtor]Generally, home prices are 7-10 times per capita income depending on demand.
Mid 2003 the price coefficient was 8.5 or 9 in San Diego (pretty middle of the road).
It was not until a year later that home prices started to become broadly decoupled from income fundamentals.
In short, 2003 was not a crazy year except in hindsight.[/quote]UR, unless Rich Toscano’s graphs are off, the multiplier was over 10X in mid-2003 and climbing. That was the highest it had been for two generations. I for one had been ranting about absurd house prices for at least a year by then, but I don’t have a blog to point to so you’ll have to take my word for it.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The same house would go for the same nominal price now.
Still about $400k.[/quote]Factoring in inflation, the time value of money in the down payment (if any, admittedly) and selling costs, that’s at least a $80k loss if not more. Better than the stock market, maybe, but stuffing money in a mattress would have worked better.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The DIY in question sold it in mid-late 2005 for more than 500 btw.[/quote]
If we are to judge the wisdom of an investment by flippers’ standards, then this forum is a funny place to do it. Arguing that a greater fool came along in time to avert disaster is not persuasive. Most people lose their shirts trying to time markets unless they have inside information.
[quote=urbanrealtor]I can only show you the past info and give you my analysis of it and tell you if this deal looks good at a relative level right now.[/quote]
As long as everyone understands what’s going on, I have absolutely no problem with a skilled technician rendering a spot price opinion. But everyone knows that’s not how it generally works. “It’s a good deal!” is about as far as it goes, which is why I think comps aren’t as useful as you seem to think.
If you want to do a real analysis of the RB deal, compute the rent multiple. Otherwise we’re just comparing bulbs in a tulip craze.
[quote=sdrealtor]The agent didnt make the decision to buy a home, the buyer does. The agents job is to help them do what they want and getting them a better deal in the current market is doing a good job for their client. Some of us look out for our clients long term financial well being but by definition that is not our role.[/quote]
In an ideal world with inhumanly well-behaved operators, yes. But the incentive for agents on both sides of the transaction is to close a deal, so corners get cut.
The chant of “it’s a great time to buy” never stopped from the beginning of the boom right through the crash. I heard it everywhere in ’08 and ’09, even from my own agent–whom I consider a fairly bright guy. He didn’t know how to respond when I said “No, it’s not really a great time at all”. Looking at the graphs on the front page of this site, I’d say I was right: 2009 was at best an “acceptable” time to buy, but not “great”.
Houses have well-understood values in relation to other things, namely incomes and prevailing rents. To call a specific house a “good deal” without reference to those two things is simply drinking the speculative Kool-Aid. A competent analysis would take those factors and more into consideration. It’s not hard to do, even for a rube like me.
If you think that kind of analysis is beyond the scope of any real estate professional, how about posting a disclaimer to that effect in your office?
Cheers!
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]DRB
You are threadskimming. The guy that bought the house in CM was unrepresented and claimed he got a great deal.[/quote]Good catch, mea culpa. Cold medicine suppresses more than coughs.
But my objection still stands:
[quote](summing up the mid-2003 RB deal) It was my observation, when running the numbers that the buyer had overpaid by a few percent but that this did not qualify as “getting screwed”.[/quote]
How is overpaying by a few percent at a historic high not “getting screwed”? As a high-risk speculative play, it might have worked out great if the buyer was looking to flip the joint a year or two later. Is that our measure of a good deal around here–some kind of real estate day trading?
This relates directly to the issue of whether an agent saves buyers money: if an agent says something is a “good deal”, as the RB (edited from “Clairemont”–I’m fighting with half my brain behind my back) house would have apparently been if it was 5% cheaper, what exactly is the agent saying? Any salesperson’s motivation is to close deals, period. I don’t begrudge someone making a living, but it’s clear that consumers’ and agents’ interests aren’t naturally aligned.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]DRB
You are threadskimming. The guy that bought the house in CM was unrepresented and claimed he got a great deal.[/quote]Good catch, mea culpa. Cold medicine suppresses more than coughs.
But my objection still stands:
[quote](summing up the mid-2003 RB deal) It was my observation, when running the numbers that the buyer had overpaid by a few percent but that this did not qualify as “getting screwed”.[/quote]
How is overpaying by a few percent at a historic high not “getting screwed”? As a high-risk speculative play, it might have worked out great if the buyer was looking to flip the joint a year or two later. Is that our measure of a good deal around here–some kind of real estate day trading?
This relates directly to the issue of whether an agent saves buyers money: if an agent says something is a “good deal”, as the RB (edited from “Clairemont”–I’m fighting with half my brain behind my back) house would have apparently been if it was 5% cheaper, what exactly is the agent saying? Any salesperson’s motivation is to close deals, period. I don’t begrudge someone making a living, but it’s clear that consumers’ and agents’ interests aren’t naturally aligned.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]DRB
You are threadskimming. The guy that bought the house in CM was unrepresented and claimed he got a great deal.[/quote]Good catch, mea culpa. Cold medicine suppresses more than coughs.
But my objection still stands:
[quote](summing up the mid-2003 RB deal) It was my observation, when running the numbers that the buyer had overpaid by a few percent but that this did not qualify as “getting screwed”.[/quote]
How is overpaying by a few percent at a historic high not “getting screwed”? As a high-risk speculative play, it might have worked out great if the buyer was looking to flip the joint a year or two later. Is that our measure of a good deal around here–some kind of real estate day trading?
This relates directly to the issue of whether an agent saves buyers money: if an agent says something is a “good deal”, as the RB (edited from “Clairemont”–I’m fighting with half my brain behind my back) house would have apparently been if it was 5% cheaper, what exactly is the agent saying? Any salesperson’s motivation is to close deals, period. I don’t begrudge someone making a living, but it’s clear that consumers’ and agents’ interests aren’t naturally aligned.
-
AuthorPosts