[DWCAP]

I dont understand your point Arraya. Are you advocating that SD will fall by 90%?

[DWCAP]

I dont understand your point Arraya. Are you advocating that SD will fall by 90%?

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

A) I dont think most people are looking for ANTHER 40% off. Atleast I have not heard it from anyone who is a regular poster (or anyone else for that matter, but I sometimes miss threads). Usually when I hear 40% off stuff, it is in relation to peak prices. So, a house that was 750k ‘should’ be 450k but is still at 550k. (this is what I hear the argument as).
As I understand it, your saying that the argument is the house which is now 550k ‘should’ be 330k, and I have just never seen anyone outside of Zerohedge make such claims.
Please feel free to prove me wrong on this, I only get spotty time on Piggington.

B) Housing prices have been trending up until very reciently, due mostly to tax credits and ‘REO/modification’ shortages of inventory. The loss of these gains is not ‘cutting into real equity’. Unless you live in RSF, in which case I have no sympthay for you, your neighboorhood likley has a 10-20% equity cushion that is due purely to governement intervention and is not ‘real’.

C) Would people really riot because of their house not being worth what they want it to be? Really? I mean they wont be happy, but they would riot over it?
Now, they would riot over another depression style loss of jobs (read jan 09 X12) but that came from the implosion of too much debt (only some of which was housing debt), not falling house prices. I just dont see it.

Rather, I think what we would see is a further rise in fringe canadates, and the resulting chaos in congress. Canadates who would make Sarah Palin look moderate, and the story would be different on the left.

[DWCAP]

I prefer the part about the seller:

“We thought it was the value of the house that we could probably get, if the market would pick up a little bit, and people were a little positive,” Gabriel told us.

So you priced agressivly, or above market, and hoped to hook a sucker. It didnt happen, so:

They say today’s buyers are only looking for great deals, so if you price the home at its actual value, nobody’s interested. You have to go below.

“Actual value”. Nice. Value is what people will pay, not what you think your house is worth cause that is what you want for it. Good to see the bubble mentality is alive and strong.

[DWCAP]

I prefer the part about the seller:

“We thought it was the value of the house that we could probably get, if the market would pick up a little bit, and people were a little positive,” Gabriel told us.

So you priced agressivly, or above market, and hoped to hook a sucker. It didnt happen, so:

They say today’s buyers are only looking for great deals, so if you price the home at its actual value, nobody’s interested. You have to go below.

“Actual value”. Nice. Value is what people will pay, not what you think your house is worth cause that is what you want for it. Good to see the bubble mentality is alive and strong.

[DWCAP]

I prefer the part about the seller:

“We thought it was the value of the house that we could probably get, if the market would pick up a little bit, and people were a little positive,” Gabriel told us.

So you priced agressivly, or above market, and hoped to hook a sucker. It didnt happen, so:

They say today’s buyers are only looking for great deals, so if you price the home at its actual value, nobody’s interested. You have to go below.

“Actual value”. Nice. Value is what people will pay, not what you think your house is worth cause that is what you want for it. Good to see the bubble mentality is alive and strong.

[DWCAP]

I prefer the part about the seller:

“We thought it was the value of the house that we could probably get, if the market would pick up a little bit, and people were a little positive,” Gabriel told us.

So you priced agressivly, or above market, and hoped to hook a sucker. It didnt happen, so:

They say today’s buyers are only looking for great deals, so if you price the home at its actual value, nobody’s interested. You have to go below.

“Actual value”. Nice. Value is what people will pay, not what you think your house is worth cause that is what you want for it. Good to see the bubble mentality is alive and strong.

[DWCAP]

I prefer the part about the seller:

“We thought it was the value of the house that we could probably get, if the market would pick up a little bit, and people were a little positive,” Gabriel told us.

So you priced agressivly, or above market, and hoped to hook a sucker. It didnt happen, so:

They say today’s buyers are only looking for great deals, so if you price the home at its actual value, nobody’s interested. You have to go below.

“Actual value”. Nice. Value is what people will pay, not what you think your house is worth cause that is what you want for it. Good to see the bubble mentality is alive and strong.

[DWCAP]

I saw that on the news last night. Filner was informed the day before the rally that the bank would not be taking the house. He begruggingly admitted that later on. That rally was all pomp and show, the bank had no intention of evicting her then, and they knew it.

But now what? She quit her job, has only a passive income, and little to no spousal support (I dont know, but it doesnt sound like much). How is she gonna pay this loan back? Or just pay her bills in general?

Simple answer is she isnt.

Everything else is extend, pretend, and deny. Thanks Rep Filner for making sure this draggs on and on.

I do hope her son gets better.

[DWCAP]

I saw that on the news last night. Filner was informed the day before the rally that the bank would not be taking the house. He begruggingly admitted that later on. That rally was all pomp and show, the bank had no intention of evicting her then, and they knew it.

But now what? She quit her job, has only a passive income, and little to no spousal support (I dont know, but it doesnt sound like much). How is she gonna pay this loan back? Or just pay her bills in general?

Simple answer is she isnt.

Everything else is extend, pretend, and deny. Thanks Rep Filner for making sure this draggs on and on.

I do hope her son gets better.

[DWCAP]

I saw that on the news last night. Filner was informed the day before the rally that the bank would not be taking the house. He begruggingly admitted that later on. That rally was all pomp and show, the bank had no intention of evicting her then, and they knew it.

But now what? She quit her job, has only a passive income, and little to no spousal support (I dont know, but it doesnt sound like much). How is she gonna pay this loan back? Or just pay her bills in general?

Simple answer is she isnt.

Everything else is extend, pretend, and deny. Thanks Rep Filner for making sure this draggs on and on.

I do hope her son gets better.

[Author]

Posts