[feraina]

“However, like I said, I can’t think of why a reason for the 5th child. I mean, it’s not exactly “oops” on the 5th child.”

Maybe they’re Catholics?

[feraina]

I’ve noticed that the most aggressively (realistic) priced homes are often those that were bought near the peak, 2005-7, whereas the ones bought earlier tend to be “sticker.”

At first I thought this was weird, because the people who bought at peak are taking great losses, whereas the ones who bought earlier than 2000-1 would still make a hefty profit if they drop the price a little.

Part of it is no doubt that the peak buyers tend to be more in distress and so more motivated. But I think part of it also has to do with the recent buyers having relatively little to lose, since they probably paid zero-down and probably enjoyed low interests for a couple of years. If they simply walked away or managed a short sale, their financial loss is not great even if their credit is ruined.

On the other hand, the owners who’ve held onto it longer, not only are they less motivated, but they have a big “regret” factor. IF ONLY they sold it at the peak, they would have had a giant windfall. Having waited too long, now they suddenly realized the extra 300K they were counting on for whatever dream they had is up in smoke. That’s gotta be hard to accept.

Maybe that’s why prices are sticking in places like La Jolla, where so few homes exchanged hands during the peak (how many people can afford multi-million-dollar homes even if there’s only interest to pay?), and most sellers now belong to the “regret” category.

[feraina]

I’ve noticed that the most aggressively (realistic) priced homes are often those that were bought near the peak, 2005-7, whereas the ones bought earlier tend to be “sticker.”

At first I thought this was weird, because the people who bought at peak are taking great losses, whereas the ones who bought earlier than 2000-1 would still make a hefty profit if they drop the price a little.

Part of it is no doubt that the peak buyers tend to be more in distress and so more motivated. But I think part of it also has to do with the recent buyers having relatively little to lose, since they probably paid zero-down and probably enjoyed low interests for a couple of years. If they simply walked away or managed a short sale, their financial loss is not great even if their credit is ruined.

On the other hand, the owners who’ve held onto it longer, not only are they less motivated, but they have a big “regret” factor. IF ONLY they sold it at the peak, they would have had a giant windfall. Having waited too long, now they suddenly realized the extra 300K they were counting on for whatever dream they had is up in smoke. That’s gotta be hard to accept.

Maybe that’s why prices are sticking in places like La Jolla, where so few homes exchanged hands during the peak (how many people can afford multi-million-dollar homes even if there’s only interest to pay?), and most sellers now belong to the “regret” category.

[feraina]

I’ve noticed that the most aggressively (realistic) priced homes are often those that were bought near the peak, 2005-7, whereas the ones bought earlier tend to be “sticker.”

At first I thought this was weird, because the people who bought at peak are taking great losses, whereas the ones who bought earlier than 2000-1 would still make a hefty profit if they drop the price a little.

Part of it is no doubt that the peak buyers tend to be more in distress and so more motivated. But I think part of it also has to do with the recent buyers having relatively little to lose, since they probably paid zero-down and probably enjoyed low interests for a couple of years. If they simply walked away or managed a short sale, their financial loss is not great even if their credit is ruined.

On the other hand, the owners who’ve held onto it longer, not only are they less motivated, but they have a big “regret” factor. IF ONLY they sold it at the peak, they would have had a giant windfall. Having waited too long, now they suddenly realized the extra 300K they were counting on for whatever dream they had is up in smoke. That’s gotta be hard to accept.

Maybe that’s why prices are sticking in places like La Jolla, where so few homes exchanged hands during the peak (how many people can afford multi-million-dollar homes even if there’s only interest to pay?), and most sellers now belong to the “regret” category.

[feraina]

I’ve noticed that the most aggressively (realistic) priced homes are often those that were bought near the peak, 2005-7, whereas the ones bought earlier tend to be “sticker.”

At first I thought this was weird, because the people who bought at peak are taking great losses, whereas the ones who bought earlier than 2000-1 would still make a hefty profit if they drop the price a little.

Part of it is no doubt that the peak buyers tend to be more in distress and so more motivated. But I think part of it also has to do with the recent buyers having relatively little to lose, since they probably paid zero-down and probably enjoyed low interests for a couple of years. If they simply walked away or managed a short sale, their financial loss is not great even if their credit is ruined.

On the other hand, the owners who’ve held onto it longer, not only are they less motivated, but they have a big “regret” factor. IF ONLY they sold it at the peak, they would have had a giant windfall. Having waited too long, now they suddenly realized the extra 300K they were counting on for whatever dream they had is up in smoke. That’s gotta be hard to accept.

Maybe that’s why prices are sticking in places like La Jolla, where so few homes exchanged hands during the peak (how many people can afford multi-million-dollar homes even if there’s only interest to pay?), and most sellers now belong to the “regret” category.

[feraina]

I’ve noticed that the most aggressively (realistic) priced homes are often those that were bought near the peak, 2005-7, whereas the ones bought earlier tend to be “sticker.”

At first I thought this was weird, because the people who bought at peak are taking great losses, whereas the ones who bought earlier than 2000-1 would still make a hefty profit if they drop the price a little.

Part of it is no doubt that the peak buyers tend to be more in distress and so more motivated. But I think part of it also has to do with the recent buyers having relatively little to lose, since they probably paid zero-down and probably enjoyed low interests for a couple of years. If they simply walked away or managed a short sale, their financial loss is not great even if their credit is ruined.

On the other hand, the owners who’ve held onto it longer, not only are they less motivated, but they have a big “regret” factor. IF ONLY they sold it at the peak, they would have had a giant windfall. Having waited too long, now they suddenly realized the extra 300K they were counting on for whatever dream they had is up in smoke. That’s gotta be hard to accept.

Maybe that’s why prices are sticking in places like La Jolla, where so few homes exchanged hands during the peak (how many people can afford multi-million-dollar homes even if there’s only interest to pay?), and most sellers now belong to the “regret” category.

[feraina]

I was intrigued by the “bottom-feeder” story! Does this mean that it would be possible for the federal “bailout” plan to be structured such that it implements this “bottom-feeding” process on a large scale?

It would create some jobs in the slumping economy, and it would help to get the “shadow inventory” clearing faster, the price correction to occur more rapidly, the banks to get some liquidity back into their system, the house-“owners” to either move on with a little cash in their pocket or pay a mortgage they can actually afford, all the while not costing taxpayers too much since the operation is actually profitable.

I normally never believe in anything Bush says, and as usual I sneered when he said he didn’t support the bailout bill because it would cost taxpayers. It seemed like one might oppose bailout as a matter of principle, but to complain a particular version of the bailout as costing taxpayers’ money! But maybe he actually has some suave financial adviser who sees the possibility of bottom-feeding on a large scale?

[feraina]

I was intrigued by the “bottom-feeder” story! Does this mean that it would be possible for the federal “bailout” plan to be structured such that it implements this “bottom-feeding” process on a large scale?

It would create some jobs in the slumping economy, and it would help to get the “shadow inventory” clearing faster, the price correction to occur more rapidly, the banks to get some liquidity back into their system, the house-“owners” to either move on with a little cash in their pocket or pay a mortgage they can actually afford, all the while not costing taxpayers too much since the operation is actually profitable.

I normally never believe in anything Bush says, and as usual I sneered when he said he didn’t support the bailout bill because it would cost taxpayers. It seemed like one might oppose bailout as a matter of principle, but to complain a particular version of the bailout as costing taxpayers’ money! But maybe he actually has some suave financial adviser who sees the possibility of bottom-feeding on a large scale?

[feraina]

I was intrigued by the “bottom-feeder” story! Does this mean that it would be possible for the federal “bailout” plan to be structured such that it implements this “bottom-feeding” process on a large scale?

It would create some jobs in the slumping economy, and it would help to get the “shadow inventory” clearing faster, the price correction to occur more rapidly, the banks to get some liquidity back into their system, the house-“owners” to either move on with a little cash in their pocket or pay a mortgage they can actually afford, all the while not costing taxpayers too much since the operation is actually profitable.

I normally never believe in anything Bush says, and as usual I sneered when he said he didn’t support the bailout bill because it would cost taxpayers. It seemed like one might oppose bailout as a matter of principle, but to complain a particular version of the bailout as costing taxpayers’ money! But maybe he actually has some suave financial adviser who sees the possibility of bottom-feeding on a large scale?

[feraina]

I was intrigued by the “bottom-feeder” story! Does this mean that it would be possible for the federal “bailout” plan to be structured such that it implements this “bottom-feeding” process on a large scale?

It would create some jobs in the slumping economy, and it would help to get the “shadow inventory” clearing faster, the price correction to occur more rapidly, the banks to get some liquidity back into their system, the house-“owners” to either move on with a little cash in their pocket or pay a mortgage they can actually afford, all the while not costing taxpayers too much since the operation is actually profitable.

I normally never believe in anything Bush says, and as usual I sneered when he said he didn’t support the bailout bill because it would cost taxpayers. It seemed like one might oppose bailout as a matter of principle, but to complain a particular version of the bailout as costing taxpayers’ money! But maybe he actually has some suave financial adviser who sees the possibility of bottom-feeding on a large scale?

[feraina]

I was intrigued by the “bottom-feeder” story! Does this mean that it would be possible for the federal “bailout” plan to be structured such that it implements this “bottom-feeding” process on a large scale?

It would create some jobs in the slumping economy, and it would help to get the “shadow inventory” clearing faster, the price correction to occur more rapidly, the banks to get some liquidity back into their system, the house-“owners” to either move on with a little cash in their pocket or pay a mortgage they can actually afford, all the while not costing taxpayers too much since the operation is actually profitable.

I normally never believe in anything Bush says, and as usual I sneered when he said he didn’t support the bailout bill because it would cost taxpayers. It seemed like one might oppose bailout as a matter of principle, but to complain a particular version of the bailout as costing taxpayers’ money! But maybe he actually has some suave financial adviser who sees the possibility of bottom-feeding on a large scale?

[feraina]

Where is the hint for “bottom” on this chart? It could turn back up soon, but so far no sign yet.

[feraina]

Where is the hint for “bottom” on this chart? It could turn back up soon, but so far no sign yet.

[feraina]

Where is the hint for “bottom” on this chart? It could turn back up soon, but so far no sign yet.

[feraina]

Where is the hint for “bottom” on this chart? It could turn back up soon, but so far no sign yet.

[Author]

Posts