[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The list price is what’s left on the market. So in periods where the mix is changing, the List PPSF and the sold PPSF should diverge. When the mix is relatively constant, these should move in tandem (perhaps with some lag). So, interpreting these is tricky at best.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The list price is what’s left on the market. So in periods where the mix is changing, the List PPSF and the sold PPSF should diverge. When the mix is relatively constant, these should move in tandem (perhaps with some lag). So, interpreting these is tricky at best.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=jpinpb]Here’s what I just noticed about Redfin that I’m taking issue with. Setting aside comps as far as size of house, condition, lot size and whether there’s a view, they are using comps from a different ZIP code. For example, 2235 Denver is in 92110. But the comps they’re providing are including 92117.[/quote]

jp – Some parts of bay park are in 92117. For example, the area north of Clairemont drive, east of Morena blvd. That area has much more in common with the subject house than some parts of 92110. The house you cite is only 5 blocks from the 92110/92117 border.

In fact, 92110 falls into at least three very distinct neighborhoods, including parts of Point Loma, Old Town, and Bay Park/West Clairemont. The Midway neighborhood of Point Loma is 92110. So is Old Town. These areas have less in common than Bay Park has with some parts of 92117.

I think redfin uses a radius to pull up comparable properties. While that is flawed as well, it is no more flawed than using zip code boundaries.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=jpinpb]Here’s what I just noticed about Redfin that I’m taking issue with. Setting aside comps as far as size of house, condition, lot size and whether there’s a view, they are using comps from a different ZIP code. For example, 2235 Denver is in 92110. But the comps they’re providing are including 92117.[/quote]

jp – Some parts of bay park are in 92117. For example, the area north of Clairemont drive, east of Morena blvd. That area has much more in common with the subject house than some parts of 92110. The house you cite is only 5 blocks from the 92110/92117 border.

In fact, 92110 falls into at least three very distinct neighborhoods, including parts of Point Loma, Old Town, and Bay Park/West Clairemont. The Midway neighborhood of Point Loma is 92110. So is Old Town. These areas have less in common than Bay Park has with some parts of 92117.

I think redfin uses a radius to pull up comparable properties. While that is flawed as well, it is no more flawed than using zip code boundaries.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=jpinpb]Here’s what I just noticed about Redfin that I’m taking issue with. Setting aside comps as far as size of house, condition, lot size and whether there’s a view, they are using comps from a different ZIP code. For example, 2235 Denver is in 92110. But the comps they’re providing are including 92117.[/quote]

jp – Some parts of bay park are in 92117. For example, the area north of Clairemont drive, east of Morena blvd. That area has much more in common with the subject house than some parts of 92110. The house you cite is only 5 blocks from the 92110/92117 border.

In fact, 92110 falls into at least three very distinct neighborhoods, including parts of Point Loma, Old Town, and Bay Park/West Clairemont. The Midway neighborhood of Point Loma is 92110. So is Old Town. These areas have less in common than Bay Park has with some parts of 92117.

I think redfin uses a radius to pull up comparable properties. While that is flawed as well, it is no more flawed than using zip code boundaries.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=jpinpb]Here’s what I just noticed about Redfin that I’m taking issue with. Setting aside comps as far as size of house, condition, lot size and whether there’s a view, they are using comps from a different ZIP code. For example, 2235 Denver is in 92110. But the comps they’re providing are including 92117.[/quote]

jp – Some parts of bay park are in 92117. For example, the area north of Clairemont drive, east of Morena blvd. That area has much more in common with the subject house than some parts of 92110. The house you cite is only 5 blocks from the 92110/92117 border.

In fact, 92110 falls into at least three very distinct neighborhoods, including parts of Point Loma, Old Town, and Bay Park/West Clairemont. The Midway neighborhood of Point Loma is 92110. So is Old Town. These areas have less in common than Bay Park has with some parts of 92117.

I think redfin uses a radius to pull up comparable properties. While that is flawed as well, it is no more flawed than using zip code boundaries.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=jpinpb]Here’s what I just noticed about Redfin that I’m taking issue with. Setting aside comps as far as size of house, condition, lot size and whether there’s a view, they are using comps from a different ZIP code. For example, 2235 Denver is in 92110. But the comps they’re providing are including 92117.[/quote]

jp – Some parts of bay park are in 92117. For example, the area north of Clairemont drive, east of Morena blvd. That area has much more in common with the subject house than some parts of 92110. The house you cite is only 5 blocks from the 92110/92117 border.

In fact, 92110 falls into at least three very distinct neighborhoods, including parts of Point Loma, Old Town, and Bay Park/West Clairemont. The Midway neighborhood of Point Loma is 92110. So is Old Town. These areas have less in common than Bay Park has with some parts of 92117.

I think redfin uses a radius to pull up comparable properties. While that is flawed as well, it is no more flawed than using zip code boundaries.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This is the wrong place to ask about getting into the market.

Back in January or so someone brought up this subject. When I suggested it would be a good time to start dollar-cost averaging into the market, I was promptly poo-poo’d.

I think the market has had too good a run to simply plop a pile of funds in right now. Prices have gotten ahead of earnings. But, assuming your time horizon is a decade or more, I would look for entry points to drop a few bucks in here and there.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This is the wrong place to ask about getting into the market.

Back in January or so someone brought up this subject. When I suggested it would be a good time to start dollar-cost averaging into the market, I was promptly poo-poo’d.

I think the market has had too good a run to simply plop a pile of funds in right now. Prices have gotten ahead of earnings. But, assuming your time horizon is a decade or more, I would look for entry points to drop a few bucks in here and there.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This is the wrong place to ask about getting into the market.

Back in January or so someone brought up this subject. When I suggested it would be a good time to start dollar-cost averaging into the market, I was promptly poo-poo’d.

I think the market has had too good a run to simply plop a pile of funds in right now. Prices have gotten ahead of earnings. But, assuming your time horizon is a decade or more, I would look for entry points to drop a few bucks in here and there.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This is the wrong place to ask about getting into the market.

Back in January or so someone brought up this subject. When I suggested it would be a good time to start dollar-cost averaging into the market, I was promptly poo-poo’d.

I think the market has had too good a run to simply plop a pile of funds in right now. Prices have gotten ahead of earnings. But, assuming your time horizon is a decade or more, I would look for entry points to drop a few bucks in here and there.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This is the wrong place to ask about getting into the market.

Back in January or so someone brought up this subject. When I suggested it would be a good time to start dollar-cost averaging into the market, I was promptly poo-poo’d.

I think the market has had too good a run to simply plop a pile of funds in right now. Prices have gotten ahead of earnings. But, assuming your time horizon is a decade or more, I would look for entry points to drop a few bucks in here and there.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=deadzone]Are you suggesting that the Alt-As won’t “recast” like the Option ARMs? Because when the reset hits, it’s not just the interest rate. Nearly all of these borrorers are now well under water (See WSJ front page today). This means due to their decreasing LTV, monthly payment will still go up regardless of interest rate.[/quote]

deadzone – DaCounselor explained it well.

Being underwater on an existing loan has nothing to do with the rate on an existing loan. It is not dependent on LTV. Only a new loan is. Your typical 5/1 Alt-A loan made in 2005 will reset in 2010 at a rate determined by the index and the margin. Typical margins were 2.25% on the 12-month LIBOR. If those were to reset today the fully-indexed rate would be ~1.25% (LIBOR) + 2.25% (Index) = 3.5%. Since most have a minimum rate the rate would likely stay the same.
If it was an interest only loan, they would now pay principal. The alt-A resets are not (at least for now, while short-term rates remain below about 4%) the disaster trigger event that was predicted or assumed when short-term rates were nearing 6% in 2006 (which would imply 8%+ reset rates).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=deadzone]Are you suggesting that the Alt-As won’t “recast” like the Option ARMs? Because when the reset hits, it’s not just the interest rate. Nearly all of these borrorers are now well under water (See WSJ front page today). This means due to their decreasing LTV, monthly payment will still go up regardless of interest rate.[/quote]

deadzone – DaCounselor explained it well.

Being underwater on an existing loan has nothing to do with the rate on an existing loan. It is not dependent on LTV. Only a new loan is. Your typical 5/1 Alt-A loan made in 2005 will reset in 2010 at a rate determined by the index and the margin. Typical margins were 2.25% on the 12-month LIBOR. If those were to reset today the fully-indexed rate would be ~1.25% (LIBOR) + 2.25% (Index) = 3.5%. Since most have a minimum rate the rate would likely stay the same.
If it was an interest only loan, they would now pay principal. The alt-A resets are not (at least for now, while short-term rates remain below about 4%) the disaster trigger event that was predicted or assumed when short-term rates were nearing 6% in 2006 (which would imply 8%+ reset rates).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=deadzone]Are you suggesting that the Alt-As won’t “recast” like the Option ARMs? Because when the reset hits, it’s not just the interest rate. Nearly all of these borrorers are now well under water (See WSJ front page today). This means due to their decreasing LTV, monthly payment will still go up regardless of interest rate.[/quote]

deadzone – DaCounselor explained it well.

Being underwater on an existing loan has nothing to do with the rate on an existing loan. It is not dependent on LTV. Only a new loan is. Your typical 5/1 Alt-A loan made in 2005 will reset in 2010 at a rate determined by the index and the margin. Typical margins were 2.25% on the 12-month LIBOR. If those were to reset today the fully-indexed rate would be ~1.25% (LIBOR) + 2.25% (Index) = 3.5%. Since most have a minimum rate the rate would likely stay the same.
If it was an interest only loan, they would now pay principal. The alt-A resets are not (at least for now, while short-term rates remain below about 4%) the disaster trigger event that was predicted or assumed when short-term rates were nearing 6% in 2006 (which would imply 8%+ reset rates).

[Author]

Posts