[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

doublewise – What would you do in the landlord’s situation ?

I do think four consecutive weekends of open house is excessive. But, I wouldn’t go out of my way to make life miserable for the landlord. Why not ask for a discount in rent in exchange for allowing a limited number of showings with at least 24 hours notice. e.g. – showings only after an accepted offer. This is quite common for tenant-occupied property.

If I were the owner I would let you out of your lease.

I would try to work with them after they realize they can’t bully you around.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

doublewise – What would you do in the landlord’s situation ?

I do think four consecutive weekends of open house is excessive. But, I wouldn’t go out of my way to make life miserable for the landlord. Why not ask for a discount in rent in exchange for allowing a limited number of showings with at least 24 hours notice. e.g. – showings only after an accepted offer. This is quite common for tenant-occupied property.

If I were the owner I would let you out of your lease.

I would try to work with them after they realize they can’t bully you around.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think we are all pretty much in concensus that there is another leg down. Where we differ is how big and how quickly it will happen. That being said most seem to agree that the low end may have bounced off its bottom, that the middle is getting close and that the high end has plenty of work ahead.[/quote]

I don’t think we will go significantly below the lows set in Spring 2009 on aggregate in San Diego.
Aggregate San Diego prices have already gone up by 10%. I could see retesting those lows at some point over the next year or two, but don;t think we will go much below those levels.
Part of the reason is that during the spring the market was very skewed (perhaps artificially) towards the low end. The other reasons are based on long-term fundamental relationships between costs of ownership and costs of rent. Affordability is a a multi-decade high in San Diego.

Of course there are plenty of wild cards that will make it different this time, such as the dollar decline, jobs never coming back, etc. But I wouldn’t be too surprised if over the next 3 years prices are within +/- 10% of where they stood in July 2009.

Oh yeah, I almost forget the real reason that I think we hit bottom is because I called it here 😉

http://piggington.com/welcome_to_the_bottom

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think we are all pretty much in concensus that there is another leg down. Where we differ is how big and how quickly it will happen. That being said most seem to agree that the low end may have bounced off its bottom, that the middle is getting close and that the high end has plenty of work ahead.[/quote]

I don’t think we will go significantly below the lows set in Spring 2009 on aggregate in San Diego.
Aggregate San Diego prices have already gone up by 10%. I could see retesting those lows at some point over the next year or two, but don;t think we will go much below those levels.
Part of the reason is that during the spring the market was very skewed (perhaps artificially) towards the low end. The other reasons are based on long-term fundamental relationships between costs of ownership and costs of rent. Affordability is a a multi-decade high in San Diego.

Of course there are plenty of wild cards that will make it different this time, such as the dollar decline, jobs never coming back, etc. But I wouldn’t be too surprised if over the next 3 years prices are within +/- 10% of where they stood in July 2009.

Oh yeah, I almost forget the real reason that I think we hit bottom is because I called it here 😉

http://piggington.com/welcome_to_the_bottom

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think we are all pretty much in concensus that there is another leg down. Where we differ is how big and how quickly it will happen. That being said most seem to agree that the low end may have bounced off its bottom, that the middle is getting close and that the high end has plenty of work ahead.[/quote]

I don’t think we will go significantly below the lows set in Spring 2009 on aggregate in San Diego.
Aggregate San Diego prices have already gone up by 10%. I could see retesting those lows at some point over the next year or two, but don;t think we will go much below those levels.
Part of the reason is that during the spring the market was very skewed (perhaps artificially) towards the low end. The other reasons are based on long-term fundamental relationships between costs of ownership and costs of rent. Affordability is a a multi-decade high in San Diego.

Of course there are plenty of wild cards that will make it different this time, such as the dollar decline, jobs never coming back, etc. But I wouldn’t be too surprised if over the next 3 years prices are within +/- 10% of where they stood in July 2009.

Oh yeah, I almost forget the real reason that I think we hit bottom is because I called it here 😉

http://piggington.com/welcome_to_the_bottom

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think we are all pretty much in concensus that there is another leg down. Where we differ is how big and how quickly it will happen. That being said most seem to agree that the low end may have bounced off its bottom, that the middle is getting close and that the high end has plenty of work ahead.[/quote]

I don’t think we will go significantly below the lows set in Spring 2009 on aggregate in San Diego.
Aggregate San Diego prices have already gone up by 10%. I could see retesting those lows at some point over the next year or two, but don;t think we will go much below those levels.
Part of the reason is that during the spring the market was very skewed (perhaps artificially) towards the low end. The other reasons are based on long-term fundamental relationships between costs of ownership and costs of rent. Affordability is a a multi-decade high in San Diego.

Of course there are plenty of wild cards that will make it different this time, such as the dollar decline, jobs never coming back, etc. But I wouldn’t be too surprised if over the next 3 years prices are within +/- 10% of where they stood in July 2009.

Oh yeah, I almost forget the real reason that I think we hit bottom is because I called it here 😉

http://piggington.com/welcome_to_the_bottom

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think we are all pretty much in concensus that there is another leg down. Where we differ is how big and how quickly it will happen. That being said most seem to agree that the low end may have bounced off its bottom, that the middle is getting close and that the high end has plenty of work ahead.[/quote]

I don’t think we will go significantly below the lows set in Spring 2009 on aggregate in San Diego.
Aggregate San Diego prices have already gone up by 10%. I could see retesting those lows at some point over the next year or two, but don;t think we will go much below those levels.
Part of the reason is that during the spring the market was very skewed (perhaps artificially) towards the low end. The other reasons are based on long-term fundamental relationships between costs of ownership and costs of rent. Affordability is a a multi-decade high in San Diego.

Of course there are plenty of wild cards that will make it different this time, such as the dollar decline, jobs never coming back, etc. But I wouldn’t be too surprised if over the next 3 years prices are within +/- 10% of where they stood in July 2009.

Oh yeah, I almost forget the real reason that I think we hit bottom is because I called it here 😉

http://piggington.com/welcome_to_the_bottom

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=scaredycat]all the people in the homes are renters who aren’t renting rentals. so it seems like it has to increase the number of rentals avilable on the market, assuming the people staying in the homes would otherwise have rented rentals and not just lived in their vans or crashed at friends’ houses.[/quote]

I believe that it would result in very nearly ZERO net change in supply and demand of rentals. Here’s why.

Demand side:
If they were foreclosed on, the former owner would be in the market for a new unit. Net result to demand: one new renter.

Supply side :
Once the house is foreclosed and sold it will either be owner occupied or rented out. I’ll address three cases (sold to investor for rental; sold to one who was previously in a rental; sold to move-up buyer)
1. In the case where it is rented out there is an increase of one additional rental unit. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
2. If it is sold to someone who was previously renting, their previous rental is available. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
3. If it sold to a move-up buyer, then they have to either sell or rent out their house. If they rent it out the net reult is one additional rental unit. If they sell then either their buyer or their buyer’s buyer (or someone further down the chain of move up buyers) is a previous renter. Net result : one additional rental unit.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=scaredycat]all the people in the homes are renters who aren’t renting rentals. so it seems like it has to increase the number of rentals avilable on the market, assuming the people staying in the homes would otherwise have rented rentals and not just lived in their vans or crashed at friends’ houses.[/quote]

I believe that it would result in very nearly ZERO net change in supply and demand of rentals. Here’s why.

Demand side:
If they were foreclosed on, the former owner would be in the market for a new unit. Net result to demand: one new renter.

Supply side :
Once the house is foreclosed and sold it will either be owner occupied or rented out. I’ll address three cases (sold to investor for rental; sold to one who was previously in a rental; sold to move-up buyer)
1. In the case where it is rented out there is an increase of one additional rental unit. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
2. If it is sold to someone who was previously renting, their previous rental is available. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
3. If it sold to a move-up buyer, then they have to either sell or rent out their house. If they rent it out the net reult is one additional rental unit. If they sell then either their buyer or their buyer’s buyer (or someone further down the chain of move up buyers) is a previous renter. Net result : one additional rental unit.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=scaredycat]all the people in the homes are renters who aren’t renting rentals. so it seems like it has to increase the number of rentals avilable on the market, assuming the people staying in the homes would otherwise have rented rentals and not just lived in their vans or crashed at friends’ houses.[/quote]

I believe that it would result in very nearly ZERO net change in supply and demand of rentals. Here’s why.

Demand side:
If they were foreclosed on, the former owner would be in the market for a new unit. Net result to demand: one new renter.

Supply side :
Once the house is foreclosed and sold it will either be owner occupied or rented out. I’ll address three cases (sold to investor for rental; sold to one who was previously in a rental; sold to move-up buyer)
1. In the case where it is rented out there is an increase of one additional rental unit. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
2. If it is sold to someone who was previously renting, their previous rental is available. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
3. If it sold to a move-up buyer, then they have to either sell or rent out their house. If they rent it out the net reult is one additional rental unit. If they sell then either their buyer or their buyer’s buyer (or someone further down the chain of move up buyers) is a previous renter. Net result : one additional rental unit.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=scaredycat]all the people in the homes are renters who aren’t renting rentals. so it seems like it has to increase the number of rentals avilable on the market, assuming the people staying in the homes would otherwise have rented rentals and not just lived in their vans or crashed at friends’ houses.[/quote]

I believe that it would result in very nearly ZERO net change in supply and demand of rentals. Here’s why.

Demand side:
If they were foreclosed on, the former owner would be in the market for a new unit. Net result to demand: one new renter.

Supply side :
Once the house is foreclosed and sold it will either be owner occupied or rented out. I’ll address three cases (sold to investor for rental; sold to one who was previously in a rental; sold to move-up buyer)
1. In the case where it is rented out there is an increase of one additional rental unit. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
2. If it is sold to someone who was previously renting, their previous rental is available. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
3. If it sold to a move-up buyer, then they have to either sell or rent out their house. If they rent it out the net reult is one additional rental unit. If they sell then either their buyer or their buyer’s buyer (or someone further down the chain of move up buyers) is a previous renter. Net result : one additional rental unit.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=scaredycat]all the people in the homes are renters who aren’t renting rentals. so it seems like it has to increase the number of rentals avilable on the market, assuming the people staying in the homes would otherwise have rented rentals and not just lived in their vans or crashed at friends’ houses.[/quote]

I believe that it would result in very nearly ZERO net change in supply and demand of rentals. Here’s why.

Demand side:
If they were foreclosed on, the former owner would be in the market for a new unit. Net result to demand: one new renter.

Supply side :
Once the house is foreclosed and sold it will either be owner occupied or rented out. I’ll address three cases (sold to investor for rental; sold to one who was previously in a rental; sold to move-up buyer)
1. In the case where it is rented out there is an increase of one additional rental unit. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
2. If it is sold to someone who was previously renting, their previous rental is available. Net result to supply: one new rental unit.
3. If it sold to a move-up buyer, then they have to either sell or rent out their house. If they rent it out the net reult is one additional rental unit. If they sell then either their buyer or their buyer’s buyer (or someone further down the chain of move up buyers) is a previous renter. Net result : one additional rental unit.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Excellent points carlsbadworker.
Wealth accumulation is not linear with time (age). If one is saving and growing a nest egg, it should follow a growth curve.
I think that would be too complicated for the audience targets by the millionaire next door, so he uses an approximation that probably makes sense for people in the ~ 40-50 age range.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Excellent points carlsbadworker.
Wealth accumulation is not linear with time (age). If one is saving and growing a nest egg, it should follow a growth curve.
I think that would be too complicated for the audience targets by the millionaire next door, so he uses an approximation that probably makes sense for people in the ~ 40-50 age range.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Excellent points carlsbadworker.
Wealth accumulation is not linear with time (age). If one is saving and growing a nest egg, it should follow a growth curve.
I think that would be too complicated for the audience targets by the millionaire next door, so he uses an approximation that probably makes sense for people in the ~ 40-50 age range.

[Author]

Posts