[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

As for the 42% increase in new home sales …

Q: How much of an increase is it from 0.00002 to 0.0000284 ?
A: 42%.

In 2004 about 16,000 new homes sold.
In 2nd quarter 2008 (the 42% increase) 1042 new homes sold. That’s in the quarter that is historically has the most sales.

Pathetic.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

As for the 42% increase in new home sales …

Q: How much of an increase is it from 0.00002 to 0.0000284 ?
A: 42%.

In 2004 about 16,000 new homes sold.
In 2nd quarter 2008 (the 42% increase) 1042 new homes sold. That’s in the quarter that is historically has the most sales.

Pathetic.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This means that inventory is down 15%.
Prices have been falling steeply. Builder have steep discounts as well.

“want to” sellers are not putting their house on the market, keeping the inventory flat.

Inventory by itself is meaningless. Inventory relative to sales is more meaningful (e.g. months of inventory.

Number of sales of existing homes is still anemic.

These numbers do not mean we are in recovery … yet. But I do believe that the activity on the lower end means that we are approaching a bottom.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This means that inventory is down 15%.
Prices have been falling steeply. Builder have steep discounts as well.

“want to” sellers are not putting their house on the market, keeping the inventory flat.

Inventory by itself is meaningless. Inventory relative to sales is more meaningful (e.g. months of inventory.

Number of sales of existing homes is still anemic.

These numbers do not mean we are in recovery … yet. But I do believe that the activity on the lower end means that we are approaching a bottom.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This means that inventory is down 15%.
Prices have been falling steeply. Builder have steep discounts as well.

“want to” sellers are not putting their house on the market, keeping the inventory flat.

Inventory by itself is meaningless. Inventory relative to sales is more meaningful (e.g. months of inventory.

Number of sales of existing homes is still anemic.

These numbers do not mean we are in recovery … yet. But I do believe that the activity on the lower end means that we are approaching a bottom.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This means that inventory is down 15%.
Prices have been falling steeply. Builder have steep discounts as well.

“want to” sellers are not putting their house on the market, keeping the inventory flat.

Inventory by itself is meaningless. Inventory relative to sales is more meaningful (e.g. months of inventory.

Number of sales of existing homes is still anemic.

These numbers do not mean we are in recovery … yet. But I do believe that the activity on the lower end means that we are approaching a bottom.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

This means that inventory is down 15%.
Prices have been falling steeply. Builder have steep discounts as well.

“want to” sellers are not putting their house on the market, keeping the inventory flat.

Inventory by itself is meaningless. Inventory relative to sales is more meaningful (e.g. months of inventory.

Number of sales of existing homes is still anemic.

These numbers do not mean we are in recovery … yet. But I do believe that the activity on the lower end means that we are approaching a bottom.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Without knowing the balance of your loan here’s how I look at it :

Suppose you bought with 10% down.
In that case you would owe somewhere around 760-770K.

Suppose you could sell now for 650K, minus selling costs/commission yields 605K.
So, you come up with 160K out of pocket to sell.

Is that the best use of 160K ?

By spending that 160K now, you may potentially save another 100-150K. OR you could use that 160K to make other investments, or as an emergency cushion to carry you through any unforeseen circumstances.

You have to weigh the opportunity cost of the money you would spend to sell your house against the protection from further downside you are buying.
(And by the way, assuming you did not refinance, you already have protection under the state of CA recourse laws.)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Without knowing the balance of your loan here’s how I look at it :

Suppose you bought with 10% down.
In that case you would owe somewhere around 760-770K.

Suppose you could sell now for 650K, minus selling costs/commission yields 605K.
So, you come up with 160K out of pocket to sell.

Is that the best use of 160K ?

By spending that 160K now, you may potentially save another 100-150K. OR you could use that 160K to make other investments, or as an emergency cushion to carry you through any unforeseen circumstances.

You have to weigh the opportunity cost of the money you would spend to sell your house against the protection from further downside you are buying.
(And by the way, assuming you did not refinance, you already have protection under the state of CA recourse laws.)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Without knowing the balance of your loan here’s how I look at it :

Suppose you bought with 10% down.
In that case you would owe somewhere around 760-770K.

Suppose you could sell now for 650K, minus selling costs/commission yields 605K.
So, you come up with 160K out of pocket to sell.

Is that the best use of 160K ?

By spending that 160K now, you may potentially save another 100-150K. OR you could use that 160K to make other investments, or as an emergency cushion to carry you through any unforeseen circumstances.

You have to weigh the opportunity cost of the money you would spend to sell your house against the protection from further downside you are buying.
(And by the way, assuming you did not refinance, you already have protection under the state of CA recourse laws.)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Without knowing the balance of your loan here’s how I look at it :

Suppose you bought with 10% down.
In that case you would owe somewhere around 760-770K.

Suppose you could sell now for 650K, minus selling costs/commission yields 605K.
So, you come up with 160K out of pocket to sell.

Is that the best use of 160K ?

By spending that 160K now, you may potentially save another 100-150K. OR you could use that 160K to make other investments, or as an emergency cushion to carry you through any unforeseen circumstances.

You have to weigh the opportunity cost of the money you would spend to sell your house against the protection from further downside you are buying.
(And by the way, assuming you did not refinance, you already have protection under the state of CA recourse laws.)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Without knowing the balance of your loan here’s how I look at it :

Suppose you bought with 10% down.
In that case you would owe somewhere around 760-770K.

Suppose you could sell now for 650K, minus selling costs/commission yields 605K.
So, you come up with 160K out of pocket to sell.

Is that the best use of 160K ?

By spending that 160K now, you may potentially save another 100-150K. OR you could use that 160K to make other investments, or as an emergency cushion to carry you through any unforeseen circumstances.

You have to weigh the opportunity cost of the money you would spend to sell your house against the protection from further downside you are buying.
(And by the way, assuming you did not refinance, you already have protection under the state of CA recourse laws.)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I agree with ucodegen on the oil issue. The end price is not really being driven by speculators.
So, most here would likely agree with your main points on housing, but many might disagree on the oil thing.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I agree with ucodegen on the oil issue. The end price is not really being driven by speculators.
So, most here would likely agree with your main points on housing, but many might disagree on the oil thing.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I agree with ucodegen on the oil issue. The end price is not really being driven by speculators.
So, most here would likely agree with your main points on housing, but many might disagree on the oil thing.

[Author]

Posts