Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
NotCranky
ParticipantTake a look at this home..
http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1564635
just a basic home in Paloma Del Sol.Look at the sales history….
Jun 26, 1992 $137,500
—
Oct 16, 1997 $99,429
-5.9%/yr
Oct 20, 1997 $134,890
>1,000%/yr
Apr 23, 1998 $128,000
-9.8%/yr
Jun 21, 2001 $180,000
11.4%/yr
Oct 05, 2005 $389,000
19.7%/yr
Feb 05, 2008 $310,500
-9.2%/yrMy numbers were actually wrong on the work out I did on this I was using the Feb 05, 2008 $310,500 as the listing price.
I honestly never looked at the listing until Nostradamus said it was 229k. It didn’t recently get dropped to 229k I think it was listed at or near that price. I think 310k was probably the trustees sale, again I didn’t look at it,just want to clarify my mistake.
There would be much less point in debating whether a house listed and 229k could go down to 160K. Although I think this actual situation verifies what I have been saying about Lowballing 10-20% off in the summer or even now while interest rates are good and show why I wouldn’t get fixated with the bottom unless I believed, as some do that there is no bottom. I think the rate argument is important in a situation like this… not in the usual way it is used to push buyer’s buttons. The downside risk starts to be getting a little bit lower price but a fixed higher intererest rate that maybe won’t ever drop. Yes the down side risk continues to be price too.We just hsve to weigh these thing for significance considering the properties are penciling out or better and a tax deduction is available for some and that lifestyle change,normally disgust with renting, is a factor too for some.I have no idea what is going to happen to rates. A mortgage broker I work with thinks they will be relatively flat for a year at least.ParticipantTake a look at this home..
http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1564635
just a basic home in Paloma Del Sol.Look at the sales history….
Jun 26, 1992 $137,500
—
Oct 16, 1997 $99,429
-5.9%/yr
Oct 20, 1997 $134,890
>1,000%/yr
Apr 23, 1998 $128,000
-9.8%/yr
Jun 21, 2001 $180,000
11.4%/yr
Oct 05, 2005 $389,000
19.7%/yr
Feb 05, 2008 $310,500
-9.2%/yrMy numbers were actually wrong on the work out I did on this I was using the Feb 05, 2008 $310,500 as the listing price.
I honestly never looked at the listing until Nostradamus said it was 229k. It didn’t recently get dropped to 229k I think it was listed at or near that price. I think 310k was probably the trustees sale, again I didn’t look at it,just want to clarify my mistake.
There would be much less point in debating whether a house listed and 229k could go down to 160K. Although I think this actual situation verifies what I have been saying about Lowballing 10-20% off in the summer or even now while interest rates are good and show why I wouldn’t get fixated with the bottom unless I believed, as some do that there is no bottom. I think the rate argument is important in a situation like this… not in the usual way it is used to push buyer’s buttons. The downside risk starts to be getting a little bit lower price but a fixed higher intererest rate that maybe won’t ever drop. Yes the down side risk continues to be price too.We just hsve to weigh these thing for significance considering the properties are penciling out or better and a tax deduction is available for some and that lifestyle change,normally disgust with renting, is a factor too for some.I have no idea what is going to happen to rates. A mortgage broker I work with thinks they will be relatively flat for a year at least.ParticipantTake a look at this home..
http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1564635
just a basic home in Paloma Del Sol.Look at the sales history….
Jun 26, 1992 $137,500
—
Oct 16, 1997 $99,429
-5.9%/yr
Oct 20, 1997 $134,890
>1,000%/yr
Apr 23, 1998 $128,000
-9.8%/yr
Jun 21, 2001 $180,000
11.4%/yr
Oct 05, 2005 $389,000
19.7%/yr
Feb 05, 2008 $310,500
-9.2%/yrMy numbers were actually wrong on the work out I did on this I was using the Feb 05, 2008 $310,500 as the listing price.
I honestly never looked at the listing until Nostradamus said it was 229k. It didn’t recently get dropped to 229k I think it was listed at or near that price. I think 310k was probably the trustees sale, again I didn’t look at it,just want to clarify my mistake.
There would be much less point in debating whether a house listed and 229k could go down to 160K. Although I think this actual situation verifies what I have been saying about Lowballing 10-20% off in the summer or even now while interest rates are good and show why I wouldn’t get fixated with the bottom unless I believed, as some do that there is no bottom. I think the rate argument is important in a situation like this… not in the usual way it is used to push buyer’s buttons. The downside risk starts to be getting a little bit lower price but a fixed higher intererest rate that maybe won’t ever drop. Yes the down side risk continues to be price too.We just hsve to weigh these thing for significance considering the properties are penciling out or better and a tax deduction is available for some and that lifestyle change,normally disgust with renting, is a factor too for some.I have no idea what is going to happen to rates. A mortgage broker I work with thinks they will be relatively flat for a year at least.ParticipantMan thats too funny! We must have really scared them. Now I have to go offer 260k to save myself.Actually if it doesn’t ever go below 210k its a draw I think since I offered to split the difference between 260k and 160K? Well it was a good work out. Good for you guys up there.I hope.
Cheers
ParticipantMan thats too funny! We must have really scared them. Now I have to go offer 260k to save myself.Actually if it doesn’t ever go below 210k its a draw I think since I offered to split the difference between 260k and 160K? Well it was a good work out. Good for you guys up there.I hope.
Cheers
ParticipantMan thats too funny! We must have really scared them. Now I have to go offer 260k to save myself.Actually if it doesn’t ever go below 210k its a draw I think since I offered to split the difference between 260k and 160K? Well it was a good work out. Good for you guys up there.I hope.
Cheers
ParticipantMan thats too funny! We must have really scared them. Now I have to go offer 260k to save myself.Actually if it doesn’t ever go below 210k its a draw I think since I offered to split the difference between 260k and 160K? Well it was a good work out. Good for you guys up there.I hope.
Cheers
ParticipantMan thats too funny! We must have really scared them. Now I have to go offer 260k to save myself.Actually if it doesn’t ever go below 210k its a draw I think since I offered to split the difference between 260k and 160K? Well it was a good work out. Good for you guys up there.I hope.
Cheers
ParticipantTake a look at this home..
http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1564635
just a basic home in Paloma Del Sol.Look at the sales history….
Jun 26, 1992 $137,500
—
Oct 16, 1997 $99,429
-5.9%/yr
Oct 20, 1997 $134,890
>1,000%/yr
Apr 23, 1998 $128,000
-9.8%/yr
Jun 21, 2001 $180,000
11.4%/yr
Oct 05, 2005 $389,000
19.7%/yr
Feb 05, 2008 $310,500
-9.2%/yrNow if we assume that the home was worth about 95k in 1995 or 1996, which was the bottom before… and it sold in 2005 for 389k.
Thats a whopping 409% appreciation in 9 years. That is just insane.No, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that home fell back to $160k. I think its a less insane possibility. Don’t forget that markets tend to over correct too.
Matt,
Taking it back to 95K is pretty arbitrary in my opinion. You had a sale of 137k.5 in 1992. Then you had one in 1998 of 128k one could take into consideration that that number was possibly inapproprite considering housing prices suffered because of unemployment not insane lending and fraud. Given that 97′ was over corrected period of time by your own admission (sort of) chosing 95k as a base price seems arbitrary.Anyway your 160k price with 20% down would be about 800PI with today’s rates. I doubt Temecula would be a ghost town at that point but if it get wrecked as I said anything can happen.Here is another arbitrary example. Start with The peak price of 389k and knock of 125k for insane lending and fraud. That’s 264k or about exactly double the 1992 price of 137.5 Which probably was a bare lot unless it was a model home. In todays dollars the landscaping hardscaping holds that price alone quasi arbitrarily speaking. PI is $1200 with 20% down. Take into consideration tax changes and regular inflation that sounds pretty good too. Not particularly “perma bullish” unless Temecula is a flop. Double in 16 years is still a high rate of appreciation but not exactly insane given bailouts and other modifications occuring and coming.
Take the 10-20% off low ball approach that I mentioned in the other thread now or into the summer, and this place is pretty much there. Now would I tell someone they had some downside risk. Yes, I’d say if hipmatt is right it will be down another 100k and the payment could be significantly lower. Split the difference in these two quasi- arbitrary approaches and the downside is 50K for however long the loan is held, still less than rent especially including tax break, pricinple is being paid down barely. Drops somwhere beyond the 260 range are possibly to be rate induced and we are at historically low interest rates.We don’t know how long they will stay here or when they will be back if they leave which is more important.
Yes I know the argument about interest rates dropping prices but I also know the arguments about having a higher interest rate that can’t be changed on an ammount that is not significantly different than could have been had at a better rate for eternity at will. Anyway in my arbitrary example rates go up a few 10’s of grands before the bottom.
Not much of a difference in our views and targets.Not that I want to deal with a house in Temecula since my interest would be rentals.Well maybe I’ll keep an open mind.
Rustico
ParticipantTake a look at this home..
http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1564635
just a basic home in Paloma Del Sol.Look at the sales history….
Jun 26, 1992 $137,500
—
Oct 16, 1997 $99,429
-5.9%/yr
Oct 20, 1997 $134,890
>1,000%/yr
Apr 23, 1998 $128,000
-9.8%/yr
Jun 21, 2001 $180,000
11.4%/yr
Oct 05, 2005 $389,000
19.7%/yr
Feb 05, 2008 $310,500
-9.2%/yrNow if we assume that the home was worth about 95k in 1995 or 1996, which was the bottom before… and it sold in 2005 for 389k.
Thats a whopping 409% appreciation in 9 years. That is just insane.No, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that home fell back to $160k. I think its a less insane possibility. Don’t forget that markets tend to over correct too.
Matt,
Taking it back to 95K is pretty arbitrary in my opinion. You had a sale of 137k.5 in 1992. Then you had one in 1998 of 128k one could take into consideration that that number was possibly inapproprite considering housing prices suffered because of unemployment not insane lending and fraud. Given that 97′ was over corrected period of time by your own admission (sort of) chosing 95k as a base price seems arbitrary.Anyway your 160k price with 20% down would be about 800PI with today’s rates. I doubt Temecula would be a ghost town at that point but if it get wrecked as I said anything can happen.Here is another arbitrary example. Start with The peak price of 389k and knock of 125k for insane lending and fraud. That’s 264k or about exactly double the 1992 price of 137.5 Which probably was a bare lot unless it was a model home. In todays dollars the landscaping hardscaping holds that price alone quasi arbitrarily speaking. PI is $1200 with 20% down. Take into consideration tax changes and regular inflation that sounds pretty good too. Not particularly “perma bullish” unless Temecula is a flop. Double in 16 years is still a high rate of appreciation but not exactly insane given bailouts and other modifications occuring and coming.
Take the 10-20% off low ball approach that I mentioned in the other thread now or into the summer, and this place is pretty much there. Now would I tell someone they had some downside risk. Yes, I’d say if hipmatt is right it will be down another 100k and the payment could be significantly lower. Split the difference in these two quasi- arbitrary approaches and the downside is 50K for however long the loan is held, still less than rent especially including tax break, pricinple is being paid down barely. Drops somwhere beyond the 260 range are possibly to be rate induced and we are at historically low interest rates.We don’t know how long they will stay here or when they will be back if they leave which is more important.
Yes I know the argument about interest rates dropping prices but I also know the arguments about having a higher interest rate that can’t be changed on an ammount that is not significantly different than could have been had at a better rate for eternity at will. Anyway in my arbitrary example rates go up a few 10’s of grands before the bottom.
Not much of a difference in our views and targets.Not that I want to deal with a house in Temecula since my interest would be rentals.Well maybe I’ll keep an open mind.
Rustico
ParticipantTake a look at this home..
http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1564635
just a basic home in Paloma Del Sol.Look at the sales history….
Jun 26, 1992 $137,500
—
Oct 16, 1997 $99,429
-5.9%/yr
Oct 20, 1997 $134,890
>1,000%/yr
Apr 23, 1998 $128,000
-9.8%/yr
Jun 21, 2001 $180,000
11.4%/yr
Oct 05, 2005 $389,000
19.7%/yr
Feb 05, 2008 $310,500
-9.2%/yrNow if we assume that the home was worth about 95k in 1995 or 1996, which was the bottom before… and it sold in 2005 for 389k.
Thats a whopping 409% appreciation in 9 years. That is just insane.No, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that home fell back to $160k. I think its a less insane possibility. Don’t forget that markets tend to over correct too.
Matt,
Taking it back to 95K is pretty arbitrary in my opinion. You had a sale of 137k.5 in 1992. Then you had one in 1998 of 128k one could take into consideration that that number was possibly inapproprite considering housing prices suffered because of unemployment not insane lending and fraud. Given that 97′ was over corrected period of time by your own admission (sort of) chosing 95k as a base price seems arbitrary.Anyway your 160k price with 20% down would be about 800PI with today’s rates. I doubt Temecula would be a ghost town at that point but if it get wrecked as I said anything can happen.Here is another arbitrary example. Start with The peak price of 389k and knock of 125k for insane lending and fraud. That’s 264k or about exactly double the 1992 price of 137.5 Which probably was a bare lot unless it was a model home. In todays dollars the landscaping hardscaping holds that price alone quasi arbitrarily speaking. PI is $1200 with 20% down. Take into consideration tax changes and regular inflation that sounds pretty good too. Not particularly “perma bullish” unless Temecula is a flop. Double in 16 years is still a high rate of appreciation but not exactly insane given bailouts and other modifications occuring and coming.
Take the 10-20% off low ball approach that I mentioned in the other thread now or into the summer, and this place is pretty much there. Now would I tell someone they had some downside risk. Yes, I’d say if hipmatt is right it will be down another 100k and the payment could be significantly lower. Split the difference in these two quasi- arbitrary approaches and the downside is 50K for however long the loan is held, still less than rent especially including tax break, pricinple is being paid down barely. Drops somwhere beyond the 260 range are possibly to be rate induced and we are at historically low interest rates.We don’t know how long they will stay here or when they will be back if they leave which is more important.
Yes I know the argument about interest rates dropping prices but I also know the arguments about having a higher interest rate that can’t be changed on an ammount that is not significantly different than could have been had at a better rate for eternity at will. Anyway in my arbitrary example rates go up a few 10’s of grands before the bottom.
Not much of a difference in our views and targets.Not that I want to deal with a house in Temecula since my interest would be rentals.Well maybe I’ll keep an open mind.
Rustico
ParticipantTake a look at this home..
http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1564635
just a basic home in Paloma Del Sol.Look at the sales history….
Jun 26, 1992 $137,500
—
Oct 16, 1997 $99,429
-5.9%/yr
Oct 20, 1997 $134,890
>1,000%/yr
Apr 23, 1998 $128,000
-9.8%/yr
Jun 21, 2001 $180,000
11.4%/yr
Oct 05, 2005 $389,000
19.7%/yr
Feb 05, 2008 $310,500
-9.2%/yrNow if we assume that the home was worth about 95k in 1995 or 1996, which was the bottom before… and it sold in 2005 for 389k.
Thats a whopping 409% appreciation in 9 years. That is just insane.No, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that home fell back to $160k. I think its a less insane possibility. Don’t forget that markets tend to over correct too.
Matt,
Taking it back to 95K is pretty arbitrary in my opinion. You had a sale of 137k.5 in 1992. Then you had one in 1998 of 128k one could take into consideration that that number was possibly inapproprite considering housing prices suffered because of unemployment not insane lending and fraud. Given that 97′ was over corrected period of time by your own admission (sort of) chosing 95k as a base price seems arbitrary.Anyway your 160k price with 20% down would be about 800PI with today’s rates. I doubt Temecula would be a ghost town at that point but if it get wrecked as I said anything can happen.Here is another arbitrary example. Start with The peak price of 389k and knock of 125k for insane lending and fraud. That’s 264k or about exactly double the 1992 price of 137.5 Which probably was a bare lot unless it was a model home. In todays dollars the landscaping hardscaping holds that price alone quasi arbitrarily speaking. PI is $1200 with 20% down. Take into consideration tax changes and regular inflation that sounds pretty good too. Not particularly “perma bullish” unless Temecula is a flop. Double in 16 years is still a high rate of appreciation but not exactly insane given bailouts and other modifications occuring and coming.
Take the 10-20% off low ball approach that I mentioned in the other thread now or into the summer, and this place is pretty much there. Now would I tell someone they had some downside risk. Yes, I’d say if hipmatt is right it will be down another 100k and the payment could be significantly lower. Split the difference in these two quasi- arbitrary approaches and the downside is 50K for however long the loan is held, still less than rent especially including tax break, pricinple is being paid down barely. Drops somwhere beyond the 260 range are possibly to be rate induced and we are at historically low interest rates.We don’t know how long they will stay here or when they will be back if they leave which is more important.
Yes I know the argument about interest rates dropping prices but I also know the arguments about having a higher interest rate that can’t be changed on an ammount that is not significantly different than could have been had at a better rate for eternity at will. Anyway in my arbitrary example rates go up a few 10’s of grands before the bottom.
Not much of a difference in our views and targets.Not that I want to deal with a house in Temecula since my interest would be rentals.Well maybe I’ll keep an open mind.
Rustico
ParticipantTake a look at this home..
http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1564635
just a basic home in Paloma Del Sol.Look at the sales history….
Jun 26, 1992 $137,500
—
Oct 16, 1997 $99,429
-5.9%/yr
Oct 20, 1997 $134,890
>1,000%/yr
Apr 23, 1998 $128,000
-9.8%/yr
Jun 21, 2001 $180,000
11.4%/yr
Oct 05, 2005 $389,000
19.7%/yr
Feb 05, 2008 $310,500
-9.2%/yrNow if we assume that the home was worth about 95k in 1995 or 1996, which was the bottom before… and it sold in 2005 for 389k.
Thats a whopping 409% appreciation in 9 years. That is just insane.No, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that home fell back to $160k. I think its a less insane possibility. Don’t forget that markets tend to over correct too.
Matt,
Taking it back to 95K is pretty arbitrary in my opinion. You had a sale of 137k.5 in 1992. Then you had one in 1998 of 128k one could take into consideration that that number was possibly inapproprite considering housing prices suffered because of unemployment not insane lending and fraud. Given that 97′ was over corrected period of time by your own admission (sort of) chosing 95k as a base price seems arbitrary.Anyway your 160k price with 20% down would be about 800PI with today’s rates. I doubt Temecula would be a ghost town at that point but if it get wrecked as I said anything can happen.Here is another arbitrary example. Start with The peak price of 389k and knock of 125k for insane lending and fraud. That’s 264k or about exactly double the 1992 price of 137.5 Which probably was a bare lot unless it was a model home. In todays dollars the landscaping hardscaping holds that price alone quasi arbitrarily speaking. PI is $1200 with 20% down. Take into consideration tax changes and regular inflation that sounds pretty good too. Not particularly “perma bullish” unless Temecula is a flop. Double in 16 years is still a high rate of appreciation but not exactly insane given bailouts and other modifications occuring and coming.
Take the 10-20% off low ball approach that I mentioned in the other thread now or into the summer, and this place is pretty much there. Now would I tell someone they had some downside risk. Yes, I’d say if hipmatt is right it will be down another 100k and the payment could be significantly lower. Split the difference in these two quasi- arbitrary approaches and the downside is 50K for however long the loan is held, still less than rent especially including tax break, pricinple is being paid down barely. Drops somwhere beyond the 260 range are possibly to be rate induced and we are at historically low interest rates.We don’t know how long they will stay here or when they will be back if they leave which is more important.
Yes I know the argument about interest rates dropping prices but I also know the arguments about having a higher interest rate that can’t be changed on an ammount that is not significantly different than could have been had at a better rate for eternity at will. Anyway in my arbitrary example rates go up a few 10’s of grands before the bottom.
Not much of a difference in our views and targets.Not that I want to deal with a house in Temecula since my interest would be rentals.Well maybe I’ll keep an open mind.
Rustico
ParticipantJPINPB,
However it comes out dependence and risk is a component or child rearing for men and for women. I don’t want the risk that we go down a slippery slope of avoiding this and a subsequent wealth transfer to women who go the sperm bank route. That would involve the goverment of course. That isn’t to to say I don’t think dependent children and women shouldn’t be cared for of course. I just don’t think we should institutionalize what I see as another un-wellness, a harem structure where the sperm is quasi- random and the sheik is the government. For what ti is worth my wife isn’t down with what I am saying we discussed it an agreed to disagree.
This has been fun you all. You too davelj.You definitely had some things to say. Sorry you have to help raise my kids if I turn into a F%&K-up and those of women who have children conceived via losers or sperm banks some of whom will certainly despise you for doing too little. Maybe you don’t mind? That little procedure is reversible now if you have a change of heart after my heart wrenching story of the “celebrating party” and the wonderful postings by the others.
Going back to housing topics where I am both loved and needed, as long as I am sufficiently bearish.
Thanks. -
AuthorPosts
