Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
one_muggle
ParticipantNo offense (really) to the LA bashers, but you remind me of the three blind men describing an elephant to each other. “it’s like a tree; no you fool it’s a rope…”
LA is HUGE (LA County anyway, areas of which have been brought up). I’ve been around quite a bit myself and LA has to be the hardest “city” to peg down. NYC, DC, Atlanta, SF (I’ve lived in all) all have a defined downtown, which is the center of jobs and/or the center of culture. Downtown LA is nothing like the other city centers. One can live in LA, never go downtown for anything and still have a richer cultural life than 90 percent of the country.
Living in Manhattan Beach is nothing like Compton, and neither is like Beverly Hills, etc.True LA traffic sucks, but it’s as bad in Atlanta, and even Charlotte if you need to go to downtown–and you need to. I know the breadth of traffic jams in LA is worse than in, say Atlanta, but in Atlanta there really isn’t anywhere else but downtown to go for good jobs, culture etc.
DC and NYC go without saying, but nobody needs to drive in NYC–only taxi drivers, tourists, and lost Long Islanders. For DC, there is a reason the Beltway is a circle–you start out at 7am, get halfway around by 4pm, decide to continue home on the other half and get home by 8pm.-one muggle
ParticipantNo offense (really) to the LA bashers, but you remind me of the three blind men describing an elephant to each other. “it’s like a tree; no you fool it’s a rope…”
LA is HUGE (LA County anyway, areas of which have been brought up). I’ve been around quite a bit myself and LA has to be the hardest “city” to peg down. NYC, DC, Atlanta, SF (I’ve lived in all) all have a defined downtown, which is the center of jobs and/or the center of culture. Downtown LA is nothing like the other city centers. One can live in LA, never go downtown for anything and still have a richer cultural life than 90 percent of the country.
Living in Manhattan Beach is nothing like Compton, and neither is like Beverly Hills, etc.True LA traffic sucks, but it’s as bad in Atlanta, and even Charlotte if you need to go to downtown–and you need to. I know the breadth of traffic jams in LA is worse than in, say Atlanta, but in Atlanta there really isn’t anywhere else but downtown to go for good jobs, culture etc.
DC and NYC go without saying, but nobody needs to drive in NYC–only taxi drivers, tourists, and lost Long Islanders. For DC, there is a reason the Beltway is a circle–you start out at 7am, get halfway around by 4pm, decide to continue home on the other half and get home by 8pm.-one muggle
ParticipantTone: Does anyone know if this will kick up inflation?
If you read the economist’s view: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html
You will find the answer to you question is NO.
Nobody does know ;^)Seriously, the most instructive quote, to me, is:
Another popular game is to sift out the more volatile items in the basket of goods and services—often energy and food—and focus on the remainder as a truer “underlying” or “core” rate of inflation. This exercise, though it succeeds in producing a less volatile index, is dubious. The least volatile components are not necessarily the most informative. Some of them appear to be unresponsive to economic forces because of pitfalls in measurement or stickiness in their speed of adjustment to market forces. The price of rental housing, for example, is fixed month-to-month by contract. At the other end of the scale, some of the most volatile items—such as precious metals—are highly informative, to the extent that their movements anticipate a broad range of sectors where price changes have not yet been perceived.Silver:
[img_assist|nid=4238|title=Silver Price (source Monex.com)|desc=Looked at silver since it seems to be not as sexy as gold–hence more accurate…?|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=353]No surprise, there is a definite trend upwards around 2003, but it is not anywhere near scary as the housing plots–only up around 100 percent or am I missing a multiplier somewhere?
-one muggle
ParticipantTone: Does anyone know if this will kick up inflation?
If you read the economist’s view: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html
You will find the answer to you question is NO.
Nobody does know ;^)Seriously, the most instructive quote, to me, is:
Another popular game is to sift out the more volatile items in the basket of goods and services—often energy and food—and focus on the remainder as a truer “underlying” or “core” rate of inflation. This exercise, though it succeeds in producing a less volatile index, is dubious. The least volatile components are not necessarily the most informative. Some of them appear to be unresponsive to economic forces because of pitfalls in measurement or stickiness in their speed of adjustment to market forces. The price of rental housing, for example, is fixed month-to-month by contract. At the other end of the scale, some of the most volatile items—such as precious metals—are highly informative, to the extent that their movements anticipate a broad range of sectors where price changes have not yet been perceived.Silver:
[img_assist|nid=4238|title=Silver Price (source Monex.com)|desc=Looked at silver since it seems to be not as sexy as gold–hence more accurate…?|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=353]No surprise, there is a definite trend upwards around 2003, but it is not anywhere near scary as the housing plots–only up around 100 percent or am I missing a multiplier somewhere?
-one muggle
ParticipantTone: Does anyone know if this will kick up inflation?
If you read the economist’s view: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html
You will find the answer to you question is NO.
Nobody does know ;^)Seriously, the most instructive quote, to me, is:
Another popular game is to sift out the more volatile items in the basket of goods and services—often energy and food—and focus on the remainder as a truer “underlying” or “core” rate of inflation. This exercise, though it succeeds in producing a less volatile index, is dubious. The least volatile components are not necessarily the most informative. Some of them appear to be unresponsive to economic forces because of pitfalls in measurement or stickiness in their speed of adjustment to market forces. The price of rental housing, for example, is fixed month-to-month by contract. At the other end of the scale, some of the most volatile items—such as precious metals—are highly informative, to the extent that their movements anticipate a broad range of sectors where price changes have not yet been perceived.Silver:
[img_assist|nid=4238|title=Silver Price (source Monex.com)|desc=Looked at silver since it seems to be not as sexy as gold–hence more accurate…?|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=353]No surprise, there is a definite trend upwards around 2003, but it is not anywhere near scary as the housing plots–only up around 100 percent or am I missing a multiplier somewhere?
-one muggle
ParticipantIt seems to me that equity-rich “paper money” people are far more likely to lower their price, should they need to sell–though they may have less impetus.
My anecdotal experience is that a vast majority of the low six-figure earners ($100-150k) either own their own home with tons of intact equity or are renting. The high-end crowd is sitting even prettier, which I guess is why it is nice to be high-end P^)
Seriously, I see way more expensive cars than high incomes, but the people I know appear strangely level-headed.Most of these people understand that if they “lose” a hundred K of equity, they still haven’t really lost anything, but really have gained only a couple hundred K, rather than a few.
I would think that this kind of person, should they decide to sell, would actually be more willing to price at market than pursue last year’s prices–though these aren’t among the horde of forced sellers.
-one muggle
ParticipantIt seems to me that equity-rich “paper money” people are far more likely to lower their price, should they need to sell–though they may have less impetus.
My anecdotal experience is that a vast majority of the low six-figure earners ($100-150k) either own their own home with tons of intact equity or are renting. The high-end crowd is sitting even prettier, which I guess is why it is nice to be high-end P^)
Seriously, I see way more expensive cars than high incomes, but the people I know appear strangely level-headed.Most of these people understand that if they “lose” a hundred K of equity, they still haven’t really lost anything, but really have gained only a couple hundred K, rather than a few.
I would think that this kind of person, should they decide to sell, would actually be more willing to price at market than pursue last year’s prices–though these aren’t among the horde of forced sellers.
-one muggle
ParticipantIt seems to me that equity-rich “paper money” people are far more likely to lower their price, should they need to sell–though they may have less impetus.
My anecdotal experience is that a vast majority of the low six-figure earners ($100-150k) either own their own home with tons of intact equity or are renting. The high-end crowd is sitting even prettier, which I guess is why it is nice to be high-end P^)
Seriously, I see way more expensive cars than high incomes, but the people I know appear strangely level-headed.Most of these people understand that if they “lose” a hundred K of equity, they still haven’t really lost anything, but really have gained only a couple hundred K, rather than a few.
I would think that this kind of person, should they decide to sell, would actually be more willing to price at market than pursue last year’s prices–though these aren’t among the horde of forced sellers.
-one muggle
Participanttemeculaguy:
It’s tough to price real estate based on the list price others are not selling at.
LOL. That has to be the most concise view of the current RE market I’ve heard.
jennyo, just please please don’t do this (from a real ziprealty price history):
Price Reduced: 06/28/07 — $728,000 to $700,000
Price Reduced: 07/09/07 — $700,000 to $695,000
Price Reduced: 07/17/07 — $695,000 to $689,000
Price Reduced: 08/01/07 — $689,000 to $669,000
Price Reduced: 08/02/07 — $669,000 to $650,000The $5k drop on a $700k house just kills me.
FWIW: Even at the peak, this house (LA foothills)should never have been above $600k, if that.
-one muggleParticipanttemeculaguy:
It’s tough to price real estate based on the list price others are not selling at.
LOL. That has to be the most concise view of the current RE market I’ve heard.
jennyo, just please please don’t do this (from a real ziprealty price history):
Price Reduced: 06/28/07 — $728,000 to $700,000
Price Reduced: 07/09/07 — $700,000 to $695,000
Price Reduced: 07/17/07 — $695,000 to $689,000
Price Reduced: 08/01/07 — $689,000 to $669,000
Price Reduced: 08/02/07 — $669,000 to $650,000The $5k drop on a $700k house just kills me.
FWIW: Even at the peak, this house (LA foothills)should never have been above $600k, if that.
-one muggleParticipanttemeculaguy:
It’s tough to price real estate based on the list price others are not selling at.
LOL. That has to be the most concise view of the current RE market I’ve heard.
jennyo, just please please don’t do this (from a real ziprealty price history):
Price Reduced: 06/28/07 — $728,000 to $700,000
Price Reduced: 07/09/07 — $700,000 to $695,000
Price Reduced: 07/17/07 — $695,000 to $689,000
Price Reduced: 08/01/07 — $689,000 to $669,000
Price Reduced: 08/02/07 — $669,000 to $650,000The $5k drop on a $700k house just kills me.
FWIW: Even at the peak, this house (LA foothills)should never have been above $600k, if that.
-one muggleParticipantMinor point perhaps, but rather than a HELOC, it seems a little more likely that they refi’d other debt into their first mortgage using the increased equity. Could be for credit cards, cash-out, healthcare, or even rolled a previous HELCO in, who knows…
The reason for my assumption is that typically all lenders need to approve a short-sale, and the HELOC lender (who would be in second position, at best) likely will lose a huge fraction on a short sale, so are unlikely to approve.
This would tend to force things into foreclosure, rather than a short sale.For example:
1st loan: $300k
HELOC for $100k (using equity)
This would need to sell for around $430k to not owe money at closing (~6 pct to realty etc.)
If the short sale was for, say $350k, the fist loan holder would get their $300k, but the HELCO owner would only get at most $50k at closing, and the former owner would still owe the fees. In some states, the lender can try to seize assets to cover and/or hand the former owner a 1099 for the $50k.I’ve been out of it for a while, so the exact details may be off, but it still really quite ugly.
While there are plenty of specu-vestors and dkheads out there, I still know plenty of folks who just wanted to live in their own home, raise kids and get a dog. I don’t want to bail them out, but I also don’t get the foreclosure parties around here.
-one muggle
ParticipantMinor point perhaps, but rather than a HELOC, it seems a little more likely that they refi’d other debt into their first mortgage using the increased equity. Could be for credit cards, cash-out, healthcare, or even rolled a previous HELCO in, who knows…
The reason for my assumption is that typically all lenders need to approve a short-sale, and the HELOC lender (who would be in second position, at best) likely will lose a huge fraction on a short sale, so are unlikely to approve.
This would tend to force things into foreclosure, rather than a short sale.For example:
1st loan: $300k
HELOC for $100k (using equity)
This would need to sell for around $430k to not owe money at closing (~6 pct to realty etc.)
If the short sale was for, say $350k, the fist loan holder would get their $300k, but the HELCO owner would only get at most $50k at closing, and the former owner would still owe the fees. In some states, the lender can try to seize assets to cover and/or hand the former owner a 1099 for the $50k.I’ve been out of it for a while, so the exact details may be off, but it still really quite ugly.
While there are plenty of specu-vestors and dkheads out there, I still know plenty of folks who just wanted to live in their own home, raise kids and get a dog. I don’t want to bail them out, but I also don’t get the foreclosure parties around here.
-one muggle
ParticipantMinor point perhaps, but rather than a HELOC, it seems a little more likely that they refi’d other debt into their first mortgage using the increased equity. Could be for credit cards, cash-out, healthcare, or even rolled a previous HELCO in, who knows…
The reason for my assumption is that typically all lenders need to approve a short-sale, and the HELOC lender (who would be in second position, at best) likely will lose a huge fraction on a short sale, so are unlikely to approve.
This would tend to force things into foreclosure, rather than a short sale.For example:
1st loan: $300k
HELOC for $100k (using equity)
This would need to sell for around $430k to not owe money at closing (~6 pct to realty etc.)
If the short sale was for, say $350k, the fist loan holder would get their $300k, but the HELCO owner would only get at most $50k at closing, and the former owner would still owe the fees. In some states, the lender can try to seize assets to cover and/or hand the former owner a 1099 for the $50k.I’ve been out of it for a while, so the exact details may be off, but it still really quite ugly.
While there are plenty of specu-vestors and dkheads out there, I still know plenty of folks who just wanted to live in their own home, raise kids and get a dog. I don’t want to bail them out, but I also don’t get the foreclosure parties around here.
-one muggle
-
AuthorPosts
