[patb]

well I redid the pipes in my moms home, over a 10 year period.

It was replacing shot copper with new copper.

Every Christmas or thanksgiving she had a leak.
Do you know you can’t get a plumber on thanksgiving day, for love or money.

How much it costs depends upon what you can access.

[patb]

[quote=briansd1]I think that the percentage of people who have mortgages is much higher in California in general and in expensive markets like San Diego.

I’m not expecting a tsunami, but a trickle, trickle, trickle of properties onto the market.

For all purposes, stagnation of house prices, plus inflation amount to the same thing.

A “real” recovery is not a slight increase from the depth of the recession, it’s a return to the peak and more.

If a property ladder climber put all his eggs in his house, and keeps on paying during the recession, even a return to previous peak won’t make him whole. He still has some way to go before recouping his “investment.”[/quote]

A real recovery is the market trading without the Fed, FHA and treasury making enormous contributions to keep the suckers swimming.

[patb]

[quote=briansd1]I think that the percentage of people who have mortgages is much higher in California in general and in expensive markets like San Diego.

I’m not expecting a tsunami, but a trickle, trickle, trickle of properties onto the market.

For all purposes, stagnation of house prices, plus inflation amount to the same thing.

A “real” recovery is not a slight increase from the depth of the recession, it’s a return to the peak and more.

If a property ladder climber put all his eggs in his house, and keeps on paying during the recession, even a return to previous peak won’t make him whole. He still has some way to go before recouping his “investment.”[/quote]

A real recovery is the market trading without the Fed, FHA and treasury making enormous contributions to keep the suckers swimming.

[patb]

[quote=briansd1]I think that the percentage of people who have mortgages is much higher in California in general and in expensive markets like San Diego.

I’m not expecting a tsunami, but a trickle, trickle, trickle of properties onto the market.

For all purposes, stagnation of house prices, plus inflation amount to the same thing.

A “real” recovery is not a slight increase from the depth of the recession, it’s a return to the peak and more.

If a property ladder climber put all his eggs in his house, and keeps on paying during the recession, even a return to previous peak won’t make him whole. He still has some way to go before recouping his “investment.”[/quote]

A real recovery is the market trading without the Fed, FHA and treasury making enormous contributions to keep the suckers swimming.

[patb]

[quote=briansd1]I think that the percentage of people who have mortgages is much higher in California in general and in expensive markets like San Diego.

I’m not expecting a tsunami, but a trickle, trickle, trickle of properties onto the market.

For all purposes, stagnation of house prices, plus inflation amount to the same thing.

A “real” recovery is not a slight increase from the depth of the recession, it’s a return to the peak and more.

If a property ladder climber put all his eggs in his house, and keeps on paying during the recession, even a return to previous peak won’t make him whole. He still has some way to go before recouping his “investment.”[/quote]

A real recovery is the market trading without the Fed, FHA and treasury making enormous contributions to keep the suckers swimming.

[patb]

[quote=briansd1]I think that the percentage of people who have mortgages is much higher in California in general and in expensive markets like San Diego.

I’m not expecting a tsunami, but a trickle, trickle, trickle of properties onto the market.

For all purposes, stagnation of house prices, plus inflation amount to the same thing.

A “real” recovery is not a slight increase from the depth of the recession, it’s a return to the peak and more.

If a property ladder climber put all his eggs in his house, and keeps on paying during the recession, even a return to previous peak won’t make him whole. He still has some way to go before recouping his “investment.”[/quote]

A real recovery is the market trading without the Fed, FHA and treasury making enormous contributions to keep the suckers swimming.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal]The headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.

It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.

There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.[/quote]

1/3rd have no mortgage, 1/3 have a mortgage they got during the bubble.

what it is saying is 2/3rd of Bubble era home buyers are underwater.

It’s a cohort,

think of the Housing ladder,

say there are 4 types of housing unit in 2000.

Condos, Town Houses, Single Family Houses and mcMansions

Arbitrarily in 2000.

Condos are 100K
TH’s are 200K
SFH’s are 300K
mcmansions are 400K.

by 2005 they have doubled. 15% appreciation by 5 years.

Condos are 200K
THs are 400K
SFH’s are 600K
McMansions are 800K

assume each buyer put 10% down
condo buyer has 10K + 100K bubble equity.
TH has 20K + 200K Bubble Equity.
SFH has 30K + 300K Bubble Equity
mcMansion Owner has 40K + 400K bubble equity.

now look at moveups.

the Condo-> TH buyer puts 110 down on 400K, that’s 25% equity.

The SFH Buyer puts 220K into a 600K house or 33% equity.

The McMansion Buyer puts 330K into an 800K place.
or 40% equity.

Now prices fall 40%.

the bottom guys are all underwater badly, the top
person is barely swimming, and making payments on
a much bigger note…..

it’s why the proeprty ladder was so destructive.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal]The headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.

It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.

There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.[/quote]

1/3rd have no mortgage, 1/3 have a mortgage they got during the bubble.

what it is saying is 2/3rd of Bubble era home buyers are underwater.

It’s a cohort,

think of the Housing ladder,

say there are 4 types of housing unit in 2000.

Condos, Town Houses, Single Family Houses and mcMansions

Arbitrarily in 2000.

Condos are 100K
TH’s are 200K
SFH’s are 300K
mcmansions are 400K.

by 2005 they have doubled. 15% appreciation by 5 years.

Condos are 200K
THs are 400K
SFH’s are 600K
McMansions are 800K

assume each buyer put 10% down
condo buyer has 10K + 100K bubble equity.
TH has 20K + 200K Bubble Equity.
SFH has 30K + 300K Bubble Equity
mcMansion Owner has 40K + 400K bubble equity.

now look at moveups.

the Condo-> TH buyer puts 110 down on 400K, that’s 25% equity.

The SFH Buyer puts 220K into a 600K house or 33% equity.

The McMansion Buyer puts 330K into an 800K place.
or 40% equity.

Now prices fall 40%.

the bottom guys are all underwater badly, the top
person is barely swimming, and making payments on
a much bigger note…..

it’s why the proeprty ladder was so destructive.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal]The headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.

It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.

There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.[/quote]

1/3rd have no mortgage, 1/3 have a mortgage they got during the bubble.

what it is saying is 2/3rd of Bubble era home buyers are underwater.

It’s a cohort,

think of the Housing ladder,

say there are 4 types of housing unit in 2000.

Condos, Town Houses, Single Family Houses and mcMansions

Arbitrarily in 2000.

Condos are 100K
TH’s are 200K
SFH’s are 300K
mcmansions are 400K.

by 2005 they have doubled. 15% appreciation by 5 years.

Condos are 200K
THs are 400K
SFH’s are 600K
McMansions are 800K

assume each buyer put 10% down
condo buyer has 10K + 100K bubble equity.
TH has 20K + 200K Bubble Equity.
SFH has 30K + 300K Bubble Equity
mcMansion Owner has 40K + 400K bubble equity.

now look at moveups.

the Condo-> TH buyer puts 110 down on 400K, that’s 25% equity.

The SFH Buyer puts 220K into a 600K house or 33% equity.

The McMansion Buyer puts 330K into an 800K place.
or 40% equity.

Now prices fall 40%.

the bottom guys are all underwater badly, the top
person is barely swimming, and making payments on
a much bigger note…..

it’s why the proeprty ladder was so destructive.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal]The headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.

It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.

There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.[/quote]

1/3rd have no mortgage, 1/3 have a mortgage they got during the bubble.

what it is saying is 2/3rd of Bubble era home buyers are underwater.

It’s a cohort,

think of the Housing ladder,

say there are 4 types of housing unit in 2000.

Condos, Town Houses, Single Family Houses and mcMansions

Arbitrarily in 2000.

Condos are 100K
TH’s are 200K
SFH’s are 300K
mcmansions are 400K.

by 2005 they have doubled. 15% appreciation by 5 years.

Condos are 200K
THs are 400K
SFH’s are 600K
McMansions are 800K

assume each buyer put 10% down
condo buyer has 10K + 100K bubble equity.
TH has 20K + 200K Bubble Equity.
SFH has 30K + 300K Bubble Equity
mcMansion Owner has 40K + 400K bubble equity.

now look at moveups.

the Condo-> TH buyer puts 110 down on 400K, that’s 25% equity.

The SFH Buyer puts 220K into a 600K house or 33% equity.

The McMansion Buyer puts 330K into an 800K place.
or 40% equity.

Now prices fall 40%.

the bottom guys are all underwater badly, the top
person is barely swimming, and making payments on
a much bigger note…..

it’s why the proeprty ladder was so destructive.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal]The headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.

It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.

There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.[/quote]

1/3rd have no mortgage, 1/3 have a mortgage they got during the bubble.

what it is saying is 2/3rd of Bubble era home buyers are underwater.

It’s a cohort,

think of the Housing ladder,

say there are 4 types of housing unit in 2000.

Condos, Town Houses, Single Family Houses and mcMansions

Arbitrarily in 2000.

Condos are 100K
TH’s are 200K
SFH’s are 300K
mcmansions are 400K.

by 2005 they have doubled. 15% appreciation by 5 years.

Condos are 200K
THs are 400K
SFH’s are 600K
McMansions are 800K

assume each buyer put 10% down
condo buyer has 10K + 100K bubble equity.
TH has 20K + 200K Bubble Equity.
SFH has 30K + 300K Bubble Equity
mcMansion Owner has 40K + 400K bubble equity.

now look at moveups.

the Condo-> TH buyer puts 110 down on 400K, that’s 25% equity.

The SFH Buyer puts 220K into a 600K house or 33% equity.

The McMansion Buyer puts 330K into an 800K place.
or 40% equity.

Now prices fall 40%.

the bottom guys are all underwater badly, the top
person is barely swimming, and making payments on
a much bigger note…..

it’s why the proeprty ladder was so destructive.

[patb]

why not buy Goldman Sachs then you can really rob banks

[patb]

why not buy Goldman Sachs then you can really rob banks

[patb]

why not buy Goldman Sachs then you can really rob banks

[patb]

why not buy Goldman Sachs then you can really rob banks

[Author]

Posts