[permabear]

Great charts. Glad to see Vancouver and Sydney are definitely NOT in bubbles.

LOL.

[permabear]

Great charts. Glad to see Vancouver and Sydney are definitely NOT in bubbles.

LOL.

[permabear]

Great charts. Glad to see Vancouver and Sydney are definitely NOT in bubbles.

LOL.

[permabear]

If it’s a money market, mutual fund, etc at Schwab/Etrade/etc then it’s SIPC which is $500k http://www.sipc.org/how/brochure.cfm

[permabear]

If it’s a money market, mutual fund, etc at Schwab/Etrade/etc then it’s SIPC which is $500k http://www.sipc.org/how/brochure.cfm

[permabear]

If it’s a money market, mutual fund, etc at Schwab/Etrade/etc then it’s SIPC which is $500k http://www.sipc.org/how/brochure.cfm

[permabear]

If it’s a money market, mutual fund, etc at Schwab/Etrade/etc then it’s SIPC which is $500k http://www.sipc.org/how/brochure.cfm

[permabear]

If it’s a money market, mutual fund, etc at Schwab/Etrade/etc then it’s SIPC which is $500k http://www.sipc.org/how/brochure.cfm

[permabear]

[quote=Tillers]Square footage – This is NEVER accurate to the actual size of the home. Many of the places I look at are 20-30% lower then what is listed.[/quote]

I learned a bit about assessors and square footage recently, which helps explain a bit of the looniness.

The way square footage has been assessed has changed over the years. In recent history, basically the assessor takes the tract home developer’s word for it. These measurements can actually be a bit conservative, to prevent lawsuits. There were some CA lawsuits such as “Shea Homes said they were selling me a 15×20 bedroom but it was 14×18!” and the plaintiff won a settlement. This is also why dimensions are nowhere on the floor plans you get from new home developments.

However, for older homes and where dimensions are not submitted, the old methodology was to take the outside wall dimensions and subtract a certain percentage to get the livable space, which varied from 10-30% over the years, depending on current trends regarding closets, garages, etc (which don’t count as livable space). See:

http://www.kirchmeyer.com/klipsarchive/SEP2010.pdf

So, on custom homes or anything older than about 20 years, the “square footage per assessor” can often be wacky, or at least feel very different from more modern homes. Combined with sellers stretching measurements like you’ve seen, I always take a tape measure. 🙂

[permabear]

[quote=Tillers]Square footage – This is NEVER accurate to the actual size of the home. Many of the places I look at are 20-30% lower then what is listed.[/quote]

I learned a bit about assessors and square footage recently, which helps explain a bit of the looniness.

The way square footage has been assessed has changed over the years. In recent history, basically the assessor takes the tract home developer’s word for it. These measurements can actually be a bit conservative, to prevent lawsuits. There were some CA lawsuits such as “Shea Homes said they were selling me a 15×20 bedroom but it was 14×18!” and the plaintiff won a settlement. This is also why dimensions are nowhere on the floor plans you get from new home developments.

However, for older homes and where dimensions are not submitted, the old methodology was to take the outside wall dimensions and subtract a certain percentage to get the livable space, which varied from 10-30% over the years, depending on current trends regarding closets, garages, etc (which don’t count as livable space). See:

http://www.kirchmeyer.com/klipsarchive/SEP2010.pdf

So, on custom homes or anything older than about 20 years, the “square footage per assessor” can often be wacky, or at least feel very different from more modern homes. Combined with sellers stretching measurements like you’ve seen, I always take a tape measure. 🙂

[permabear]

[quote=Tillers]Square footage – This is NEVER accurate to the actual size of the home. Many of the places I look at are 20-30% lower then what is listed.[/quote]

I learned a bit about assessors and square footage recently, which helps explain a bit of the looniness.

The way square footage has been assessed has changed over the years. In recent history, basically the assessor takes the tract home developer’s word for it. These measurements can actually be a bit conservative, to prevent lawsuits. There were some CA lawsuits such as “Shea Homes said they were selling me a 15×20 bedroom but it was 14×18!” and the plaintiff won a settlement. This is also why dimensions are nowhere on the floor plans you get from new home developments.

However, for older homes and where dimensions are not submitted, the old methodology was to take the outside wall dimensions and subtract a certain percentage to get the livable space, which varied from 10-30% over the years, depending on current trends regarding closets, garages, etc (which don’t count as livable space). See:

http://www.kirchmeyer.com/klipsarchive/SEP2010.pdf

So, on custom homes or anything older than about 20 years, the “square footage per assessor” can often be wacky, or at least feel very different from more modern homes. Combined with sellers stretching measurements like you’ve seen, I always take a tape measure. 🙂

[permabear]

[quote=Tillers]Square footage – This is NEVER accurate to the actual size of the home. Many of the places I look at are 20-30% lower then what is listed.[/quote]

I learned a bit about assessors and square footage recently, which helps explain a bit of the looniness.

The way square footage has been assessed has changed over the years. In recent history, basically the assessor takes the tract home developer’s word for it. These measurements can actually be a bit conservative, to prevent lawsuits. There were some CA lawsuits such as “Shea Homes said they were selling me a 15×20 bedroom but it was 14×18!” and the plaintiff won a settlement. This is also why dimensions are nowhere on the floor plans you get from new home developments.

However, for older homes and where dimensions are not submitted, the old methodology was to take the outside wall dimensions and subtract a certain percentage to get the livable space, which varied from 10-30% over the years, depending on current trends regarding closets, garages, etc (which don’t count as livable space). See:

http://www.kirchmeyer.com/klipsarchive/SEP2010.pdf

So, on custom homes or anything older than about 20 years, the “square footage per assessor” can often be wacky, or at least feel very different from more modern homes. Combined with sellers stretching measurements like you’ve seen, I always take a tape measure. 🙂

[permabear]

[quote=Tillers]Square footage – This is NEVER accurate to the actual size of the home. Many of the places I look at are 20-30% lower then what is listed.[/quote]

I learned a bit about assessors and square footage recently, which helps explain a bit of the looniness.

The way square footage has been assessed has changed over the years. In recent history, basically the assessor takes the tract home developer’s word for it. These measurements can actually be a bit conservative, to prevent lawsuits. There were some CA lawsuits such as “Shea Homes said they were selling me a 15×20 bedroom but it was 14×18!” and the plaintiff won a settlement. This is also why dimensions are nowhere on the floor plans you get from new home developments.

However, for older homes and where dimensions are not submitted, the old methodology was to take the outside wall dimensions and subtract a certain percentage to get the livable space, which varied from 10-30% over the years, depending on current trends regarding closets, garages, etc (which don’t count as livable space). See:

http://www.kirchmeyer.com/klipsarchive/SEP2010.pdf

So, on custom homes or anything older than about 20 years, the “square footage per assessor” can often be wacky, or at least feel very different from more modern homes. Combined with sellers stretching measurements like you’ve seen, I always take a tape measure. 🙂

[permabear]

On the subject of gold, I think it’s currently in a speculative bubble – based on the belief by many that the USD/Euro will got belly-up. If the US/EU situation quiets down, I think it could selloff in a hurry, much like oil did a couple years ago once people realized the demand crisis wasn’t quite as bad as it seemed.

That said I currently hold gold, silver, and oil and will continue to until they turn down.

[permabear]

On the subject of gold, I think it’s currently in a speculative bubble – based on the belief by many that the USD/Euro will got belly-up. If the US/EU situation quiets down, I think it could selloff in a hurry, much like oil did a couple years ago once people realized the demand crisis wasn’t quite as bad as it seemed.

That said I currently hold gold, silver, and oil and will continue to until they turn down.

[Author]

Posts