[sdcellar]

I’ll take the wood floor, s/s appliances and carpet (unless it’s covering the wood!) I *think* my choice would cost me less as well. Woohoo!

And as you say, back to the original topic. Houses are not televisions. It’s very difficult to truly pit seller against seller when you’re talking about houses. Possibly you could try with a pair of developers, but even that would seem difficult.

Nothing wrong with trying to get the best price for things. I always do (kind of to a fault). For housing, my preferred strategy would be one property at a time.

[sdcellar]

sdr and Steve Beebo– I need my winky smiley!

[sdcellar]

I’ll tell you why I think the “I don’t care what my house is like since all track homes are the same” is relevant to the discourse on this site.

First, they’re not. Plain and simple. Even in the most boring development (from any era), almost all homes have distinguishing characteristics. Even the defenders of this position have listed things that make one house more attractive than another even if all other things are the same.

I understand that certain things matter more to others and that is certainly reasonable. That said, being a bear about RE, I am more compelled by the opinions of those who care about what the details of the house they would buy. If you don’t care, then housing must be pretty low on your priority list and I extend that to indicate that you don’t see much value in home ownership and I extend that further to suggest the tendency to be bearish in the first place.

I’d rather hear how bad it is from someone who loves homes and ownership of same.

Think of it the other way around, do we get as much value out of the “you gotta own a home” mantra from people who are housing bulls and think you’re defective or something if you don’t agree?

[sdcellar]

Steve Beebo- Maybe other people who’ve been around here longer than I have understand why you think your house won’t drop, but I don’t. Why is it that your house can never drop?

I’m not even trying to be a trouble maker. Rather, I’d like to use your thoughts to my advantage.

[sdcellar]

These posts do seem a little personal, but it is tough to reconcile when a post starts with talk of saving $10-20k and college tuition and then ends with comparisons of G5s and BMWs.

Most of us here seem to agree that real estate might be a depreciating asset over the next n-years, but I sense there’s no such division as to which way the price of a car might go.

Also, when it comes right down to it, a lot of people end up being pretty selective about a lot of things they purchase. People will buy (or not buy) something just becuase of what color it is. Things like rear-wheel drive and swimming pools are just additional variables.

Talk of bidding on 5 homes is fun and delightfully mean-spirited, but seriously, I can’t imagine finding 5 homes at the same time that I’d actually want (even with all this inventory!)

Sure, I could find plenty that I’d settle for, but why would you do such a thing in a buyer’s market? (and don’t confuse this with me saying it’s a good time to buy)

[sdcellar]

sdr- Even though I put forth a “strategy” for a multiple offer deal, I think you’re absolutely correct that there’s no point in putting something like this together and don’t see how it could really benefit a buyer (but it’s fun to think about)

I am interested in your thoughts on how low is too low on a traditional offer, and now I’m being serious, so I don’t mean like offering half of what somebody’s asking because I don’t see how that could ever end up where you want it.

Also, thinking about it, that’s a pretty tough question to answer in a broad sense since every deal is different, but any insight you might have is welcome.

[sdcellar]

Maybe anonymity might be one of the benefits of working with a selling agent. I agree that an offer that’s too low might alienate a seller, but as long as the buyer remains sight unseen, it should help. And if you have a good agent he should be able to convince the seller’s agent down the road to stay out of the emotional stuff (i.e. do you want to sell your client’s house or not?).

Also, I understand the notion of “special” properties, but in San Diego, I find it hard to believe there’s one that’s listed in the $400,000 price range. What does it have, granite from another planet? (say it out loud, sounds kind of cool…)

[sdcellar]

I’d just say that once all offers have been received after the 48-hour period the buyer will consider them together and choose the property that suits him.

I believe that’s how sellers used to run it in the days of multiple offers. Not really a nice way to do business, but what goes around comes around…

Doubt the MLS forms handle this (as they do for multiple offers from buyers), but if it’s included in the offer terms in the first place, I’d say there’s not much the seller can do about it (other than decline the offer).

[sdcellar]

Um, WOW. I only looked at it for a second and I’m pretty risk averse, but kind of reminds me of the opportunity to be the “house” in a friendly game of neighborhood blackjack. Good way to lose a lot of money quickly…

Some things are better left to casinos and real lenders (although the latter may be in trouble anyway).

[sdcellar]

I have no idea what the market is like in Walnut, but if I saw a seller here pull the de-list/re-list trick *and* only dropped the price $8,800 on a $1.5 million dollar property, I’d say he’s pretty attached to his price (and maybe just a bit delusional).

That said, it really comes down to what you can lease it for and if you think the added payment option is worth it to you. Tough to research “fair market” on a lease like that though. I’d do your best, make him an offer and see what he comes back with.

[sdcellar]

bubble_contagion–

That’s what I thought you meant and I’m glad you pointed it out since my calculations didn’t factor that in at all.

[sdcellar]

Larry J.

Sounds great if the property is appreciating, which doesn’t seem to be the case right now. I bought a house in 1990 and it took almost 10 years for me to be able to sell it with any measure of real gain.

Even so, at a steady appreciation rate and assuming many folks just put all their proceeds into their next house (which has appreciated as well), it seems tough to realize those gains. Sure, no taxes on those, but my tax outlay continues to increase, as is the case for me this time if I get right back into home ownership.

I assure you, I’d love to own a home again (have my eye on one right now), but it’s a bit tough to make economic sense out of the decision.

And to think, I might be one of the lucky ones…

[sdcellar]

Hard to believe you could have to pay taxes on taxes (if you hit AMT limits). Ain’t prop 13 and the tax code wonderful?

I don’t want to turn this into a prop 13 bash post, but seriously, how much longer can it go on where people who live on the same street pay such a disproportionate share of the property taxes? This is, of course, especially pronounced in established areas of the city, but with the recent runup, it can even be a little ridiculous in fairly “new” areas.

[sdcellar]

Also, I see what you’re saying about the standard deduction and that should be factored in. That is, true tax benefit is the amount your total deduction exceeds the standard deduction (it’s not like you don’t get any deduction at all if you don’t itemize).

That said, I don’t see why anyone would take the standard deduction instead of itemizing (if that’s what you’re also suggesting).

[sdcellar]

Oh, I do consider what my return would be and that’s just another thing that makes it really hard to rationalize buying now. I can rent a pretty sweet place for about $3500 a month (and I don’t even think that’s a bargain).

I do that, my money earns me $1500 or so, and it makes it hard to see why I should pay $4000 a month for the privilege of tying up that much money in a house right now.

[Author]

Posts