[XBoxBoy]

Not sure what Raptorduck has found, but I’ve been closely watching La Jolla for the last several years. Here are a couple insights that I can give.

1) Lots of stuff has come on the market, and then after about six months been taken off without selling. Seems that plenty of people are interested in selling, but will wait for the market to recover. (I suspect that most of them don’t have any idea how long it will be but I’ll leave that for another thread.) Consequently, I do think that in high end areas there is a significant backlog building up, even if it isn’t on the MLS.

2) Some people get lucky, but most don’t. By that I mean that lots of houses just sit on the market. And sit and sit. BUT, every couple of weeks something goes pending that causes me to ask, WTF was that person thinking. The down side of this to those of us waiting for the high ends to come down is that then there is a new comp to justify higher prices. And from what I’m seeing, most sellers in La Jolla are hoping for prices to still be at peak 2005 prices. Alternatively, sometimes you see something go at a decent price, but only occasionally. Likewise, some places sell at full asking price, but some sell at pretty significant discount from what they originally asked. It’s a very mixed bag.

3) Because La Jolla (and other high end areas) are so different house to house, it is very difficult to determine how the market is doing. In areas with tract housing, where the houses are all about the same, it’s much easier to do comparisons. But in La Jolla, it’s really hard to do that. Consequently, it’s really hard to tell how much of a drop in prices we have had. (The flip side of this is that it is easy to selectively pick comps that justify high prices, or to selectively pick comps that justify falling prices.)

4) The number of buyers has significantly dried up. Particularly since the start of the credit crisis when jumbo loans suddenly got hard to find. From the couple of open houses, I’ve been to lately I’d have to say that many are hoping for a nice bounce in the Spring of 2008. I don’t know what will happen then, but I do think that spring 2008 will be crucial to determining how the rest of this downturn goes. If enough sales can be made in spring 2008, then the high end areas will hold more than lots of people think. But if spring 2008 is dead on arrival, the pressure from all those waiting for a housing rebound will start to drive things down in a serious way.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Not sure what Raptorduck has found, but I’ve been closely watching La Jolla for the last several years. Here are a couple insights that I can give.

1) Lots of stuff has come on the market, and then after about six months been taken off without selling. Seems that plenty of people are interested in selling, but will wait for the market to recover. (I suspect that most of them don’t have any idea how long it will be but I’ll leave that for another thread.) Consequently, I do think that in high end areas there is a significant backlog building up, even if it isn’t on the MLS.

2) Some people get lucky, but most don’t. By that I mean that lots of houses just sit on the market. And sit and sit. BUT, every couple of weeks something goes pending that causes me to ask, WTF was that person thinking. The down side of this to those of us waiting for the high ends to come down is that then there is a new comp to justify higher prices. And from what I’m seeing, most sellers in La Jolla are hoping for prices to still be at peak 2005 prices. Alternatively, sometimes you see something go at a decent price, but only occasionally. Likewise, some places sell at full asking price, but some sell at pretty significant discount from what they originally asked. It’s a very mixed bag.

3) Because La Jolla (and other high end areas) are so different house to house, it is very difficult to determine how the market is doing. In areas with tract housing, where the houses are all about the same, it’s much easier to do comparisons. But in La Jolla, it’s really hard to do that. Consequently, it’s really hard to tell how much of a drop in prices we have had. (The flip side of this is that it is easy to selectively pick comps that justify high prices, or to selectively pick comps that justify falling prices.)

4) The number of buyers has significantly dried up. Particularly since the start of the credit crisis when jumbo loans suddenly got hard to find. From the couple of open houses, I’ve been to lately I’d have to say that many are hoping for a nice bounce in the Spring of 2008. I don’t know what will happen then, but I do think that spring 2008 will be crucial to determining how the rest of this downturn goes. If enough sales can be made in spring 2008, then the high end areas will hold more than lots of people think. But if spring 2008 is dead on arrival, the pressure from all those waiting for a housing rebound will start to drive things down in a serious way.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Rustico, did I ruffle your feathers? Sorry, didn’t mean to do that. In answer to your questions:

> if you are looking for an agent to con his client
> into a bad deal because he will get more commission,
> are you not a bottom feeder too?

Guess it depends on what you mean by bottom feeder. But sure, I’m okay with being called that. Hey it’s a lot better than the routine accusations about my colleagues and me being responsible for ruining our children and causing moral decay in our society.

> Do you have to have a license to qualify as bottom feeder?

Can’t see why a license would be necessary.

> Just interesting, not surprising, that you are the one
> verbalizing discontent towards all Realtors

Don’t think that my comments said that ALL realtors are bad. Just that my experiences have taught me that often times realtors (and others) who “supposedly” represent the your interests often have their own set of priorities. And the sooner you figure out what their priorities are, and operate with a full understanding of THEIR priorities, the better.

> and also verbalizing a mentality like those that you
> scorn allegedly possess.

Sorry if my scorning bothered you. I’m just a sarcastic shit by nature. Been that way all my life. Didn’t mean to piss ya off.

But I do see a difference. A major difference. Sales people who claim to be looking out for other’s interest and not their own are more often than not lying. But I’m not trying to hide my intentions at all, nor am I pretending one thing and doing another. I’m openly admitting that I’m looking for ways to take advantage of the unstated priorities of the agent.

> Which brings up the next point why don’t you just get
> your own license?

For my own transactions, I don’t think a license is necessary. If you’re suggesting becoming a realtor as a career, sorry, as mentioned above I’m already busy ruining the morals of our children and trying to cause rampant decay in our society.

So, again, Rustico, sorry if I ruffled your feathers. That wasn’t my intent. My point in posting was more to ask if people thought it would be a successful strategy, as a low balling buyer, to go directly through the seller’s agent, or was there a compelling reason to use a buyer’s agent given that MLS access is easy, and buyer’s agents will always have a conflict of interest in helping you get the lowest price possible. I’m not trying to convince anyone of this, I’m asking if someone sees something that I’m overlooking, or some flaw in my logic, that I should be considering.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Rustico, did I ruffle your feathers? Sorry, didn’t mean to do that. In answer to your questions:

> if you are looking for an agent to con his client
> into a bad deal because he will get more commission,
> are you not a bottom feeder too?

Guess it depends on what you mean by bottom feeder. But sure, I’m okay with being called that. Hey it’s a lot better than the routine accusations about my colleagues and me being responsible for ruining our children and causing moral decay in our society.

> Do you have to have a license to qualify as bottom feeder?

Can’t see why a license would be necessary.

> Just interesting, not surprising, that you are the one
> verbalizing discontent towards all Realtors

Don’t think that my comments said that ALL realtors are bad. Just that my experiences have taught me that often times realtors (and others) who “supposedly” represent the your interests often have their own set of priorities. And the sooner you figure out what their priorities are, and operate with a full understanding of THEIR priorities, the better.

> and also verbalizing a mentality like those that you
> scorn allegedly possess.

Sorry if my scorning bothered you. I’m just a sarcastic shit by nature. Been that way all my life. Didn’t mean to piss ya off.

But I do see a difference. A major difference. Sales people who claim to be looking out for other’s interest and not their own are more often than not lying. But I’m not trying to hide my intentions at all, nor am I pretending one thing and doing another. I’m openly admitting that I’m looking for ways to take advantage of the unstated priorities of the agent.

> Which brings up the next point why don’t you just get
> your own license?

For my own transactions, I don’t think a license is necessary. If you’re suggesting becoming a realtor as a career, sorry, as mentioned above I’m already busy ruining the morals of our children and trying to cause rampant decay in our society.

So, again, Rustico, sorry if I ruffled your feathers. That wasn’t my intent. My point in posting was more to ask if people thought it would be a successful strategy, as a low balling buyer, to go directly through the seller’s agent, or was there a compelling reason to use a buyer’s agent given that MLS access is easy, and buyer’s agents will always have a conflict of interest in helping you get the lowest price possible. I’m not trying to convince anyone of this, I’m asking if someone sees something that I’m overlooking, or some flaw in my logic, that I should be considering.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Rustico, did I ruffle your feathers? Sorry, didn’t mean to do that. In answer to your questions:

> if you are looking for an agent to con his client
> into a bad deal because he will get more commission,
> are you not a bottom feeder too?

Guess it depends on what you mean by bottom feeder. But sure, I’m okay with being called that. Hey it’s a lot better than the routine accusations about my colleagues and me being responsible for ruining our children and causing moral decay in our society.

> Do you have to have a license to qualify as bottom feeder?

Can’t see why a license would be necessary.

> Just interesting, not surprising, that you are the one
> verbalizing discontent towards all Realtors

Don’t think that my comments said that ALL realtors are bad. Just that my experiences have taught me that often times realtors (and others) who “supposedly” represent the your interests often have their own set of priorities. And the sooner you figure out what their priorities are, and operate with a full understanding of THEIR priorities, the better.

> and also verbalizing a mentality like those that you
> scorn allegedly possess.

Sorry if my scorning bothered you. I’m just a sarcastic shit by nature. Been that way all my life. Didn’t mean to piss ya off.

But I do see a difference. A major difference. Sales people who claim to be looking out for other’s interest and not their own are more often than not lying. But I’m not trying to hide my intentions at all, nor am I pretending one thing and doing another. I’m openly admitting that I’m looking for ways to take advantage of the unstated priorities of the agent.

> Which brings up the next point why don’t you just get
> your own license?

For my own transactions, I don’t think a license is necessary. If you’re suggesting becoming a realtor as a career, sorry, as mentioned above I’m already busy ruining the morals of our children and trying to cause rampant decay in our society.

So, again, Rustico, sorry if I ruffled your feathers. That wasn’t my intent. My point in posting was more to ask if people thought it would be a successful strategy, as a low balling buyer, to go directly through the seller’s agent, or was there a compelling reason to use a buyer’s agent given that MLS access is easy, and buyer’s agents will always have a conflict of interest in helping you get the lowest price possible. I’m not trying to convince anyone of this, I’m asking if someone sees something that I’m overlooking, or some flaw in my logic, that I should be considering.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Rustico, did I ruffle your feathers? Sorry, didn’t mean to do that. In answer to your questions:

> if you are looking for an agent to con his client
> into a bad deal because he will get more commission,
> are you not a bottom feeder too?

Guess it depends on what you mean by bottom feeder. But sure, I’m okay with being called that. Hey it’s a lot better than the routine accusations about my colleagues and me being responsible for ruining our children and causing moral decay in our society.

> Do you have to have a license to qualify as bottom feeder?

Can’t see why a license would be necessary.

> Just interesting, not surprising, that you are the one
> verbalizing discontent towards all Realtors

Don’t think that my comments said that ALL realtors are bad. Just that my experiences have taught me that often times realtors (and others) who “supposedly” represent the your interests often have their own set of priorities. And the sooner you figure out what their priorities are, and operate with a full understanding of THEIR priorities, the better.

> and also verbalizing a mentality like those that you
> scorn allegedly possess.

Sorry if my scorning bothered you. I’m just a sarcastic shit by nature. Been that way all my life. Didn’t mean to piss ya off.

But I do see a difference. A major difference. Sales people who claim to be looking out for other’s interest and not their own are more often than not lying. But I’m not trying to hide my intentions at all, nor am I pretending one thing and doing another. I’m openly admitting that I’m looking for ways to take advantage of the unstated priorities of the agent.

> Which brings up the next point why don’t you just get
> your own license?

For my own transactions, I don’t think a license is necessary. If you’re suggesting becoming a realtor as a career, sorry, as mentioned above I’m already busy ruining the morals of our children and trying to cause rampant decay in our society.

So, again, Rustico, sorry if I ruffled your feathers. That wasn’t my intent. My point in posting was more to ask if people thought it would be a successful strategy, as a low balling buyer, to go directly through the seller’s agent, or was there a compelling reason to use a buyer’s agent given that MLS access is easy, and buyer’s agents will always have a conflict of interest in helping you get the lowest price possible. I’m not trying to convince anyone of this, I’m asking if someone sees something that I’m overlooking, or some flaw in my logic, that I should be considering.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Lately I’ve been wondering about not using a realtor when buying a house. I’d appreciate comments from knowledgeable posters on this site…

From my experiences, a buyer’s agent doesn’t bring that much to the deal any more. MLS access is easy so the only thing the buyers agent brings to the table is negotiation skills, and some knowledge about the real estate transaction. While I’m not an expert on real estate transactions, I have bought before and while there was a lot of paper work, nothing was that difficult, or worth paying someone 30k for doing. What’s more the buyer’s agent is motivated to close a deal, just like a seller’s agent, not to represent your best interests, so as a negotiator, they are not necessarily on your side. (If they know you can spend more, they might easily let the seller’s agent know that, and encourage them to counter higher than they might have. After all, a higher price is more commission)

However, if I assume that I’m going to do the MLS research, negotiate on my own behalf, and help with the real estate transaction, why not use the seller’s agent? The way I see it, if I make an offer using the seller’s agent, that agent will get the full commission instead of splitting it with a buyer’s agent. Getting the full commission instead of splitting it is a strong incentive for the seller’s agent to encourage the buyer to accept my offer, even if it is a low ball offer. (Getting 6% of 800k is definitely better than 3% of a mil)

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Nah XBoxBoy, don’t be silly, the seller’s agent would never put their own interest in receiving a full commission over the interests of the seller.” So, maybe I’m naive in thinking that this strategy would have any benefit.

So what about it Piggys? If you are buying, and are looking to make a low ball price, would it be better to have your own agent, or just use the seller’s agent?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Lately I’ve been wondering about not using a realtor when buying a house. I’d appreciate comments from knowledgeable posters on this site…

From my experiences, a buyer’s agent doesn’t bring that much to the deal any more. MLS access is easy so the only thing the buyers agent brings to the table is negotiation skills, and some knowledge about the real estate transaction. While I’m not an expert on real estate transactions, I have bought before and while there was a lot of paper work, nothing was that difficult, or worth paying someone 30k for doing. What’s more the buyer’s agent is motivated to close a deal, just like a seller’s agent, not to represent your best interests, so as a negotiator, they are not necessarily on your side. (If they know you can spend more, they might easily let the seller’s agent know that, and encourage them to counter higher than they might have. After all, a higher price is more commission)

However, if I assume that I’m going to do the MLS research, negotiate on my own behalf, and help with the real estate transaction, why not use the seller’s agent? The way I see it, if I make an offer using the seller’s agent, that agent will get the full commission instead of splitting it with a buyer’s agent. Getting the full commission instead of splitting it is a strong incentive for the seller’s agent to encourage the buyer to accept my offer, even if it is a low ball offer. (Getting 6% of 800k is definitely better than 3% of a mil)

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Nah XBoxBoy, don’t be silly, the seller’s agent would never put their own interest in receiving a full commission over the interests of the seller.” So, maybe I’m naive in thinking that this strategy would have any benefit.

So what about it Piggys? If you are buying, and are looking to make a low ball price, would it be better to have your own agent, or just use the seller’s agent?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Lately I’ve been wondering about not using a realtor when buying a house. I’d appreciate comments from knowledgeable posters on this site…

From my experiences, a buyer’s agent doesn’t bring that much to the deal any more. MLS access is easy so the only thing the buyers agent brings to the table is negotiation skills, and some knowledge about the real estate transaction. While I’m not an expert on real estate transactions, I have bought before and while there was a lot of paper work, nothing was that difficult, or worth paying someone 30k for doing. What’s more the buyer’s agent is motivated to close a deal, just like a seller’s agent, not to represent your best interests, so as a negotiator, they are not necessarily on your side. (If they know you can spend more, they might easily let the seller’s agent know that, and encourage them to counter higher than they might have. After all, a higher price is more commission)

However, if I assume that I’m going to do the MLS research, negotiate on my own behalf, and help with the real estate transaction, why not use the seller’s agent? The way I see it, if I make an offer using the seller’s agent, that agent will get the full commission instead of splitting it with a buyer’s agent. Getting the full commission instead of splitting it is a strong incentive for the seller’s agent to encourage the buyer to accept my offer, even if it is a low ball offer. (Getting 6% of 800k is definitely better than 3% of a mil)

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Nah XBoxBoy, don’t be silly, the seller’s agent would never put their own interest in receiving a full commission over the interests of the seller.” So, maybe I’m naive in thinking that this strategy would have any benefit.

So what about it Piggys? If you are buying, and are looking to make a low ball price, would it be better to have your own agent, or just use the seller’s agent?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Lately I’ve been wondering about not using a realtor when buying a house. I’d appreciate comments from knowledgeable posters on this site…

From my experiences, a buyer’s agent doesn’t bring that much to the deal any more. MLS access is easy so the only thing the buyers agent brings to the table is negotiation skills, and some knowledge about the real estate transaction. While I’m not an expert on real estate transactions, I have bought before and while there was a lot of paper work, nothing was that difficult, or worth paying someone 30k for doing. What’s more the buyer’s agent is motivated to close a deal, just like a seller’s agent, not to represent your best interests, so as a negotiator, they are not necessarily on your side. (If they know you can spend more, they might easily let the seller’s agent know that, and encourage them to counter higher than they might have. After all, a higher price is more commission)

However, if I assume that I’m going to do the MLS research, negotiate on my own behalf, and help with the real estate transaction, why not use the seller’s agent? The way I see it, if I make an offer using the seller’s agent, that agent will get the full commission instead of splitting it with a buyer’s agent. Getting the full commission instead of splitting it is a strong incentive for the seller’s agent to encourage the buyer to accept my offer, even if it is a low ball offer. (Getting 6% of 800k is definitely better than 3% of a mil)

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Nah XBoxBoy, don’t be silly, the seller’s agent would never put their own interest in receiving a full commission over the interests of the seller.” So, maybe I’m naive in thinking that this strategy would have any benefit.

So what about it Piggys? If you are buying, and are looking to make a low ball price, would it be better to have your own agent, or just use the seller’s agent?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Prices will fall due to the fire. Least that’s my expectation. There are two forces that you must weigh in order to make this decision. First, as Raptorduck mentions, some of the people who lost there homes will simply buy another home. And the second force is that there will be some people who had been thinking of retiring or moving to San Diego who will now be less inclined to do so. Obviously, the people who lost homes and simply go buy another will increase demand. Those that decide not to move to San Diego will decrease demand. So the question is which of these two forces do you think will be stronger?

My belief is that only a few people who lost their homes will simply go out and buy another. There might be a few who can do that, but most will need to settle insurance and deal with their previous house, either sell off the lot, or rebuild then sell. Thus the increase in demand from people who lost their homes will be slight.

On the other hand, during the week of the fires, I heard from many friends and relatives all over the country asking about the fires. All their comments made it clear that they were really surprised/shocked by what was going on. While I have no real evidence or data, my hunch is that the fires will discourage a lot of people who were thinking of moving here. Thus I believe the decrease in demand caused by people not moving here will outweigh the increase in demand caused by people who lost their homes.

But, as a side note, I will also mention that I believe the popping of the real estate bubble will far outweigh either of these two forces. And so prices will be going down regardless of the impact from the fires.

Just my two cents…
XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Prices will fall due to the fire. Least that’s my expectation. There are two forces that you must weigh in order to make this decision. First, as Raptorduck mentions, some of the people who lost there homes will simply buy another home. And the second force is that there will be some people who had been thinking of retiring or moving to San Diego who will now be less inclined to do so. Obviously, the people who lost homes and simply go buy another will increase demand. Those that decide not to move to San Diego will decrease demand. So the question is which of these two forces do you think will be stronger?

My belief is that only a few people who lost their homes will simply go out and buy another. There might be a few who can do that, but most will need to settle insurance and deal with their previous house, either sell off the lot, or rebuild then sell. Thus the increase in demand from people who lost their homes will be slight.

On the other hand, during the week of the fires, I heard from many friends and relatives all over the country asking about the fires. All their comments made it clear that they were really surprised/shocked by what was going on. While I have no real evidence or data, my hunch is that the fires will discourage a lot of people who were thinking of moving here. Thus I believe the decrease in demand caused by people not moving here will outweigh the increase in demand caused by people who lost their homes.

But, as a side note, I will also mention that I believe the popping of the real estate bubble will far outweigh either of these two forces. And so prices will be going down regardless of the impact from the fires.

Just my two cents…
XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Prices will fall due to the fire. Least that’s my expectation. There are two forces that you must weigh in order to make this decision. First, as Raptorduck mentions, some of the people who lost there homes will simply buy another home. And the second force is that there will be some people who had been thinking of retiring or moving to San Diego who will now be less inclined to do so. Obviously, the people who lost homes and simply go buy another will increase demand. Those that decide not to move to San Diego will decrease demand. So the question is which of these two forces do you think will be stronger?

My belief is that only a few people who lost their homes will simply go out and buy another. There might be a few who can do that, but most will need to settle insurance and deal with their previous house, either sell off the lot, or rebuild then sell. Thus the increase in demand from people who lost their homes will be slight.

On the other hand, during the week of the fires, I heard from many friends and relatives all over the country asking about the fires. All their comments made it clear that they were really surprised/shocked by what was going on. While I have no real evidence or data, my hunch is that the fires will discourage a lot of people who were thinking of moving here. Thus I believe the decrease in demand caused by people not moving here will outweigh the increase in demand caused by people who lost their homes.

But, as a side note, I will also mention that I believe the popping of the real estate bubble will far outweigh either of these two forces. And so prices will be going down regardless of the impact from the fires.

Just my two cents…
XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Prices will fall due to the fire. Least that’s my expectation. There are two forces that you must weigh in order to make this decision. First, as Raptorduck mentions, some of the people who lost there homes will simply buy another home. And the second force is that there will be some people who had been thinking of retiring or moving to San Diego who will now be less inclined to do so. Obviously, the people who lost homes and simply go buy another will increase demand. Those that decide not to move to San Diego will decrease demand. So the question is which of these two forces do you think will be stronger?

My belief is that only a few people who lost their homes will simply go out and buy another. There might be a few who can do that, but most will need to settle insurance and deal with their previous house, either sell off the lot, or rebuild then sell. Thus the increase in demand from people who lost their homes will be slight.

On the other hand, during the week of the fires, I heard from many friends and relatives all over the country asking about the fires. All their comments made it clear that they were really surprised/shocked by what was going on. While I have no real evidence or data, my hunch is that the fires will discourage a lot of people who were thinking of moving here. Thus I believe the decrease in demand caused by people not moving here will outweigh the increase in demand caused by people who lost their homes.

But, as a side note, I will also mention that I believe the popping of the real estate bubble will far outweigh either of these two forces. And so prices will be going down regardless of the impact from the fires.

Just my two cents…
XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Not positive about this, but looks like the fine print in the Rex & Co calculator says you have to have the agreement in place for five years.

[Author]

Posts