[zk]

Plenty of good info on schools.

A word on the weather. You may already know all this, but just in case…

In May and June, we have “May gray” and “June gloom.” It’s frequently cloudy in the mornings and at night. Sometimes all day. The further you go inland, the less cloud cover you’ll have.

Also, it’s pretty cool (temperature-wise) near the coast. If you like highs in the upper ’60s and low ’70s, right along the coast is good. Every mile you go inland makes a difference. In Carmel Valley (about 3 miles inland) it’s in the low ’70s almost every day in the summer. Which sounds really nice. And I guess it is. But I’ve found it a bit cool for my taste. And it’s cool every night (except a few nights during the strongest Santa Anas). Great sleeping weather, but you’ll need a jacket if you want to spend much time outside at night. Even in July and August. In Scripps Ranch and Poway (9-12 miles inland), it’ll be 6-15 degrees warmer than Carmel Valley, depending on the microclimate where you are. That usually varies depending on how much air flow you get from the ocean. The more seabreeze, the cooler, obviously. You’ll get less cloud cover out there, too.

The real beauty is you can pick exactly how warm you want it to be. La Jolla and Del Mar, Carmel Valley, Santa Luz (you might check that out) and Rancho Penasquitos, Scripps Ranch, Poway. Each of these is a bit warmer than the previous.

Good luck and enjoy the great weather!

[zk]

[quote=sdduuuude]May 7 CVMS: 65 for sale

14 under $1M
51 over $1M[/quote]

I’d noticed a few more signs and even a couple open houses. It will be interesting to see what happens henceforth. Thanks for the stats; keep them coming.

[zk]

[quote=dumbrenter]
SK, I don’t want to get into a partisan argument. My point is pretty simple:
The Senators have a motivation to get re-elected. If they communicated wrong, they get punished by their states.
The media polls are run by folks whose motivation is unknown at the very least.
If you believe that the senators can get away by voting against something that “overwhelming majorities” support, you essentially are saying we are not living in a democracy.[/quote]

We aren’t living in a democracy. I’m not talking about dictionary definitions of democracies or “federal republics” or whatever. I’m talking about to whom our politicians listen. If a Senator’s (or any politician’s) motivation is to get reelected (which it usually is), then only part of their strategy for reelection is to do what their voting constituents want. And part is to do what special interests want. Money buys influence, and that influence isn’t necessarily proportional to the number of people whom that influence benefits. It’s easily possible that a senator would choose to vote against a vast majority of his constituents on a particular issue if he thinks that going against them on that one issue will hurt his overall chance of getting reelected less than going against a particularly powerful special interest group would.

[zk]

[quote=desmond][quote=zk][quote=desmond]

zeek, Thanks I try not to make sense, or I don’t really have to try……[/quote]

If you don’t expect yourself to make sense, that’s fine. But to expect others to make sense (which you certainly appear to) while not expecting yourself to make sense…doesn’t make sense. Which makes sense, since you already said you don’t make sense. Make sense?[/quote]

Zeek,
Just getting discussions going. What really does not make any sense is reading the same posts before the recent gun control vote and the same ones after the recent vote.[/quote]

Just getting discussions going? That’s a copout. “I don’t make sense. But I expect everybody else to. I only do it to get discussions going.” What a bunch of bs.

The recent gun control vote does not, by any means, negate all previous posts.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]

What “ficticious nonsense”? With every anti-gun argument so far, it’s based entirely on emotional, hysterical nonsense. I have yet to see any facts or data to back up the pro-gun argument. [/quote]

You’ve seen facts. The fact is, the U.S. has a homicide rate 300%-400% that of the U.K., which has a similarly violent culture to ours, but much stricter gun laws. That’s a pretty significant fact. But somehow, despite having seen that fact in this very thread, you continue to say you haven’t seen any facts.

[zk]

[quote=desmond]

zeek, Thanks I try not to make sense, or I don’t really have to try……[/quote]

If you don’t expect yourself to make sense, that’s fine. But to expect others to make sense (which you certainly appear to) while not expecting yourself to make sense…doesn’t make sense. Which makes sense, since you already said you don’t make sense. Make sense?

[zk]

In any case, I was attacking her argument (“smart people get this”) not her, personally. Surely you agree that it’s ok to attack someone’s argument, right? I mean, that’s kinda how this works.

[zk]

[quote=desmond][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]There is a much greater likelihood that they will be victims of criminals than victims of guns. That is the point. Smart people get this, and that is why they are so organized.[/quote]

Smart people? You’re kidding, right?

I’m pretty sure you mean, “people who agree with me.” Or maybe, “people who I think are smart because they agree with me.”[/quote]

ZK, more name calling, blame or attack “people that don’t agree with you”.[/quote]

desmond, you aren’t making any sense. I didn’t call anyone names, blame anybody, or say whether I agreed with CAR (for the record, I don’t).

I’m pointing out that to say that “smart people get this” is ridiculous, regardless of what “this” is.

By the way, didn’t you, just a few posts ago, say, “POS Morgan,” Mr. Pot?

[zk]

.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]There is a much greater likelihood that they will be victims of criminals than victims of guns. That is the point. Smart people get this, and that is why they are so organized.[/quote]

Smart people? You’re kidding, right?

I’m pretty sure you mean, “people who agree with me.” Or maybe, “people who I think are smart because they agree with me.”

[zk]

[quote=SD Realtor]Not sure zk. The pent up supply thing is a mystery. I think that if I were an underwater guy, and I saw other under water guys get loan mods, or forgiveness, or live for months or even years without paying a mortgage, perhaps I would think twice. Why sell? Even if the home appreciates to where you are not underwater why sell? [/quote]
I concur with all of that except maybe the last part. People sell in a normal market for whatever reason they sell for (moving, downsizing, retiring, etc.) . People seem to hesitate to sell in those situations if they’re underwater, but might sell if they’re not underwater.

[quote=SD Realtor]Sounds like we are the same. I have spent the last 3 years buying as much RE as I could however none of it is in Cali. By trade I am an engineer so it is my nature to try to figure everything out. However that is not always the case in RE especially in this situation. It could be a blend of alot of things. The stock market is rising but alot of people consider that riskier then then RE. If you buy 600k worth of equities and they depreciate by 200k you lost 200k. If the same thing happens to your home you get a loan mod or maybe some forgiveness. [/quote]
Again, mostly concur. I’m not an engineer by trade, but I am one by way thinking. And by way of social skills. (No offense, I’m sure yours are great. Just a little joke at my own expense). The stock market is rising, which is part of the reason I’m staying out of it. We all know what Warren Buffett said about that. I don’t know if I’d count on government largesse in the event that my real estate investment failed. I guess I probably should. But I probably wouldn’t. Count on it, that is. Take advantage of, yes. Count on, maybe not.
[quote=SD Realtor]
Is RE a good hedge against inflation? Maybe…. only if there is wage inflation as well. So maybe it hedges maybe the asset depreciates but you are locked into a low rate that you locked in with yesterdays dollars… [/quote]
Ah, yes. Wage inflation. I have serious doubts about wage inflation. I see everything else inflating and our standard of living declining because wage inflation doesn’t keep up.
[quote=SD Realtor]
I wish I knew the reason only because I could then give clients good advice as to when I think things will normalize again. Right now I get asked when will things normalize and all I can say is when we finish this leg. Maybe in a month or two, maybe end of summer… maybe longer. We just look at supply and DOM.[/quote]

I wish you knew the answer, too.

[zk]

[quote=SD Realtor]I think one of the things about piggs is that some of them overthink the situation. They go beyond the charts and dig up underlying causes for the chart movements, especially on the way down. Then when the charts change, even though some of the underlying causes may have remained in place, some of them did not waiver. Most of them did. Even Rich himself justified his purchase based on what the charts displayed rather then go well beyond those charts. Indeed the vast majority of the old schoolers who used to populate the forum here are long gone as they purchased based on that same data. The only regret I hear from many of them is that they didn’t buy more.

While things are moving fast now, it wasn’t like that. We came out of it in 09 slowly, ramped up, then dipped….. then came out of it slowly again. I don’t believe we have seen a surge in demand, (from the quantity of buyers) just a lack of supply that makes those buyer act in a more frenzied manner. Seems to me this started to happen around summer last year and started to pick up steam over the winter.[/quote]

I’ve been on this site since well before it had a yellow background. And I bought a lot of properties at a good time. So the charts have done well by me. I’m into the charts. I love the charts. But sometimes you have no choice but to go beyond the charts. The charts aren’t telling us why there’s a lack of inventory. Seems to me that’s a pretty important factor. I’m trying to figure out what’s going to happen next, and without a chart to tell me why there’s such a lack of inventory, I don’t see what to do but go beyond the charts and try to make an educated guess.

I’d be interested to hear other theories that might explain the lack of inventory.

[zk]

[quote=outtamojo]I never could understand this fascination with underwater owners as potential sellers without at the same time attempting to quantify potential buyers who held back/ or are still holding back buying to avoid bubble prices.Seems like they came out to be somewhat of a wash, no?
At this point in time, for those held off buying, the move off the bottom came too quick.
I wonder what the current frenzy will do to the psychology of home buyers/real estate investors. Will they view housing the same way many viewed stocks in the 90’s, buy the dips because prices ALWAYS come back?[/quote]

I don’t think they come out to a wash at all. Today’s market indicates a lot more demand than supply. And it’s not a fascination. It’s an opinion reached after careful consideration, albeit with an acknowledgement of the possibility that it’s incorrect.

As for the psychology of this investor, I don’t view housing the way you describe, exactly. Nominal prices will always go up in the long run (a hundred years from now they’ll be higher than they are now), but that doesn’t mean that you will make money no matter when you buy.

[zk]

[quote=SD Realtor]zk I don’t think we are at peak pricing but I don’t like to speculate on something that can be verified with data. I know plenty of people who are underwater as well. Again, that is fine anecdotally but it doesn’t matter. Back in 2009 and 2010 there were WAY more people underwater and people who could have bought back then but did not were foolish. However back then we DID know that the govt would backstop the entire real estate market. I posted that routinely as well as argued back then and well before that the tsunami was a pipe dream.

If you think it is relevant then that is okay, we are all entitled to our opinions. Mine is that it absolutely has no bearing on the market and I have been consistent in that opinion.[/quote]

I’ve never been of the opinion that there’s a tsunami. I thought maybe some shadow inventory, but not a tsunami. I bought my primary residence in ’10 when the tsunami idea was still prevalent, and I’m pretty happy about it. I bought several investment properties last year (the bottom of the market (so far) in Georgia, where I bought them), and I’m pretty happy about that, too.

My point in this thread is not that I think there’s a tsunami of pent up supply due to too many potential sellers being underwater. My point is that I think there is some pent up supply for that reason. But even if there is, that would not cause a reduction in prices. Because if prices went down, they’d be underwater again, and we’d be back to where we are now.

I’m probably finished buying investment properties, at least for now. Because buying during a frenzy just seems like a bad idea. I’m trying to get a feel for what might happen next.

You mention that the real mystery is why the lack of inventory. I’m curious why are you convinced that it’s not at least partly due to underwater sellers. To me it seems as plausible as any other possible cause.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]…I’d be interested to hear other opinions on current market prices vs. peak prices.[/quote]

I agree with SDR that whatever “peak prices” were (during the millenium boom) has no bearing on prices today. The two periods of time are not related. And if they were related, “peak pricing” would be irrelevant as “peak pricing” was only obtained through the copious issuance of NINA mortgages to unqualified buyers.

Even though some homeowners made a (ill-gotten-but-perfectly-legal) killing off the sale of their properties between 2004 and 2006 (to the detriment of their buyers), the sold comps in this period of time should never be “studied” or used again for comparison purposes as they were all derived from “funny money.”

Peak pricing certainly happened but it wasn’t based on reality in any way, shape or form.

If you want to use past sold comps for comparison values, go back to 2002/2003 (depending on area). Homebuyers still had to traditionally qualify for their mortgages up until late 2003/early 2004.[/quote]

Whether peak pricing was based on reality or not isn’t relevant. What’s relevant, in my opinion, is the restriction on inventory due to underwater potential sellers. And if prices are back at their peak (I’m not saying they are; I’m asking if they are) then there would be very few underwater sellers. Regardless of what peak prices were “based on.” This would remove the restriction (if there is one. I think there is, but I could be wrong) on inventory caused by potential sellers who don’t want to sell if they’re underwater.

Edit: I guess they’d need what they paid (possibly peak) plus 5% or more for real estate commissions.

[Author]

Posts