patrick.net

I’ve been voted (voted??) Queen? Coool.

No voting in a monarchy.

Like all real royalty, SQT ascended to Queen through Divine Providence. Voting is for the Prols.

SQT, what if Casey hypnotizes you into buying one of his local fixers?

Hypnotize the Queen? I think not.

True. That would be a High Treason punishable by HDQ.

I looked up the listing on the MLS and saw that their starting asking price is $620,000. Nice $30k loss right off the top, not including probably ~$20k of “improvements”.

And Help-U-Sell will charge at least a few thousands...

Sold at the Peak,

Well that is quite a little tale now isn't it! Sounds like a job for.....

Flippers in Trouble Man!

Damn, let's just hope they were playing with their own money. See? This is what I mean. What a pathetic waste of resources. Time, money......pergraniteel. Oh, I don't know if that was a Freudian slip or a typo? Hell-U-Sell? Sure you didn't mean Help-U-Sell? If it was intentional, cool.

People have vastly different risk profiles. Those flippers who are selling now are the very risk-adverse type.

The question is, what got them into flipping in the first place?

WAAAYY OT, but this perfectly illustrates many of the things wrong with America today:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/26/news/economy/weighty_drivers/index.htm?postversion=2006102613

Oh, you guys are killing me. I have to go put the little dude down for his nap, so you’ll have to continue the jokes without me for awhile.

At first, I thought you were referring to Casey... Sorry!

skibum, I agree many Americans are too fat.

However, this "Declaration Of Food Independence" makes sense: :)

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/155

@Peter P,

What is it with you and the Center for Consumer Freedom, aka the Restaurant and food industry's mouthpiece?

I'm all for individual choice without regulating food, unless there is clear scientific evidence of cause-and-effect harm (like trans fats - no, I don't want to start that tangent again!)

However, people will need to be responsible for their own actions. I for one do not want my (hopefully) healthy lifestyle and resultant low burden on the healthcare system to essentially subsidize the care of fat, unhealthy people (or smokers, or drunk drivers, whatever) who have no self-control.

Dems take over and raise taxes

I'm not sure why this meme keeps coming up all over the place. If the Dems win this year, it'd only be the House and Senate, since the president is not up for reelection.

So, it's not like they can go all willy nilly raising taxes (as opposed to borrow and spend) unless The Decider(TM) signs off as well.

However, people will need to be responsible for their own actions.

I am all for adjusting healthcare premium based on mandatory periodic health checks. Unhealthy lifestyles should have consequences. But they should not be banned.

We cannot stop people from harming themselves. We can only stop tem from harming other people.

We cannot stop people from harming themselves. We can only stop tem from harming other people.

Agree with the first sentence. The second: we try, but we haven't been too successful.

I have an old Navy buddy that flips houses. The difference is he's done it since, well........ we both got out of the service! He works neighborhoods you and I wouldn't be caught dead in, buys for basically the cost of the lot and really has a great time of it! This is more crumbling foundation/seriously leaning type stuff.

The guy is good at what he does. People like this are for real, the rest? Pffft. There is no way in hell I'm paying a premium to have some weekend doofus slop paint and hang wall paper!

The second: we try, but we haven’t been too successful.

On the bright side, with more fat people, airlines will soon have to provide bigger seats. That would be nice.

BTW, if airlines change seat pitch from 32 inch to 37-38 inch and make them 8 across instead of 10 across, they will lose only around 30% seating capacity. If they charge 30% more (as opposed to 200% more in business class), enough people will run for it. Now, they can also make up with heavier cargo, which makes eeven more money per weight.

This means more profit. Why don't they do that?

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals?

(I did not invent this.)

Not all shills are bad. Especially those who fight for your interests.

Peter P,

Everything at the "carriers" is determined by ASRM or Available Seat Revenue Miles. They have treated the seats like a commodity and (as I'm sure you've heard) some airlines will book your flight on another carrier if that can be done cheaper than they can do it, AND pocket the difference! Whenever I spoke to the old DLJ Aviation Analyst he was keen to remind me that seats were like so many bushels of corn!

Peter P,
I recall reading somewhere that "industry analysis" has demonstrated over and over again that consumers are willing to accept narrower seats in return for lower airfare. I don't know who these consumers are, because I sure hate it. Especially when that obese subscriber to the "Center for Consumer Freedom" plops their derrier into the seat next to mine. Now that's one of life's little crushingly disappointing moments.

skibum,

I understand the frustration, really I do. How many flights have we all been on where it's the flight crew, two attendants and a drunk guy that won't be coming around until this baby hits SLC? Yet here you are "sitting at attention"?

I recall reading somewhere that “industry analysis” has demonstrated over and over again that consumers are willing to accept narrower seats in return for lower airfare.

They must be conducting the survey outside a walmart or something like that.

Many consumers will gladly pay a 30% premium for 30% more room on a transcontinental or intercontinental flight. They can still charge an arm and a leg for lie-flat seats.

Freight capacity is also very valuable. That can be freed up with fewer people onbroad.

I have a 36-inch waist and coach is already feeling tight.

Talked to experienced real estate client today. Bought 2 condos in St Pete 12 months ago. didnt want to close but didnt want to lose earnest money. Can rent these 2bdrms units but mortgage etc is 5k (these are 600k plus units) and doesnt even remotely cover costs. Despite owning multiple rental units in midwest he feels he is now in desperation stage but cant find "qualified" buyers.

The same logic “not all shills are bad” can be applied to other groups, such as vegetarians, yet you appear to recognize that distinction in your numerous posts on this section of society.

They are bad if they take away your rights over nothing. Meat eaters never wanted to ban veggies.

austingal,

Uh, I can't figure that one either. You're starting to scare a little bit here. You're not seriously thinking about this are you? Just kidding, if your read is accurate you've got to be the only place in Amerika that has anything even close to a rent/own balance! Make it clear to the seller that the purchase is of your own choosing and you're not interested in personally funding a "courtesy to broker" or anything of the like.

doc1,

Well 12 months ago would've been........ uh the PEAK of the market? In FL no less? I feel for the guy but I wonder if a lot of the driving force behind the big Ka-thud today isn't largely due to the Sunshine State!

Over on Ben's every 3rd article is about FL sliding either into the Atlantic or the Gulf (depending on the coast) and I understand that "non-homestead" properties are being dropped by insurers. What was this guy thinking?

Again, you are failing to recognize that not all vegetarians and vegans are aligned with PETA or any other eco-terrorists and either their goals or their actions. There are plenty of vegetarians who don’t give a rats ass what you do or don’t eat, who have no desire to take away your rights.

I am not against vegetarianism per se. I love veggies myself. However, the proliferation of veganism as a religion has obvious consequences.

On the other hand, animal "rights" organizations have huge lobbying power. They will total "liberation" of animals. There must be an opposing force to stop that.

doc1,

Hey don't get me wrong! Sometimes a body's got to do something even if he suspects it may not be right. We can't just sit on our hands. You mentioned he had rentals up in the mid-west so he's got this pile of cash dumped on his door-step every month and hey it's got to go somewhere right?

One poster had a great link about "randomness" and I think we can definitely chalk this one up to "survivor bias".

Okay, I reread the new home sales article I posted here and almost fell out of my chair a second time. A 9+% drop year to year AND MONTH TO MONTH. I thought maybe some of you missed this as you were all involved with the Lunch with Casey subplot. I would like to appeal to our resident stickiness experts (Allah and Randy). Does a 9 percent month to month drop qualify a becoming "unstuck"? (or is this lowering of the median due to condos or something else in the mix?) Or are new homes technically not sticky as they are built by capitalists (unlike the the previously owned homes which are occupied by "the people who know better")?

@austingal,

We bought using a buyer's agent. What a waste of money. I see their utility in only two things: as a security blanket for first-time buyers, so they feel like they have a "guiding hand" navigating the buying process, and as someone who does the legwork filtering out properties you wouldn't consider seeing. Unless you're very insecure or you are buying from out of town, it's not worth the 3%, IMO.

Sounds like you'll be a first time buyer if you do pull the trigger, correct? If so, here's my (unsolicited) summary of the buying process:

*****

1) Market Research: find out about the neighborhood you want, the type of house, comps, market trends

2) Secure financing: find out how much you can afford, type of mortgage product you want (please, no NAALVP's - but you already know that!), find a good and (more importantly) honest mortgage broker

3) Look at homes: mls, open houses, appointments with sellers and their agents

4) Make offers, counteroffers, counter-counteroffers until you get an accepted offer

5) Sign purchase and sale agreement: lists contingencies,

6) Mortgage agent works on financing

7) Home inspection, renegotiation or fix problems based on inspection contingencies

8) Title search, appraisal, negotiate for final Closing numbers, closing date

9) Actual Closing: usually done at your or the seller's RE attorney's office; deed signed, financing reconciled, last-minute walk-through, keys are transferred

10) Buyer's remorse

******

Basically all the financing-related steps can be handled by your mortgage agent if they're any good. They can even help find a title search company, inspector, attorney, and/or appraiser (but caveat - make sure the mtg agent is not a shady type).

Unless you’re very insecure or you are buying from out of town, it’s not worth the 3%, IMO.

Perhaps. But the seller may not give you the full 3% back if you buy without an agent.

With or without a buyer's agent, there is only you to look after your own interests.

10) Buyer's Remorse LOL!

Peter P,

Have you got the Put to Call Ratio handy for CAT? If not, do you know where I can check it for the real skinny?

JackInTheBox,

How can looking at the "Map of Misery" ever get old?

Perhaps. But the seller may not give you the full 3% back if you buy without an agent.

True. It's beyond that, in fact. Many sellers have signed contracts w/ their agents that spell out the full commission to the seller if the buyer has no agent, or if the seller's agent also represents the buyer or finds the buyer, or even if the seller him/herself finds their own buyer ("hey, this guy at my office wants to buy my house!")

Knowing this, however, would be a strong disincentive for me to make an offer on a particular property. In today's market, you still may be able to negotiate this point, though. Sellers, and more importantly, their agents are getting desparate.

(-) "full commission to the seller if the buyer has no agent"
(+) "full commission to the seller'S AGENT if the buyer has no agent themselves"

Well, the MSM has the bubble pop/crash/fizzle cooked in the books; we're done, everyone can go home now:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/26/news/economy/economy_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2006102616

"There's little question that the housing market is now in a recession if not a full-fledged depression. Which is not so surprising after the national housing boom that started in the late 1990s - the good times had to end at some point."

Why does the Chronicle always seem to post a "rents are skyrocketing" article every time bad home numbers come out?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/26/financial/f104851D74.DTL

Hmmm....

Have you got the Put to Call Ratio handy for CAT? If not, do you know where I can check it for the real skinny?

I used to have that data from OptionVue. Now I do not know how to find them.

One way is to eye-ball the option data at Yahoo and see the balance of volumes.

Why does the Chronicle always seem to post a “rents are skyrocketing” article every time bad home numbers come out?

@lunarpark,

Because the CAR tells them to. ; )

LOL. Fear mongering at its best.

Fear mongering at its best.

The balance of fear has shifted. Now who is fearful?