« previous   misc   next »

When and How Low????????


By HousingBoom   Follow   Sat, 18 Jun 2011, 3:48pm PDT   11,548 views   151 comments
Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

1. When do you think U.S. home prices (nationally) will bottom?

2. How much further do you think prices will drop (nationally) before prices bottom?

« First     « Previous     Comments 112-151 of 151     Last »

gameisrigged   Mon, 20 Jun 2011, 3:15pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 112

StoutFiles says

Let me guess, you think 9/11 was a conspiracy as well?

The power elites have little to gain if the middle class falls. Breaking the system just results in revolutions, not in obedient slaves to the system.

Ugh - awful analogy. You honestly think the 21st century robber-barons believe, or care, that there's going to be some sort of armed uprising against them if they go too far? Don't make me laugh. The sheeple are too concerned with who's going to win on American Idol to take up arms. You're also forgetting that the power elite do not necessarily act in their own best interest. They are only concerned with grabbing as much wealth RIGHT NOW as possible. If the price of soup went up, they'd gladly throw the goose that lays golden eggs in a pot to make a little short-term profit.

And that's where your analogy falls apart:

The 9/11 conspiracy is bullshit for a very simple reason. Which is more likely, that a group of terrorists from Saudi Arabia hijacked some planes and crashed them, or that the U.S. government somehow secretly planted explosives in prominent buildings, then orchestrated the most complicated charade in history just to make us believe it was done by terrorists? Obviously the first one.

But which one of THESE is more likely: The wealthiest Americans are manipulating politicians, the stock market, and the economy for their own benefit, just as has happened in past centuries, OR those same people are afraid that the middle class will take up arms against them? Obviously the first one.

gameisrigged   Mon, 20 Jun 2011, 3:22pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 113

iwog says

gameisrigged says

Don’t like Iwog’s opinion? Wait 5 minutes - he’ll give you a new one.

There’s no such thing as short term market movements and long term trends.

You gotta pick one or the other, otherwise you’ll get gang banged by trolls who intentionally misinterpret what you say in order to score points.

Right game?

Yes, we know, Iwog. Anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Riiiiight....

Funny how you always want to make this supposed differentiation between short and long-term trends AFTER the fact, only when you get called on something.

It appears you MEANT to write: "The graph is going to temporarily fluctuate upward, but only in the spring, after which it will return to where it was", but instead you wrote: "The graph is already heading back up."

See, if I were going to make a distinction between short and long term trends, I think I might actually MENTION that at the time.

thomas.wong1986   Mon, 20 Jun 2011, 4:55pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 114

iwog says

thomas.wong1986 says

corntrollio says
thomas.wong1986 says
Among the communities hardest hit were parts of Hollywood, down 45.1%; Santa Monica, off 39.6%, and Beverly Hills, down 37.8%.
And that’s probably nominal prices, not real.

No comments from Iwog.. lovely….

Sorry but I don’t believe it. Furthermore I did a rather extensive search for Beverly Hills and 37.8% and found NOTHING other than links back to your original uncited article.

LOL! of course you deny it...no REA will ever admit there were price declines in CA. In 5 years you will deny we had a property bubble post 2000.

iwog   Mon, 20 Jun 2011, 4:58pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 115

thomas.wong1986 says

LOL! of course you deny it…no REA will ever admit there were price declines in CA. In 5 years you will deny we had a property bubble post 2000.

What's the source of that 37.8% again? You don't even know what the number represents.

thomas.wong1986   Mon, 20 Jun 2011, 5:05pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 116

iwog says

What’s the source of that 37.8% again? You don’t even know what the number represents.

Beautiful.. i couldnt ask for more...keep it up little one.
Your doing just fine...

iwog   Mon, 20 Jun 2011, 5:20pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 117

thomas.wong1986 says

iwog says

What’s the source of that 37.8% again? You don’t even know what the number represents.

Beautiful.. i couldnt ask for more…keep it up little one.

Your doing just fine…

Psssssst.......that was your opportunity to make me look stupid and actually explain what 37.8% is actually measuring. You do know, don't you?

corntrollio   Tue, 21 Jun 2011, 6:48am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 118

Zlxr says

Additionally - who’s to say that Cities and Counties will not raise property taxes? Look at the city of Albany, CA. I know of someone who’s paying $3800 per year (property taxes) on a $60,000 purchase. $800 goes to the State - the rest goes to the City of Albany for sewers and schools.

Under Prop 13, that can't be right. Did I miss something? Are you from California? There's no way the property tax on a $60K purchase would be $3800/year.

In addition, property tax being so low in California largely makes it so that local government is highly dependent on the state legislature, which is highly incompetent and unaccountable. This is one of the big effects of Prop 13 that most people ignore -- loss of local control.

iwog   Tue, 28 Jun 2011, 5:55am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 119

corntrollio says

Zlxr says

Additionally - who’s to say that Cities and Counties will not raise property taxes? Look at the city of Albany, CA. I know of someone who’s paying $3800 per year (property taxes) on a $60,000 purchase. $800 goes to the State - the rest goes to the City of Albany for sewers and schools.

Under Prop 13, that can’t be right. Did I miss something? Are you from California? There’s no way the property tax on a $60K purchase would be $3800/year.
In addition, property tax being so low in California largely makes it so that local government is highly dependent on the state legislature, which is highly incompetent and unaccountable. This is one of the big effects of Prop 13 that most people ignore — loss of local control.

You're correct and what Zlxr wrote is complete bullshit. On a $60,000 home, the highest taxes would go for a heavily Melloed district is $1000 a year. Much more likely is $700.

EBGuy   Tue, 28 Jun 2011, 6:23am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 120

On a $60,000 home, the highest taxes would go for a heavily Melloed district is $1000 a year.
I was curious, so I looked up my neighbor's house as they have been around forever; they have a Prop 13 basis of around $55k. Their Ad Valorem taxes (at 1.2555%) come out to around $600. PRoB is one of the worst cities for special assessments. The Fixed Charges and Special Assessements component of proptery taxes (schools, parks, stormwater, libraries, mosquito, fire etc) tally up to be $1,350. The size of their home looks to be slightly less than 1400 sq.ft.

FortWayne   Tue, 28 Jun 2011, 7:39am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 121

iwog you can be devils advocate all day long, however you can't ignore the fundamentals such as unemployment and prices that far surpass salaries. housing is still priced at 30 year rent speculation instead of shelter.

housing industry is pretty much on constant hand out government support, hence all the bail outs everywhere. But these won't last forever, we as a nation are broke.

tatupu70   Tue, 28 Jun 2011, 7:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 122

EncinoMan says

iwog you can be devils advocate all day long, however you can’t ignore the fundamentals such as unemployment and prices that far surpass salaries. housing is still priced at 30 year rent speculation instead of shelter.
housing industry is pretty much on constant hand out government support, hence all the bail outs everywhere. But these won’t last forever, we as a nation are broke.

Are you talking CA. or nationwide? Because prices/salaries are actually about right for most of the country now.

iwog   Tue, 28 Jun 2011, 11:31pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 123

EBGuy says

On a $60,000 home, the highest taxes would go for a heavily Melloed district is $1000 a year.

I was curious, so I looked up my neighbor’s house as they have been around forever; they have a Prop 13 basis of around $55k. Their Ad Valorem taxes (at 1.2555%) come out to around $600. PRoB is one of the worst cities for special assessments. The Fixed Charges and Special Assessements component of proptery taxes (schools, parks, stormwater, libraries, mosquito, fire etc) tally up to be $1,350. The size of their home looks to be slightly less than 1400 sq.ft.

That's higher than I would have thought, but it's certainly not $3800.

iwog   Tue, 28 Jun 2011, 11:37pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 124

EncinoMan says

iwog you can be devils advocate all day long, however you can’t ignore the fundamentals such as unemployment and prices that far surpass salaries. housing is still priced at 30 year rent speculation instead of shelter.
housing industry is pretty much on constant hand out government support, hence all the bail outs everywhere. But these won’t last forever, we as a nation are broke.

I don't agree with any of this. Government loan guarantees are becoming far less important with up to half of purchases coming in with cash. I don't know what 30 year rent speculation means, but plenty of landlords are cash flow positive from day one. Most bailouts ended in 2009.

bob2356   Wed, 29 Jun 2011, 12:08am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 125

iwog says

Government loan guarantees are becoming far less important with up to half of purchases coming in with cash.

In concorde, the bay area, California, or nationwide. Got any documentation for that? The numbers I'm seeing for cash sales are in the 28-31% range, almost all for buying foreclosures. Cash purchases will sink in the future as the good deals (lots of inside deals being made in this market) on foreclosures fade out. That's a long way short of half. The 70% (ok let's avoid a typical IWOG quibble and say 69-72%) who are taking mortgages most certainly do care about unemployment and prices out of line with salaries.

bubblesitter   Wed, 29 Jun 2011, 12:13am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 126

bob2356 says

Cash purchases will sink in the future

It will, with economy further going into pits.

iwog   Wed, 29 Jun 2011, 2:16am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 127

bob2356 says

In concorde, the bay area, California, or nationwide. Got any documentation for that? The numbers I’m seeing for cash sales are in the 28-31% range, almost all for buying foreclosures. Cash purchases will sink in the future as the good deals (lots of inside deals being made in this market) on foreclosures fade out. That’s a long way short of half. The 70% (ok let’s avoid a typical IWOG quibble and say 69-72%) who are taking mortgages most certainly do care about unemployment and prices out of line with salaries.

Of course I have documentation for that. Depending on the area, up to half of home purchases are now being made with cash. In other areas I'm sure the rate is much lower. That's why I said "up to half".

http://www.trulia.com/blog/steve_eckhardt/2011/02/more_florida_home_buyers_are_paying_cash

At the risk of repeating myself ad nausium, home prices are NOT out of line with incomes and affordability is at an all time high. I can't understand why things like this are repeated endlessly as gospel when they are so easy to refute.

FortWayne   Wed, 29 Jun 2011, 2:31am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 128

iwog says

I don’t agree with any of this. Government loan guarantees are becoming far less important with up to half of purchases coming in with cash. I don’t know what 30 year rent speculation means, but plenty of landlords are cash flow positive from day one. Most bailouts ended in 2009.

What you are providing here are opinions Iwog, not facts. Nor these prove anything.

If you are not aware of 30 year rent speculation than you probably can't fully understand today's speculative market and how all speculation eventually crashes. You probably have not seen local landlords asking for a 4000/month in rent when other local rents are around 1100/month. I can rent my house out for 1100 fairly easily and be ok, but I did not buy during the bubble.

And I'm not sure why you constantly use random charts which have absolutely no explanation from "National Association of Realtors". Did you get a gig with NAR or something, most of these graphs don't even have an explanation... just random consecutive numbers.

StoutFiles   Wed, 29 Jun 2011, 2:36am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 129

I think, from now on, before every post you should list if you own a house or rent. I think a lot of stances on this thread are just people rooting for Team House or Team Rent to win, only because they're on that team.

chip_designer   Wed, 29 Jun 2011, 5:11am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 130

iwog says

Real Estate here will NEVER make sense when valued according to rents

Linkedin , Pandora, Twitter, Facebook gone and going public.
Netflix, Apple planning to build UFO new campus, all these
will make housing more expensive in prime bay area locations
in silicon valley.

corntrollio   Wed, 29 Jun 2011, 6:15am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 131

chip_designer says

Apple planning to build UFO new campus

Yes, Apple's new UFO building will certainly raise housing prices in the Bay Area. Duh.

Of course in reality, Pandora is in Oakland, not Silicon Valley.

chip_designer   Wed, 29 Jun 2011, 4:46pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 132

thanks cornrollio

bob2356   Thu, 30 Jun 2011, 3:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 133

iwog says

Of course I have documentation for that. Depending on the area, up to half of home purchases are now being made with cash. In other areas I’m sure the rate is much lower. That’s why I said “up to half”.

Ok got it now. Government loan guaranties are becoming "far less important" based on a few selected markets not the overall national average around 30% cash buyers. You don't seem inclined to provide what the historical percentage of cash buyers is nationwide, so there is no way of knowing what, if any, the impact of this really is. IWOG says it's important so that's it.

I really have to admire the skill you craft your statements with so they can mean anything you choose them to mean if anyone challenges them. Carefully mixing very selected facts, partial statistics, opinion, and half truths to support your ideology is a talent.

vain   Fri, 1 Jul 2011, 5:03am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 134

Sorry to disappoint you all. But the next RE report that comes out will show that prices have went higher than 2009 prices again. In my area at least. I guess every so often there will be a good deal on a short sale/REO. But it doesn't seem to be stopping people from bidding it up again. Maybe because of the interest rates?

uffthefluff   Fri, 1 Jul 2011, 5:39am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 135

PIMCO says, "We anticipate an average decline from here of about 6% to 8% in prices across the country."

thomas.wong1986   Fri, 1 Jul 2011, 2:00pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 136

vain says

Sorry to disappoint you all. But the next RE report that comes out will show that prices have went higher than 2009 prices again

http://dqnews.com/Articles/2011/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay110615.aspx

“Given the sluggish start to this spring’s home-buying season, with sales 20 to 30 percent below average, it’s no surprise we’re logging sharper declines from 2010. Sales got a big shot in the arm a year ago, when people rushed to take advantage of expiring homebuyer tax credits. Today the market must stand on its own, and it’s having a hard time doing that in the absence of stronger job growth and consumer confidence. So far, low mortgage rates and lower home prices aren’t enough to overcome the concern some potential buyers have that prices could fall more. Other would-be buyers are unemployed or underemployed, or can’t qualify for a loan. Scores of would-be move-up buyers owe more than their homes are worth; so they’re stuck,” said John Walsh, DataQuick president.

Distressed home sales made up about 45 percent of the Bay Area’s resale market last month.

bubblesitter   Fri, 1 Jul 2011, 2:27pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 137

vain says

prices have went higher than 2009 prices again

Care to mention what country you are talking about? LOL. Even Iwog is not that bold, he says flat. Good one.

vain   Fri, 1 Jul 2011, 5:31pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 138

bubblesitter says

vain says

prices have went higher than 2009 prices again

Care to mention what country you are talking about? LOL. Even Iwog is not that bold, he says flat. Good one.

Just reporting prices that I'm seeing in my area. Prices have always been $550k around here. It went down for a little and down to mid-high $400k's for a month or two. Now it's back at $550k again and again.

thomas.wong1986   Fri, 1 Jul 2011, 5:48pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 139

How Low ?

Dqnew.com August, 2000

http://archive.dqnews.com/AA2000BAY08.shtm

"There's really in our statistics indicating that buyers are getting desparate and stretching their finances thin like they did ten years ago. It looks like they're shaking their heads and walking away from high-priced homes," said Mike Ela, DataQuick president.

The median price paid for a resale house in the Bay Area was $372,000 in July, another record. That was up 0.5 percent from $370,000 in June and up 20.0 percent from $310,000 for July last year.

dunnross   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 12:24am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 140

iwog says

You might claim a 37.8% decline yet not be able to find one single home in the entire Beverly Hills suburb that actually dropped 37.8%.

So, let's see - according to Iwog the Quack, prices have never been more affordable than they are now, yet places like Beverly Hills have hardly corrected from the generational mega-bubble. So, which one is it - Quack? Do we have affordable or don't we?

dunnross   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 1:03am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 141

uffthefluff says

PIMCO

Yeah, right? Back at the peak in 2006, they said - "Nationwide, flat, but 10-20% drop in some areas":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de1lQZjJkkc

mdovell   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 1:09am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 142

"Of course I have documentation for that. Depending on the area, up to half of home purchases are now being made with cash. In other areas I’m sure the rate is much lower. That’s why I said “up to half”.
http://www.trulia.com/blog/steve_eckhardt/2011/02/more_florida_home_buyers_are_paying_cash
At the risk of repeating myself ad nausium, home prices are NOT out of line with incomes and affordability is at an all time high. I can’t understand why things like this are repeated endlessly as gospel when they are so easy to refute."

iwog I think you are losing your touch here..quoting a real estate broker isn't the best claim here..

Maybe some other group is buying these homes..a spurious relationship that you left out

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-21/brazilians-buy-miami-condos-at-bargain-prices-after-45-surge-in-currency.html

Foreign buyers are not enough to prop up the housing market. Don't get me wrong they can make some gains but it won't restore it to where it was.

"In the Miami area, Brazilians bought 9 percent of homes and apartments sold to international buyers in the 12 months through March 2010, behind only Canadians and Venezuelans, according to the Miami Association of Realtors. Since then, “anecdotal evidence certainly points to a significant increase,” said Lynda Fernandez, a spokeswoman for the group. In May, international clients bought about 60 percent of existing houses and condos and 90 percent of newly built homes, the association reported today. "

As a percentage Miami is quite high for international clients. I cannot for the life of me see this replicated in say NY, SF, Chicago, Houston etc.

dunnross   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 2:09am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 143

mdovell says

Foreign buyers are not enough to prop up the housing market. Don’t get me wrong they can make some gains but it won’t restore it to where it was.

The fact that foreign buyers are buying is an indication of a top, not the bottom. Foreigners always come in at or near the top of the cycle. The fundamental reason for this, is that it takes longer for news to travel and spread from the source to remote locations.

bubblesitter   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 2:20am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 144

vain says

It went down for a little and down to mid-high $400k’s for a month or two. Now it’s back at $550k again and again.

Your problem is that you are having a ride with the asking price. Asking price means complete BS in this market. I have not heard of any market in USA where homes were selling at 400K in 2009 and comps are now selling 550K in 2011.

iwog   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 8:51am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 145

mdovell says

iwog I think you are losing your touch here..quoting a real estate broker isn’t the best claim here..

The affordability index isn't very complicated. It involves median household income, home prices, and mortgage interest rates.

Now you're certainly entitled to say housing is UNAFFORDABLE by historical standards, but I think some evidence beyond nothing would help your case.

iwog   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 8:52am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 146

dunnross says

So, let’s see - according to Iwog the Quack, prices have never been more affordable than they are now, yet places like Beverly Hills have hardly corrected from the generational mega-bubble. So, which one is it - Quack? Do we have affordable or don’t we?

Seriously? You want to talk about affordability in Beverly Hills? You think that statistic has meaning with anyone here?

klarek   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 9:23am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 147

iwog says

The affordability index isn’t very complicated. It involves median household income, home prices, and mortgage interest rates.

Exactly. It's uncomplicated and exclusionary enough to paint a pretty picture for NAR and its koolaid-drinking minions.

Where are the rental comps being accounted for? The other costs of living? The amortization periods and accumulated interest payments? Because everybody in 1973 was buying a house with dual incomes, 4.5% rates, 40 year terms and/or ARMs, and a 5% down payment while shelling out a third of their take-home pay in transportation and utilities costs.

klarek   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 9:24am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 148

iwog says

Seriously? You want to talk about affordability in Beverly Hills? You think that statistic has meaning with anyone here?

LOL a few months ago, weren't you using foreign cities as a benchmark, to make a case that housing is cheap in the U.S.?

Apparently only Iwog can move goalposts around here.

tatupu70   Sat, 2 Jul 2011, 9:37am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 149

klarek says

LOL a few months ago, weren’t you using foreign cities as a benchmark, to make a case that housing is cheap in the U.S.?

Yep--and obviously you didn't get his point.

odin   Sun, 3 Jul 2011, 9:52am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 150

Looking at the graphs above, tell me why housing prices wont revert back to the mean? After all, if they can go up by X percent, they can go back down by the same percent, yes?

People are not making that much more than in 2000 (if any). The population, if you include retirees, is not increasing. Interests rates can't really go lower. And, I feel that rent is increasing only because people don't want to buy- and that is creating rental demand- it's a dislocation, not a correlation. Now, in my area of NJ prices are no where near even their 2000 levels.

Tell me why prices won't DEPRECIATE (not crash) back to the mean, over a number of years?

¥   Sun, 3 Jul 2011, 9:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 151

odin says

Tell me why prices won’t DEPRECIATE (not crash) back to the mean, over a number of years?

1970s style inflation.

Don't see it happening, but I can't say it won't.

The minimum wage in Calif doubled between 1968 and 1981. It could double in the next 12 years.

That's the general trend; the system desperately needs wage inflation. Maybe we'll actually get it.

« First     « Previous comments    

HousingBoom is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net