comments by ThreeBays

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Sun, 25 Oct 2015, 11:11pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 1

Not surprising with the lack of education. Only about 1 in 3 have a Bachelor's degree. Only about 1 in 3 of those are in STEM. Guess who's more likely to be in the top 10%?

What does it take to keep a middle class family on one income? (white college educated male) http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/median-weekly-earnings-by-education-gender-race-and-ethnicity-in-2014.htm

Majors that pay: http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-pay-you-back/bachelors

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Sat, 24 Oct 2015, 8:21pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 2

Ironman says

Private insurance statistically pays out less than it takes in. None of your individual examples change that, or explain how SS could pay out more than it took in overall.

Private insurance also readjusts the premiums it charges annually to compensate for what it pays out. Just go ask anyone who just got their health insurance renewal for Obamacare and they see the HUGE jump to cover all the newly enrolled of the past year.

Exactly. If the SS fund is on track to go bankrupt, they should raise revenues or cut benefits NOW (or 10 years a go). Boomers still in work, Gen X and Millennials should be compensating for the gap. Instead they are kicking the can down the road which is essentially taking more from future generations to give to Boomers followed by X'ers.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Sat, 24 Oct 2015, 9:21am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

Ironman says

That's an idiotic statement in the context of a discussion on social security.

Not idiotic. What happens to the boomer who dies at 65 after paying in for 50 years. How does he collect his S.S.?

Private insurance statistically pays out less than it takes in. None of your individual examples change that, or explain how SS could pay out more than it took in overall.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Thu, 22 Oct 2015, 10:40pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 4

Any single engineer at Google can afford $2k rent. Don't forget bonuses & stocks, and free meals, transportation, gym, laundry. Majority of income after rent is disposable income.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Wed, 21 Oct 2015, 8:39pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

I thought America's irresponsible retirees are going to leave a ton of debt for the younger generation.

For the 40% of boomers that have no retirement savings it doesn't matter. For those that do, doesn't the asset price inflation help them?

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 9:15am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

bob2356 says

Strategist says

The 70 million additional souls in the US by 2035 is the overriding demographics. All those boomer homes will get absorbed. Except in the frost belt.

and you got these numbers from where? Most projections are in the almost 40 million range by 2050 with 25 million being immigrants. So the 25 million new immigrants, who are mostly poor, are going to buy most of the 70 million boomers houses? I don't think so.

Where are you getting 40 million by 2050 from? The projections you linked have 175.4 million Births, 41.2 million immigrants = 216.6 million "new souls" by 2015. Subtract 128.4 million deaths = 88.2 million *net increase*. Not only will take over all the boomer's houses, they will also need homes for 88 million more.

Take a look at the current population clock http://www.census.gov/popclock/. There is a *net* gain of 2.4 million souls per year.

Anyway it's not the millions of babies who are going to buy the boomers houses, it's Millennials plus immigrants.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 8:45pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 7

Lost 2 houses = think buying houses is the worst thing you ever did

Bought home in Bay Area in 2009 = think you are a fricking genius

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Fri, 9 Oct 2015, 7:44pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

SoftShell says

Problem is, all house prices go up so equity doesn't help much to 'move up', unless one considers moving to a cheaper area 'moving up'...

True, but not so simple. Moving up requires equity to cover selling costs of your current home and for buying a more expensive home. If you have good equity growth you can move up without a lot of liquid savings. If you have 0 equity growth then you will need to save up longer to move up. If you have equity decline you may not be able to move up at all.

That said, in California it is not a good idea to "move up". You lose your Prop 13 advantage, resetting property taxes to market prices. You are far better renovating and extending your home. If you have to move then it is better to rent out your home. If you have to sell, it is better to renovate and extend the home before selling to make it sell at a higher market price, covering more of your "move up" cost.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Mon, 28 Sep 2015, 10:38pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 9

"The pending sales index was 109.4 on a seasonally adjusted basis. A reading of 100 corresponds to the average level of contract activity in 2001, or “historically healthy” home-buying traffic, according to the NAR."

So overall healthy levels then?

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Fri, 25 Sep 2015, 11:28pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

Logan Mohtashami says

Wouldn't purchase applications also be affected by the lack of supply? Also if the market has above average % cash buyers, doesn't this lower mortgage apps too? Can't buy a home with a mortgage if there's no home to buy with a mortgage.

Btw I just bought a house, so I'm about to transform from a perma housing bear mogwai, to a house cheerleading gremlin.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Sat, 5 Sep 2015, 9:22pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 11

Yes, fundamentals. I'm generally a bear on housing, but I see rentals in the area as about on par or more expensive than owning at today's interest rates.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Sat, 5 Sep 2015, 11:41am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 12

MoneySheep says

The average individual will live a happier life if they avoid debt.

Research had shown, if you are not yet wealthy but want to be someday, never purchase a home that requires a mortgage that is more than 2x your total annual income. Better yet, pay cash for it.

Timing matters.

Here's a (true life) scenario:
Neighbor (A) bought a 3BR SFH in Bay Area Penninsula for $900k in 2012 with 20% down ($180k cash). He has PITI around $3500/mo, with $1400 of that for principal. The home is now worth $1.3M. He now has over $600k equity and $2100 monthly outflow for housing.

Neighbor (B) rented, and now has a rent of $4500 for the same kind of 3BR SFH. His $180k cash grew 30% (post-tax) in three years, now worth $235k.

(A) has over double the wealth, and half the cost for the same house, and the cost is going down over time. (A) will be able to buy a 2nd house faster than (B) will buy his 1st. When (B) does buy he'll be saddled with higher property taxes than (A) for the life of owning the home.

My research has shown, if you are not yet wealthy but want to be someday, you better have good timing when you purchase a home.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Fri, 4 Sep 2015, 11:37pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

Ironman says

Example, I did a quick search for a similar sized house in the OP. Here is what $190K buys you here versus 3.4 Mil in Palo Alto:

Which mortgage do you want to pay??

Palo Alto is one of the more extreme examples in the Bay Area. People don't pay $3M to live in a tiny shack, it's just for the location. They pay $3M for the shack to knock it down at put up a fancy custom home.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Tue, 25 Aug 2015, 7:52am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

Surprise surprise, majority of Republicans think the leading Democratic nominee should suspend her campaign (insert reasons).

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Mon, 24 Aug 2015, 11:32pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

iwog says

This graph should make it extremely obvious that inventory isn't growing or shrinking based on sales versus listings. Also I don't know where you're getting your weekly data from.

The data is available on Redfin. You can see sales records with dates, and listings with # days on Redfin. Simple arithmetic, if more homes are coming on the market than are being sold or pulled off market then the # for sale will increase over time.

Also the County aggregate is hiding an important fact. The most desirable areas are the ones where listings are growing Y-o-Y.

# Homes for sale vs Prev Year
Palo Alto up 9.8%
Mountain View up 82.5%
Los Altos up 83.3%
Los Altos Hills up 38.5%
Sunnyvale up 49.5%
Santa Clara up 62.4%
West San Jose Up 40.7%
Saratoga up 88.7%
Campbell up 7.4%
Cambrian Park up 24.8%
Almaden Valley up 10.9%
Evergreen up 22.2%

Los Gatos down 2.6%

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Sat, 22 Aug 2015, 10:45am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

Everything I said is from Redfin. Please check the facts.

iwog says

I've gone through and counted every home for sale in a Redfin coverage area and they are spot on perfect.

Then I did the same thing with realtor.com/movoto data, which share the same database, and they had numerous listings that have already been sold counted as for sale. I have never found any fault with Redfin data which is why I use them. I'm not sure where you got the 1906 number from.

Redfin's listing data is the most accurate. What I'm disputing is their "Market Trends".

The 1908 number is what Redfin says is for sale. Don't know if 1906 was my typo, or it changed since I looked at it. https://www.redfin.com/county/345/CA/Santa-Clara-County/filter#!v=8&sst=&region_id=345&region_type=5&market=sanfrancisco

iwog says

ThreeBays says

Really? The graph shows that sales sales peaked in May, dropped ~30% in June, and dropped ~10% in July.

You're confusing sales with listings. They aren't the same thing. A house can be for sale in May, June, AND July but an actual recorded sale only happens once. A house can be taken off the market, put back on the market, or flipped. These will change the numbers and cause perceived, but not actual discrepancies.

No, I am using # sold. Can't be simpler than that. Check https://www.redfin.com/county-recently-sold/345/CA/Santa-Clara-County, you can see every sale.

iwog says

ThreeBays says

I provided you with data based on actual listings and sales which show that inventory is growing by over 10% per week.

This is absolutely false. Inventory is the actual number of houses offered for sale. Period. There's no way that inventory is growing by 10% per week and I think that assertion is ridiculous. Inventory in Santa Clara County is about the same as this time last year with the important difference that it is DROPPING instead of RISING.

Week 34
New homes 420
Closed 248

Week 33
New homes 456
Closed 330

There are more new homes than are selling. This will make inventory go up unless houses are taken off the market.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Sat, 22 Aug 2015, 8:55am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

Iwog, you're right when looking at Redfin's stats, the problem is Redfin's stats look self inconsistent!

* July # Homes for sale 2733.

Redfin says this is the # homes for sale at the end of that period. Nowhere on the graph can you find this number.
The actual number of listings in SC is 1906.

* July # Homes sold 103.4% up over previous month.

Really? The graph shows that sales sales peaked in May, dropped ~30% in June, and dropped ~10% in July.

If you look in-depth their data looks busted. I've been trying to collect their raw data so I can build my own graphs. In the meantime, I provided you with data based on actual listings and sales which show that inventory is growing by over 10% per week.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Fri, 21 Aug 2015, 10:58pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

I'm only familiar with the Bay Area. If you look in detail at sales & inventory, I think the trend is that inventories will increase at a significant clip:

Alameda County
516 homes listed in past 7 days
354 homes closed in past 7 days

Santa Clara County
486 homes listed in past 7 days
253 homes closed in past 7 days

San Mateo County
219 homes listed in past 7 days
91 homes closed in past 7 days

The South Bay had growing inventory in July, and continues to have a weekly deficit of sales to listings of 253 units in Santa Clara.
Alameda has a 162 unit deficit.

* These keeping in mind that closings are a trailing indicator of demand.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Fri, 7 Aug 2015, 7:01pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

iwog says

ThreeBays says

iwog, those stats are for June. Actually the way they work, those are for early June and will be revised.

The graph is from last week.

There is a time to close (3+ weeks).

The % to asking that you circled is 1) YoY, 2) Not updated since early July, 3) based on a 90 day running average AFAIK.

You're trying to reason there is no cool-down in the past 1 month based on data older than 1 month.

ThreeBays   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Fri, 7 Aug 2015, 9:23am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

iwog, those stats are for June. Actually the way they work, those are for early June and will be revised.

Things have changed significantly in July. The Redfin post is also talking about things they've seen just in the last month.

We can see that the # sold dropped steeply, as if it was Christmas in July. The sold price data is naturally delayed. Redfin will publish initial July summary soon, and then will revise it in September as more sales close.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   Debt Is Slavery