Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 23 Jul 2014 in More than $100,000 increase. Are you kidding me ??, wave9x said:

    leo9 says

    It's valid point and it's true only if economy in general is doing well and people have jobs.

    It is pretty unlikely to have stagflation. In the 70's, it was a unique combination of events that caused it (oil embargo combined with the fall of the gold standard). If the economy remains sluggish, rates probably won't go up much.

  • On 23 Jul 2014 in More than $100,000 increase. Are you kidding me ??, wave9x said:

    Rates usually go up during periods of high inflation. Under high inflation, houses become a more attractive place to put money as property has intrinsic value that rises with inflation. Also, high rates discourage those locked into a low fixed rate mortgage from selling.

  • On 23 Jul 2014 in NYC apartment building to have seperate door for the poor, wave9x said:

    Carolyn C says

    What about the kids that have to go to and from school through the alley. What kind of danger will the kids be exposed. Just so a couple of self absorbed pigs can feel elevated. Discusting!

    Oh god, playing the "poor innocent children" card. If a woman is poor, gets knocked up, and has a baby, that is her problem. It doesn't give her the right to a penthouse suite in Trump Tower.

  • On 5 Jul 2014 in Stocks soar, and most Americans just don't care, wave9x said:

    Why should people care about the stock market? Stock prices are based on little more than computerized micro-trades and/or irrational speculation. Implement a rule where you must hold a stock for one day before selling and maybe the market will return to being a reflection of fundamentals a bit more. This will never happen, of course, because the criminals on Wall St. who own the politicians would no longer be able to manipulate the market for their gain as easily.

  • On 2 Jul 2014 in Zoning puts many into poverty, wave9x said:

    What a dumb article. "Economic segregation"? LOL. What will the author of this want next, free Ferraris for the poor?

  • On 8 Jun 2014 in Oakland City's uptown area leads nation in real estate recovery, wave9x said:

    Buying in Oakland is a risky proposition - values plummeted there much more during the downturn than other parts of the Bay Area, so expect a repeat next time around. Not to mention you have to put up with the crime, terrible schools, lack of police, etc, etc.

  • On 6 Jun 2014 in Is it absolutely worst time to buy a primary home?, wave9x said:

    From an owner-occupier point of view, I think the answer depends on where you think rents are headed. As it stands, the insane prices are matched by insane rents (at least on the SF Peninsula). The cost of renting and the cost of buying are pretty evenly matched at the moment.

    I was renting a 2 bedroom place 2 years ago for $1700/mo. Now it is going for $3500/mo., more than double. The price to rent it has gone up more than the price to buy it in the past few years, thus it is actually a better deal to buy it now than before. However, if rents plummet then you lose if you buy.

  • On 6 Jun 2014 in Silicon Valley's last affordable housing threatened, wave9x said:

    Summary of the video - it is much better for EPA to be a gang-infested ghetto than to have techies move in and gentrify the place. And why did they interview a black person, is it to play into the big bad whities oppressing the blacks theme that has been shoved down our throats for the past decades? EPA is 70% Mexican, mostly illegals, perhaps that is a less sympathetic angle.

  • On 4 Jun 2014 in Real estate a 'crappy investment', wave9x said:

    It depends on the cost of renting. This guy is a retard.

  • On 21 May 2014 in Many too afraid to sell, wave9x said:

    I'd like to sell and take a huge profit on the house I bought 2 years ago, except that rents are just as insane as house prices at the moment. Nicer 1 bedrooms are going for almost as much as my mortgage. I'd need to move to the exurbs for it to pay off, which I don't want to do.

  • On 4 May 2014 in The New Math of Renting vs. Buying, wave9x said:

    The median house sold is not the same as the median unit for rent. This is the fatal flaw in the article. You need to compare the cost of buying vs the cost of renting like properties.

  • On 26 Mar 2014 in Why it's a terrible time to rent...especially in the bay area, wave9x said:

    It is totally incorrect that buying is only ever cheaper than renting in ghetto areas. Nice areas are expensive to buy in but also have high rents. Ghettos are cheap to buy in but have low rents.

    Buying was significantly cheaper than renting in most parts of the Bay Area (nice parts of SF and Palo Alto included) in 2011 after rents went way up and prices hadn't yet. If you were following this you would have realized (correctly) that it was a good time to buy then.

    Also, if you had followed the ratio in 2007 when buying was 2x more expensive that renting, you would have realized (correctly again) that it was not a good time to buy.

  • On 26 Mar 2014 in Why it's a terrible time to rent...especially in the bay area, wave9x said:

    SFace, you're argument that you should ignore rent vs buy ratios sounds to me like a variation of "buy now because prices only go up".

  • On 26 Mar 2014 in Sellers are ditching realtors, pocketing the 6% themselves, wave9x said:

    hrhjuliet says

    DIY Sellers - Make sure to put in the write up that there are cash incentives for NOT working with a realtor. Two can play at the sabotage game.

    Not a bad idea...

  • On 26 Mar 2014 in Sellers are ditching realtors, pocketing the 6% themselves, wave9x said:

    I'd still fear that buyer's agents, despite still getting commission, will avoid your property in order to defend realty as a profession. In this low inventory market (in the Bay Area at least), it might be less of a worry, though, as they are more desperate.

  • On 26 Mar 2014 in Sellers are ditching realtors, pocketing the 6% themselves, wave9x said:

    I would be very interested in a DIY sale if/when that time comes. My only issue is that I'd be paranoid that that realtors will try to sabotage you and either not show clients your property or dissuade them from making an offer. They still have the market share at this point to do it. Hopefully not for too much longer.

  • On 24 Mar 2014 in For the record, Iwog's prediction for 2014 will be dead wrong, wave9x said:

    Iwag says

    bay area home prices dropped year over year in august from 2012 to 2013 and that was with lower inventory and better mortgage rates

    some liar is about to get exposed

    Stats for the entire Bay Area:

    8/12 median sale $410k
    8/13 median sale $540k (31.7% YoY increase)

    http://www.dqnews.com/Articles/2013/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay130913.aspx

    Prices way up in every single county.

  • On 24 Mar 2014 in For the record, Iwog's prediction for 2014 will be dead wrong, wave9x said:

    Iwag says

    bay area home prices dropped year over year in august from 2012 to 2013 and that was with lower inventory and better mortgage rates

    some liar is about to get exposed

    Since you used Concord as your example, here are stats for Concord...
    8/12 median sale $/sqft $198
    8/12 median sale $290k

    8/13 $/sqft $273 (38% YoY increase)
    8/13 median sale $404k (39% YoY increase)

  • On 3 Mar 2014 in Huge Homes Drive Away Would-Be Buyers, wave9x said:

    Mammoth McMansions are the Hummers of real estate, soon to be an anachronism - inefficient, tacky, poorly constructed. They are also usually shoehorned onto the smallest plot of land possible to maximize builder profits.

  • On 2 Mar 2014 in Realtors Directly Corrupting US Law in DC, Again, wave9x said:

    Getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction is the typical Republican strategy of getting the middle class to pay more tax so the rich can get a free ride. Rich folks don't need mortgages so they won't be touched by this.

    How about treating capital gains as income for reform? That would put more tax burden where it should go, on the rich. I'd love to see the Republicans push for that, but it will be a cold day in Hell before they bite the hand that feeds them.

  • On 26 Feb 2014 in Buying a home beats renting in 100 major metros, wave9x said:

    According to my calculations, it makes sense to buy for $269k vs rent for $1395/mo. Not sure what values you are plugging in for the variables.

  • On 25 Feb 2014 in Redfin: 2014 Housing Market: Where Is Everyone?, wave9x said:

    Call it Crazy says

    The first bar is the comparison of the start of 2013 to the start of 2012... (First 6 weeks) Then, the second bar is the comparison of the start of 2014 compared to the start of 2013. (First 6 weeks)

    Yes, that is what you call YoY growth. 2014 had 8% more people making offers in the first 6 weeks than in 2013.

  • On 25 Feb 2014 in Redfin: 2014 Housing Market: Where Is Everyone?, wave9x said:

    Call it Crazy says

    Nope, you're reading it wrong... It DIDN'T say YoY growth.

    Look at the chart. Now look at the Y-axis. It states "YoY Growth".

  • On 25 Feb 2014 in Redfin: 2014 Housing Market: Where Is Everyone?, wave9x said:

    evilmonkeyboy says

    Last year, six weeks into the year something like 51 percent of Redfin customers were signing offers. For 2014, it is down to 8 percent.

    This is incorrect. The Redfin graph is showing YoY growth. 8% growth is still growth over last year, which was a crazy up year. The graph is showing that 2014 is off to a faster start than 2013.

    That being said, Redfin needs to account for inventory levels. Sales numbers in isolation don't tell the full story. Redfin alludes to this with the following quote: "In February and March, we expect low inventory will keep sales volume suppressed to about 10 percent below 2013 levels. "

  • On 15 Feb 2014 in So Cal House Sales Worst in 3 Years As Foreclosure Starts Skyrocket, wave9x said:

    It seems common on this site to point to sales numbers in isolation as a sign of doomsday for the housing market. The problem is that you need to look at inventory in conjunction with sales.

    Say there are only 3 houses for sale and all 3 sell. Now say there are 100 houses for sale and 4 sell. In which situation do you think prices will rise?

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 130 milliseconds to create.