patrick.net

There is one bear still on this thread kicking all the bulls a$$es!

I'd like to join in, but they suspended my account!

>>614 Bayview Ave, Bellport, NY

Whoa - wow is that house cheap. It's livable and everything!

Compare that to http://www.burbed.com/2007/08/30/easy-cummuting-at-this-425-fixer-upper-near-alum-rock/

"rolling bust"

In spite of the humor you intended, that may well play out skibum!

Rolling corrections are not entirely unheard of. We may stumble along and find what "looks" like support in the housing market only to find what we thought was solid ground turned out to be a trap door!?

In fact, the more I think about it the more it seems likely. Again Randy H would describe this as "stickiness".

Wow, there's some pretty awful advice on that thread:

http://www.city-data.com/long-island/144309-why-would-someone-want-buy-into-6.html

If you had bought that house in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, you would have enough equity now that you could ride out this market and never worry about it.

You are suffering from Analysis Paralysis. You buy a home for your family when you can afford to.

Putting your life on hold for 6 years because you are worried about statistics and the conditions of a global market you have zero control over is just going to make you nuts. In ten years you'll be saying the same thing... just about a different market with different circumstances.

Get a deal, buy the house, raise your kids... in 10+ years you won't care about this at all. Home prices are not going to fall for another 7 years unless the economy craps out for 7 years too. And if that happens... stock up on shotgun shells, gasoline, and beef tallow.

I guess in some ways its right "buy a house when you need it" - but the phrasing is generally so bogus.

>>614 Bayview Ave, Bellport, NY

Whoa - wow is that house cheap. It’s livable and everything!

Please, don't start this again! If you like the house, buy it!

Wow, there’s some pretty awful advice on that thread:

They're all bulls on that thread and they do everything they can to keep the bears off; I started the thread, they removed all the graphics I put up and suspended my account!

eburbed,

Even for your site, that Alum Rock house is truly a sight to behold. I didn't realize there were shotgun houses in San Hosebag. It looks Depression-era to me. How exactly would a contractor "breathe new life" into that thing?

I shouldn't comment on the "cum-muting" typo...

It's funny how the moderators suspend my account and then posted that.

I shouldn’t comment on the “cum-muting” typo…

Don't be a "hippocrit." ;)

Allah,

I went to the link you posted, their Intelius site is so behind the curve. They are trying to charge me $14.95 for information that I could get at propertyshark for free. What kind of loser web2.0 are they?

The city data they posted for the neighborhoods that I know is more out-dated than wikipedia. That site has nothing useful to offer.

I went to the link you posted, their Intelius site is so behind the curve. They are trying to charge me $14.95 for information that I could get at propertyshark for free. What kind of loser web2.0 are they?

The city data they posted for the neighborhoods that I know is more out-dated than wikipedia. That site has nothing useful to offer.

OO,

I didn't even know they had anything like that; I was just brought there by a google search. That site is heavily biased; probably run by realtors. Mention anything negative about the market...you get an infraction by the web police!

What the heck is Lawrence Yun smoking, and where can I get some of it?

http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.nsf/pages/economysep07?OpenDocument

He's clearly making a strong bid to outdo David Lereah...

I went to the link you posted, their Intelius site is so behind the curve. They are trying to charge me $14.95 for information that I could get at propertyshark for free. What kind of loser web2.0 are they?

I guess anyone dumb enough to drink their kool-aide will pay the $14.95 and they probably get the said information from propertyshark.

He’s clearly making a strong bid to outdo David Lereah…

Don't you know he's the NAR's relief pitcher; I'm sure they have another one waiting in the bullpin until Yun has a nervous breakdown like Lereah did. Kharma claims another!

Off Topic... but look at this FB :

http://tinyurl.com/3cs37p

All you need to be a home owner is... catch up the two mortgages, then agree to pay for them all yourself!

Even an idiot would realize it'll be cheaper to buy it from the bank.

(Also, how can payments be between 5500 and 6500 a month? Doesn't he KNOW?)

Predictions are always risky, but I’m going out on a limb to say existing-home sales will improve markedly by the fourth quarter. Here’s why:

I'd say that's a very thin limb!

All you need to be a home owner is… catch up the two mortgages, then agree to pay for them all yourself!

and who the hell wants to live on a divided highway? (notice the yellow line in the street).

5500 and 6500 a month?

This is supposed to be a good thing?

I like how Yun pretty much hangs his hopes on foriegn buyers. Yah, they're going to rush in to snap up depreciating assets. Suuuuure.

At least Obama wants to make Wall Street pay instead of the taxpayers, that at least is a step in the right direction and far better than the taxpayer funded bailouts Dodd and Schumer are calling for.

Personally I think that the market is going to continue to address the issue and likely resolve it prior to the Government getting around to taking action. For example, the debt markets have dramatically marked down the price of most all mortgage backed security "investments," including the ones that don't even hold any subprime debt.

Furthermore, credit standards have dramatically tightened such that lenders are simply not issuing subprime loans because the lenders are (finally) scared of not being paid back, and all of this happenned before the Government got around to doing anything.

Of course, this whole mess never would have happenned if the Fed or the OCC actually enforced lending standards during the boom years. You remember those boom years right, back when we were called "jealous bitter renters" and derisively told to "just deal with" paying the haughty homeowners mortgages for them for the rest of our lives? Ha ha hah hah hah hah! Oh sorry, is that "schadenfreude"? My bad, I don't care. :)

Randy H would describe this as “stickiness”

:lol:

and who the hell wants to live on a divided highway? (notice the yellow line in the street).

It's actually not a divided highway.

http://tinyurl.com/357luc

@SFRenter

At least Obama wants to make Wall Street pay instead of the taxpayers, that at least is a step in the right direction and far better than the taxpayer funded bailouts Dodd and Schumer are calling for.

No. He says he wants to *partially* pay for the bail-out-the-FB fund with penalties exacted upon lenders who made the loans.

Now think about this; read the code. It says he's going to try to establish a system of post-facto penalties and asses them upon lending institutions. Firstly, this type if legislation has about 0.002% chance of passing. Secondly, even if it does pass the lenders won't pay the penalties and will fight it out for years in court. Lastly, even if the money is eventually collected, it will only cover a portion of the bail-out. Add in the cost of financing the float during the interim -- our government pays quite hefty financing charges for our debt -- and it's *you* who is paying for pretty much all of the bail out.

Mr. Obama is being a run of the mill, cynical politician. He offers hope of nothing more than more of the same. Some have said he is no worse than the others. Well, that's why I'm disappointed. He had potential; his speech at the convention was epic (anyone who denies that is a partisan). Too bad he had nothing else left in there.

*assess, lol

I like how Yun pretty much hangs his hopes on foriegn buyers.

It is all MIRAGE!

Again, the USA is not particularly attractive to rich foreigners. The French Riviera, perhaps. London, perhaps. Rich people know better.

It is not easy to obtain residency (legally) in the US. It is even harder to live here without having to pay tax for global income.

If the US wants the right people, the wrong taxes must be abolished.

Another thing really pisses me off: what ever happened to the very basic notion of personal responsibility. Caveat emptor aside, there is some level at which the buyer is responsible for what he or she buys, no?

Just because you didn't read the contract is no one's fault but your own. When you signed 50 documents with all kinds of scary 8pt font all over them, didn't you pause to think about what you were getting into? Perhaps you should have said "give me a day to ask someone to help me figure this out, I'm not sure about all this".

The problem with jerkoffs like Obama is he wants to send a very loud signal to all those responsible people who didn't sign the bullshit loan documents that they lose, and the ignorant happy go lucky 'tards win. They get a house, which Barack will make sure doesn't lose any more value, and the fiscally responsible people get to keep renting knowing they missed out on the fucking gravy train.

Sorry, this really pisses me off. Talk about creating exactly the wrong incentives. If we bail out the slobbering fools we'll pay an even higher cost later. How high can we keep building the house of cards??? WTF?

I like how Yun pretty much hangs his hopes on foriegn buyers.

Well, I don't know how true it is, but this article says the russians are buying up manhatten.

I didn't think russians were that stupid; but then again, the article is on a pro real estate site.

Randy, Obama's rhetorics will just ensure that he does not get elected. That leaves HRC...

Well, I don’t know how true it is, but this article says the russians are buying up manhatten.

They may be buying up London. But Manhattan? Probably not the richest ones.

The top market in London is probably more ironclad then that of NY. However, I would really love to see how the rest of UK unfolds. It is going to be interesting. It is time for a Conservative PM. Perhaps a fine leader like Thatcher.

Randy, Obama’s rhetorics will just ensure that he does not get elected. That leaves HRC…

Peter, I know. I've resigned to Hillary as president. The problem is that every time another jerkoff chimes in his or her debased-$0.02 crackpot bailout scheme, it gives Congress that much more cover to actually implement one. Do not underestimate the power of these things once they get rolling. This is the trying-to-get-it-rolling phase.

Someone much earlier pointed out that only a small portion of voters actually fall into the bail-out-need category. True. But that is exactly what this is about. Political engineering whereby they're spreading the emotional impact around, creating more people who *think* they are stakeholders and that a bailout helps them too. And it's working, which scares the shit out of me.

I so fucking hate politics. It is the absolute worst thing about the human condition.

It is the absolute worst thing about the human condition.

Nothing wrong about that. We just need to exploit the worst of human conditions.

We cannot change human natures. At best, we can benefit from this knowledge.

Again, the USA is not particularly attractive to rich foreigners.

Wrong. They are.

And they all want to live in Palo Alto and Cupertino.

Didn't Putin just recently say that he wished Russia's school system was as good as Gunn? I'm sure he did.

Peter P Says:
It is time for a Conservative PM. Perhaps a fine leader like Thatcher.

aaagghhh, good grief, charlie brown. thatcher f*cked everything for everyone except the ruling class. So a fine leader of the people by definition is someone who only benefits the elites?

Well, the W has caved in (partly) to calls for subprime relief:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/business/31home.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

This says 2 things to me: Bush is utterly, completely lame duck now, and it's official - Americans do not need to have any degree of fiscal responsibility.

Sheesh.

SFRenter Says:
Personally I think that the market is going to continue to address the issue and likely resolve it prior to the Government getting around to taking action.

OF COURSE the market is going to resolve it before the Government takes action. That is how most things eventually get solved.

In the meantime, various blockheads in government will have taken some random, ineffective steps that have NOTHING to do with the solution. However, when the problem is resolved, they will pick one of these random acts of cluelessness and declare it to be the work of genius that saved everyone.

SP

"Most candidates talk about hot button social issues so that voters can maintain the fiction that they are not voting their prejudices."

I think it was Art Buchwald who said that (paraphrased from memory).

SP

I'd like to say that Dennis Kucinich is a democrat and is, to me, as good as Ron Paul. Dennis would pay for prek education by taking 15% from the defense budget which is "OK" according to Dennis since the pentagon no longer audits itself; so, they'll never know the money is missing!

also, like Ron Paul, Dennis knew that the Iraq war was a scam for oil and would like the FED to publish its M3 numbers.

At least Obama wants to make Wall Street pay instead of the taxpayers, that at least is a step in the right direction and far better than the taxpayer funded bailouts Dodd and Schumer are calling for.

really? the money would probably come from pension funds and/or 401k's. the way I view stocks is "they act like a national sales tax which benefits investors."

I would simply keep the banks solvent because, that way-- if the economy has a boom, the injected cash could be siphoned out of the system down-the-road.

propping up home values, in my mind, is a lose-lose proposition since, as boomers start to die off, their homes will go on the market and push prices down. can the government really keep the market stable without making dollars worthless?

Obama says: "We need to help struggling borrowers to weather this storm. One way to protect innocent homeowners — at least until this crisis passes — is to establish a fund to help people refinance or sell to avoid foreclosure."

If you "help people sell," what does that mean? Will they be given a handout to make the lender whole so that they can have the privilege of walking away with $0 liability? If so, this sounds like a bailout of reckless lenders who would not recover a nickel from FBs--not an effort to "protect innocent homeowners." Say no to bailouts for stupid lenders. The foolish lenders, just as much as the foolish homedebtors, need to get washed out of the system. Forced liquidation is the best method---like ripping off a band-aid. Otherwise we will end up with a bunch of Japan-style zombie lenders for decades.

If you "help people refinance" does this mean the gov't will be holding paper? Unless Obama wants to give a cash handout to people, this won't help most recent homebuyers. The problem is not the interest--it's the principal. There are quite a few recent homebuyers who couldn't afford their homes even at 0% interest. Most people who borrowed $600K for a house which is now worth $500K are not really looking for a way to pay less interest on their $600K mortgage--they just want out. So a refi won't help, unless it also comes with a cash handout.

Bottom line is that you couldn't possibly raise enough money to bail out all the FBs anyways. Probably at least 20 million people overpaid for a house over the last 3-4 years. Multiplied by $50K per house, I guesstimate that Obama's fund would need around $1 Trillion (not counting administrative costs, waste, etc...) I would rather have a federal surplus. Or a tax refund. Or, what the heck, national healthcare. A trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

I'm late to the party, but here goes anyway.

Barak Obama made some pretty reasonable statements about the overall situation. The only paragraph that alludes (and I mean alludes) to a bailout is the following:

>We need to help struggling borrowers to weather this storm. One way to protect >innocent homeowners - at least until this crisis passes - is to establish a fund to help >people refinance or sell to avoid foreclosure. We can partially pay for this fund by >imposing penalties on lenders that acted irresponsibly or committed fraud.

He doesn't say there will be a bailout. He says it is one way of handling the problem. If the above statement had been from Bernanke to some congressman,
he would have been lauded for his shrewd rhetoric, Instead Obama is being skewered.

I hope there will not be a bailout. But given the choice between war and a bailout, I pick bailout.

In the year 2000, people voted for tax cuts and got war and a big budget deficit. In the year 2004, people rallied around the war president and got more war and a truly gigantic budget deficit.

For God's sake, I hope we don't make the mistake of voting in a republican again just because we can' t stomach the thought that there may potentially be a housing bailout. Let;s keep things in perspective.

But given the choice between war and a bailout, I pick bailout.

I am against all war but a bailout is not necessarily better than a war, especially if it is well fought and managed. (e.g. Falklands)

Some republicans (like Ron Paul) did not support the war. HRC actually voted *for* the war.

Let's keep things in perspective.