patrick.net

Thanks for the numbers. There was a 3 month moratorium on foreclosures. once that finished, they got swept off the market. That number was bound to bounce. Add it up for the first half of the year. That might be less "noisy"

angrish says

Thanks for the numbers. There was a 3 month moratorium on foreclosures. once that finished, they got swept off the market. That number was bound to bounce. Add it up for the first half of the year. That might be less “noisy”

So you are saying that the moratorium on foreclosures has caused the increase in sales? I dont follow it. It seems likely to me that sales have increased because prices have fallen...Econ 101. Your comments were that people dont have money and banks arent lending but the statistics are contrary to that. Sales are up dramatically from those lows. EIther people are getting loans to buy those houses or they have enough cash to buy them without loans

Haha. What's Patnet?

Falling prices definitely contribute to rising sales. But they're not the only factor. It's like someone holds your nose and mouth closed for 2 minutes and then lets go. The next breath is bound to be bigger than it otherwise would've been. Sure, people breathe in general, but the artificial constriction caused the larger than normal breath.

angrish says

. Sure, people breathe in general, but the artificial constriction caused the larger than normal breath.

I'm not sure that makes sense. If there are less houses available, you would think less sales would occur. If I have 5 apples to sell, at most I sell 5. If I have 500 apples to sell, I would likely sell more than 5. I don't know much about econ, so maybe there's more to the story.

It's not about less sales. It's about the number of sales "in June". Say you sell 5 apples every month from Jan to June in a year. The next year, you're prevented from selling apples from Jan-May, and then sell 6 in June because people are craving apples, and since they haven't spent any money on apples all year, they have more "apple money" lying around for the month. They may be poorer in that they can no longer spend money on 5 apples for 6 months, but they can definitely spend money on 6 apples for one month. You've actually sold more in June, but the actual number of apples you sold this year are way off. And your May to June number is actually astounding. These are only m-o-m and y-o-y stats. The cumulative would be less noisy, I think.

Btw, I'm no econ major either. Just common sense, which is why there're probably a lot of holes in my theories.

I see what you are saying, but I'm not sure if the moratorium had the effect you are assuming. The inventory was actually higher in Jan/Feb than it was in May/June (at least in the areas I've been watching). The moratorium was on foreclosing obviously, not purchasing, so people didn't necessarily need to hold their breath while the moratorium was in place. On top of that, CA had its own moritorium that started June 15th. I'm not sure how that would fit into your theory. We're talking absolute numbers here. 8,600+ sold in June 2009. 10,400+ sold in June 2003. These numbers are not that far off. The bottom line is that according to news article after article: banks aren't lending and people have no money...obviously banks lent to a portion of the 8,600 entities in the Bay Area which means theory/news is different from reality. Maybe it is mostly REITs and other big companies; I don't know.

EIther people are getting loans to buy those houses or they have enough cash to buy them without loans

There are a LOT of folks who are still sitting on their bubble equities. Don't omit them as a factor. If they didn't move from CA to Austin and pay for their 500K house in cash, they are likely diving back into the market there in CA. There is no big secret. Almost no one has any money right now, unless it's funny.

Inventory was high, but with foreclosures looming, I know if I was looking to buy a house I'd wait for the 3 months worth of foreclosures to hit the market. The moratorium that started in CA on June 15th will show up, if I'm right, as a spike in Sept sales, when the 3-months worth of foreclosures hit the market. (assuming they dont extend the moratorium). The second para though, I'd still say the same thing. To make an extreme case, 0+0+0+0+0+8600 would much less than ~10+~10+~10+~10+~10+10400. What I'm fishing for, if someone has them, are the numbers for the sales y-o-y for the last 6 months...or at least from March onwards when then moratorium began. Banks aren't lending. Even if there's any lending, it's all Fed and Treasury lending, either directly or thru Fannie/Freddie. That's why the jumbo market is frozen. Banks are only "making the loans" that they know will be taken off their books by Fannie Freddie. So they do technically "make the loan", but it's taken off by Fannie and Freddie, or ultimately, by you and me.

Weird, it didn't strike me PatNet was patrick.net. I guess since I've only ever clicked on links to get here, the name of the place never really sank in.

Hmmm, maybe I should sell patrick.net T-shirts with catchy anti-debt slogans. So far I've resisted advice to put the ads more in the way to get clicks, since this is all kind of a personal mission rather than a business. But T-shirts seem like a fair thing to sell. Anyone know a quality maker/printer that won't take 95% of revenue? I tried Cafe Press, but gave up immediately upon complaints from buyers. And Cafe Press overcharges and keeps most of the money.

@angrish I think the pent up demand came from the slightly higher mortgage rates which were then pushed extremely low by Fed. That makes more sense. But that's a side story. It doesn't matter who is lending, someone is lending since 8,600+ people didn't all pay cash for their homes. So the statements that people can't get loans does not appear to be true. I don't know where to fit this in, but a couple of more points to consider. The link I posted said the % of homes sold that were REOs was actually lower this month than previous months. So the argument that everyone was waiting for and is buying foreclosures may not be valid. Also, every REO I've attempted to offer on in the last few months has required at least 20% down. So any discussion of FHA 3% loans is irrelevant if the argument is that people are buying REOs (unless those requirements have changed). If 20% is required for these REOs, people have money.

I agree with the first statement. And you're right...people do seem to be able to get money. How much, isn't clear. But money's definitely flowing ever since the fed started it's printing press.

>>Where the government really needs to step in, is in creating transparency in pricing for medical procedures and visits. Something we can all agree on?

elliemae, the physical therapy rehab facility are always keeping the seniors for the max time Medicare allows. I have never seen one senior getting discharged after 3 days even though the injury is minor. There is so many Medicare abuses that this is not even funny. I understand what you mean by Medicare reimbursing far less. But the problem is, those of us who are not on Medicare, if one day we lose our jobs along with our insurance, will have to pay sky-high prices that is not a Medicare-negotiated price. Medicare is able to compress reimbursement because WE ARE PAYING THE DAMN DIFFERENCE. Medicare is a transfer system in which We subsidize the senior's lifestyle. If we abolish Medicare altogether, first of all, the major consumers of the medical system will have to shop around and drive the price down. Now, the seniors are going to hospitals and doctors left and right because it only cost them ~$15 co-pay so they are essentially using doctors as psychologists to talk about their personal problems. If the biggest component of the medical market does NOT care about price at all, those of us who rarely use the medical product will have to suffer. And we pay for the FXXXing Medicare. That's why I said either we have universal coverage for everyone based on the principal of equity, so that those who PAY for the system get to use the system as well, or we just adopt completely private medical system and let the poor old seniors go the natural way. I am fine either way.

I have had no problem getting pre-qualified. I haven't sealed the deal yet so I don't know what hoops I'll need to jump through. By the numbers though, I should have no problem. First time buyer, credit score of 714, zero debt, 10% down on a 200K loan in Southern California, conventional. There is plenty of money out there for those that qualify so I'm assuming many more qualify then we expected. No house for me though. I'm not willing to buy at todays prices. Another 12-15% drop in the Inland Empire will push me into the market. Lets see if it happens in the next few years.

I will say that at least this L.A. Times reporter, Peter Hong, is honest enough to admit he recently bought a house and thus stands to profit from any price uptick. Of course, this hardly makes up for his unabashed industry cheerleading and bias. The L.A. Land blog, which he now partially runs, has really gone down hill too since he took over from Peter Viles. Numerous recent comments to his blog have predicted this very type of false uptick in median prices, explaining (as DataQuick did in its press release this week) that the increase in median would reflect a SOFTENING of the mid and upper price ranges. Peter H., it seems would rather ignore this reality and instead trumpet a "home sales price surge". Apparently some people learned absolutely nothing from the abysmal reporting that fed the bubble frenzy and helped get us to this point in the first place. Sad.

Some Guy says

You’re nitpicking.

I'm just sick of people throwing those terms around without understanding what they actually mean. The overuse of "socialism" in particular bothers me because the "bad" aspects of socialism are irrelevant if you don't even understand what socialism actually is. There's this bizarre knee-jerk reaction to any government spending as "socialism" with the implied "failures" of socialism that are simply wrong. You can argue against Keynesian economics all you want, but to equate the practice with socialism itself is absurd, and with communism is illogical. Socialism is definitely a failed system, just as capitalism is a failed system. It's a good thing that all rational countries have mixed economies, then, isn't it?

Socialism is definitely a failed system, just as capitalism is a failed system. It’s a good thing that all rational countries have mixed economies, then, isn’t it?

On paper, at least, they both have their merits - especially/only if you remove the human fallibility factor.

Kevin, Right on. 98% of the US population (I made that number up from experience) has no idea what socialism actually is.

I watched sicko last night finally. What a powerful movie. Love or hate Michael Moore, if you have the tinies bit of an open mind he makes you think.

mikey say: I think Sarah was being facetious with that VP comment.

I think she lacks the intellectual capacity to lead. She surrounded herself with smart people who write eloquent speeches and wrapped it up in a pretty but girl-tough package. That can only go so far...

Tude: Riddle me this. If our health care system is so bad, and Cuba's is so good why don't we see boat loads of Americans heading down to Havana? Seems like the traffic is all one-way. When was the last time you saw an American illegally crossing into Mexico?

"F-ed renter" ??? I would go with Proud Renter! :)

First, it was done to make a point. However, most socialised medicine countries do require you have a card that proves you are entitled, or only treat emergencies if you are there visiting and have come into the country legally as a tourist. That said, many Americans do leave the US for all kinds of procedures. Many do go to Canada and Mexico to get medications. But in case you don't know this, it's still illegal to go to Cuba, and it's still really really expensive to fly overseas. Most of the people in this country that need medical care don't have the ability to buy a plane ticket and go stay in a hotel somewhere...

"I think she lacks the intellectual capacity to lead" But our government is already chock full of pedigreed intellectuals and look at the result. It's obvious that we need common sense, wet lipstick and heels!

>>Believe me, the private sector is capable of fucking up healthcare all by itself. Big amen to that

Tenpoundbass: >>SO then just let the Government take over general medicine, and the specialists and elective medical doctors, could stay private. This is the usual governing principle of the US: Load the government down with the unprofitable stuff, and leave the profits to private industry.

justme says

>>Believe me, the private sector is capable of fucking up healthcare all by itself. Big amen to that

I would beleive that when the private sector had more control, they were doing a much better job at running things. When I was growing up seeing a doctor was never a problem. Also doctors could use their judgment and experience when it came to treating people. Now the entire industry is ran by insurance companies and the government. Although it may not be obvious when you see a doctor these days the chances are your treatment is almost solely based on what the insurance company and Medicare thinks they should cover vs the doctor. Also should be illegal for drug companies to bribe doctors with gifts to push their drugs and treatments. Call me selfish, but I do not think it is fair for me to have to lower my ability to get treated while having to pay for other peoples treatments at the same time. I think there are a lot of problems, but I think most of them are the result of doctors lack of power and not them having too much power. I feel that we as a society have already taken too much power away from the people who are treating us and have given that power uninvolved parties whose only interest in our treatment is the cost.

Some Guy says

d3 says

justme says

>>Believe me, the private sector is capable of fucking up healthcare all by itself. Big amen to that

I would however argue that when the private sector had more control, they were doing a let better job at running things. When I was growing up seeing a doctor was never a problem. Also doctors could use their judgment and experience when it came to treating people. Now the entire industry is ran by insurance companies and the government. Although it may not be obvious when you see a doctor these days the chances are your treatment is almost solely based on what the insurance company and Medicare thinks they should cover vs the doctor. Also should be illegal for drug companies to bribe doctors with gifts to push their drugs and treatments. Call me selfish, but I do not think it is fair for me to have to lower my ability to get treated while having to pay for other peoples treatments at the same time. I think there are a lot of problems, but I think most of them are the result of doctors lack of power and not them having too much power. I feel that we as a society have already taken too much power away from the people who are treating us and have given that power uninvolved parties whose only interest in our treatment is the cost.

Still don’t understand what you’re talking about. What do you mean, “When the private sector had more control”? The private sector has ABSOLUTE control over your health care. The government is not the one deciding which treatments get paid for and which don’t. Those decisions are made by PRIVATE insurance companies. You continue to conflate private insurance companies with Medicare. Either explain how the existence of Medicare causes the government to exert influence over private insurance companies, or shut up about it. Because it doesn’t. You are talking out of your ass. What has changed since you were growing up is not government control, but the increasing greed and penny pinching of insurance companies.

Ok, maybe I should have said doctors. They have almost no control. The government and the insurance companies over the last 15 years essentially took away there ability to make profit or choices regarding treatment. Are people too dumb to understand that when Medicare or the insurance companies treat you, the doctor currently to base a lot of their treatment on what Medicare and the insurance companies allow and not what may be medically in best interest in the patient. When most people see a doctor, his bill is essentially meaningless. No matter how much his services should be worth he will only be able to collect a set amount. Sometimes this works out ok most of the time it does not. The doctors to control their practice or make a profit has become so bad, most primary care doctors have quite the field. The US is now having to get doctors to come from overseas because most US doctors are no longer willing to deal with the system that we have allowed both the insurance companies and the government put in place. Read the articles I linked above. The problem is, this is not stuff that is known to the average person. Doctors have very little lobbying power as do the insurance giants, pharmaceutical ect.. Basically doctors are left begging for scraps when it comes to re-imbursements. People do not want to accept this fact because all they care about is having everything handed to them and only beleive what TV tell them too. The problem is people want cheap treatment not good treatment and by allowing the goverment to take over that is what I fear we will get.

Yes private insurance and government run programs are different, but they are both doing the same thing to ruin the system

Tenpoundbass, I don't have much quibble with most of what you said. My main point was that a split health care system where government hospitals does the easy stuff and private hospitals do the advanced and more profitable stuff is not a good split. If you think about, you can probably see a dozen reasons why this will not work well in practice. All doctors should do both trite stuff and more "advanced" stuff, but to some degree a division of labor amongst doctors will naturally occur, determined by the internal competition for specialist jobs and a status hierarchy within the profession, much like it is now.

d3, I can't help but think that you have a bit of a split personality on the whole medical costs thing. One one hand, you say doctors are begging for reimbursement scraps, but on the other hand they are somehow supposed to end up charging you less scraps if only they did not have to beg and could set the price themselves. I think the logic is not sound.

Unfortunately you either end up having low cost, but having to commit to a volume up front, or high cost print-on-demand. If you've had bad results with Cafepress, I've heard good things about Spreadshirt.

The following chart will give you a good indicator of why median prices will likely see a temporary rise as the correction continues: http://www.housingbubblebust.com/OFHEO/Major/NorCal.html It comes down to lag. The lower end and outlying markets like Stockton, Tracy, Vallejo, etc. have all corrected much faster. So, as per the chart, they are reaching stability. Now the mid to higher end is beginning its decline but with the low end transactions essentially oscillating around a stability level from this point forward, the mid and higher end homes will become the majority transactions. So from the standpoint of the median, the value of the median home price will increase as the mid to high end deline and the low end stays roughtly flat. At some point, we will reach a turnover point where the mid to high end will become the majority transactions and then the median will begin to fall again until all areas have reached trend. From there, the median will likely fluctuate for several years as final excesses are worked out. And from there, we will begin to slowly move up again, but at more normal fundamental rates.

I actually don't think most doctors should be completely in charge of it, especially when they get paid for procedures. I know way too many cancer patients used as lab rats that ran up million dollar medical bills, having procedures done that were unnecessary and dangerous that made their lives shorter and more painful... The entire medical field has been perverted by profit and greed.

Some Guy says

d3, yes I agree with what you’re saying now. Bureaucrats should not be deciding what medical treatment people need; doctors should be deciding that. I guess where we disagree is that I don’t believe just leaving it in the hands of private insurance companies is going to solve anything. I think they are the PROBLEM, not the solution.

I don't think we should leave it in the hands of private insurance companies either. Personally I think the doctor should decide what he is going to charge for his treatments. If he is trying to charge to much and the insurance company has a problem with that, they should take him out of their list of covered doctors. My gut tells me that unless a doctor is too good to need to accept insurance he will work with the insurance companies to come up with reasonable rates. These will lead to higher primary prices, but I believe at the same time it will lower emergency room costs because it will overtime increase the number of primary care doctors. Part of the current problem of having set prices used by Medicare and insurance companies is that it is not always equitable and unless both them and the government are will to accept that the cost of service is dependent on both physical location of service and quality of service they cannot be equitable. The way the system currently works though, I do not see the government as being willing to properly differentiate what the salary of a talented doctor in NYC vs a Novice in Las Cruses NM. Unless that can fairly happen you cannot have equity for doctors and there will be a shortage of talented primary care providers. My whole premise is that I fear we are slowly heading this way and that government involvement will most likely make the problem worse. Also I fear that if we over standardize medicine the US is going to lose out on their current ability for coming up with medical breakthroughs because doctors will be more likely become required to give specific treatments verses doing what they think will work best. Am I the only one who worries about handing my health choices over to the government or any other entity that does not have a strong medical background?

Tude says

I actually don’t think most doctors should be completely in charge of it, especially when they get paid for procedures. I know way too many cancer patients used as lab rats that ran up million dollar medical bills, having procedures done that were unnecessary and dangerous that made their lives shorter and more painful… The entire medical field has been perverted by profit and greed.

I think most of the greed comes from insurance companies and not the doctors. People on here seem to believe that all doctors are making a lot of money and are taking of us. I believe this is true in some medical fields, but in regards to family and non-specialized medicines we are taking advantage of the doctors

What's wrong wiith the Obama plan of having a government alternative insurer? Seems pretty good to me. Not dictating anything, just providing an alternative, and a guarantee you are eligible for it. If you like private insurance, you can buy it. Taxes may go up, but premiums go away. And taxes may not even have to go up if we can manage to reduce spending to other countries with good health care. We spend twice what they do for no better health.