patrick.net

The responses in this thread are sorta off the wall. OP has a very specific situation most of us don't fall into, and the answer is relatively simple with one caveat:

OP should buy only if he is ok taking a loss when he sells.

Provided that caveat, the amount of money he is talking in San Marino and South Pas just doesn't go far. That leaves OP with three options IMO:

1.) Buy a smallish house in S. Pas anyway.

2.) Rent in S. Pas

3.) Buy in great areas nearby where your money will go farther...Arcadia or La Canada. Tremendous schools, nice upscale areas.

First: It is very hard to catch the exact top or exact bottom of any market (stock or real estate). If you catch most of the swing you are doing well. If you wait too long you miss the entire market move. Most investors or traders who try and catch the exact bottom usually end up with nothing. I have never been able to catch an exact bottom, but I can get close.

Second: It is hard to get a good price by watching just one property. You will get a good price by putting out many "ridiculous" offers until you flesh out the seller who is realistically in touch with this market.

I decided last summer to buy a beach front condo in Ventura County as a second home. I made several unsuccessful offers over the summer and fall, and had some near deals. Finally, in the dead of winter I made an outstanding deal and closed a condo at a price lower than the seller paid 20 years ago.

I have done this in many real estate market swings. I bought and sold a second home in Lake Arrowhead in the 2000 swing, and bought and still own my home in Westlake Village in the 1987 swing. I have bought and sold many commercial properties over three decades the same way.

Each time I have to spend many months making offer after offer just to find a seller. You need an agent with a thick skin, or several of them you can wear out along the way. You also need to just be patient and wait.

Each time I never knew if the market would ever recover, and each time it did. This time again, I do not know if this market will ever recover. Even if it does not, I really like the condo and will just keep it if this market is the "new normal."

Vbcoder-That's really good advice. Thank you.

Are you investing in a house or are you buying a home?

edvard2 says

a nice second tier city- like Austin TX

Dallas is better. Money goes further and you get a lot better stock of houses. I have a rental in Fort Worth.

nw888 says

Typically, people in that situation have millions to spend because they worry MORE about bubbles, where there money is going, and how their assets are doing. Not worrying about things like this is one of the reasons most people never find themselves in that situation.

Word.

But the bubble is over dudes. There is calculating risk and there is analysis paralysis. The point is this jockeys already willing to sink 2 mill for a dwelling. That right there puts you in loco territory. It's like saying you are worried that paying forty dollars for a gallon of milk instead of 34 dollars for the same gallon when you know its insane either or. I don't want to overpay too much, but I am still willing to overpay by a lot.

So no residence is worth 2 millions dollars? It could be a mansion with every posh finish and upscale add on you could possibly think of, and 100 acres of land with a pool and pool house and guest house and theres no way that residence will be worth 2 million? Some people say some really dumb things on here.

"Theres no way wood and brick can ever cost 2 million dollars!"

thomas.wong1986 says

LA and rest of SoCal have dropped nicely...

True, and a few sales occur. However, I have two more properties that have magically appeared, disappeared, and reappeared on the MLS. The higher end one, I thought, yeah, someone bought that one. The cheap one, I thought, yeah, someone bought that one. But no, the magical mystery magician whoever he or she is has made them reappear on the market.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Encino/5301-Balboa-Blvd-91316/unit-K2/home/4777314

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Tarzana/18530-Hatteras-St-91356/unit-302/home/4061045

woppa says

So no residence is worth 2 millions dollars?

What makes something worth 2 million dollars? If I can get forty people to spend one hundred dollars on a kit kat bar, does that make kit kats worth 100 dollars? If I can sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge for 50K does that make it worth 50K?

No one single residence is worth 2 million dollars unless it is sitting on oil rich land and you have mineral rights.. Or maybe if it comes with a fleet of robots that will massage you and blow you every morning.

JodyChunder says

If I can get forty people to spend one hundred dollars on a kit kat bar, does that make kit kats worth 100 dollars?

Yes. It does :)

And to further your example in the other direction, if you have a piece of Gold in your hand that you think is worth $1000.- but nobody wants to give you 1000 for it....then its not worth 1000.-

Whatever it is...its worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. As simple as that.

When you are stuck on the island and have no food that same exact kit kat bar could be worth 2000 dollars to somebody.

:)

Really? This is an issue?:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Redondo-Beach/638-Avenue-C-90277/home/7706089

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Hermosa-Beach/3201-Tennyson-Pl-90254/home/6705877

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Manhattan-Beach/3617-Pacific-Ave-90266/home/6708747

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Playa-Vista/13048-NORTH-ICON-Cir-90094/home/40191191

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Marina-Del-Rey/134-Topsail-Mall-90292/home/6783262

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Venice/46-Wavecrest-Ave-90291/home/6733930

These are all nice places at the lower end (or less) of what you are willing to pay.

SubOink says

Yes. It does :)

No, it doesn't. It means there is an extreme mania or exogenous factor distorting the relative equilibrium of the supply and demand curves. Historically, such extreme manias require facilitation by way of incentives or lax lending as in the case of our credit bubble from 1998-06 as desire to pay any price for something is not always enough to realize such gross distortions.

The island analogy is a perfect example of an extreme scenario. :-D

Waitingtobuy says

Really? This is an issue?:

I don't know about it being an issue, but those houses are Fugly, for one thing, and for another, they are smallish for the price and appear poorly built.

2nd one is pending in 6 days. looks like all cash

Hysteresis says

housing market doesn't care that you're impatient. it'll correct when it corrects. it's an incredibly slow process.

no, it'll really correct when politicians stop preventing the correction with all kinds of homeowners/banks bail outs.

and we have some control over politicians, it is an election year after all.

JodyChunder says

I don't know about it being an issue, but those houses are Fugly, for one thing, and for another, they are smallish for the price and appear poorly built.

I just picked out 6 random houses from RB to Venice whether they were pending or not to illustrate the point. Obviously, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of houses in LA that will satisfy the OPs requirements. As for style, that is in the eye of the beholder. And qualitywise, hard to tell from the pics, but if you really want quality, you are looking in the wrong state. Very few stone or brick construction homes in California because of earthquake codes.

I dont consider 3848 sq ft (Playa Vista) to be smallish. Maybe in Victorville, but not near the ocean.

JodyChunder says

I don't know about it being an issue, but those houses are Fugly, for one thing, and for another, they are smallish for the price and appear poorly built.

That's just silly! Those are amazing houses in an amazing location. Small? How big of a house do you need??

Definitely beats the cookie cutter style homes in Victorville that go for $120k a pop.

I only looked at the first 2...its not healthy to look at houses in that price range :)

Playa Vista, Venice, Redondo Beach??, Hermosa??, Manhattan Beach--all of these places you have listed are *not* LA. They are outlying areas that *might* appeal to some people, but Manhattan Beach and Redondo are like literally an hour to get most places actually in LA. The surface streets are dreadful during morning/evening rush hour.

LA is Mid-City/Wilshire, Westwood, Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, Culver City, West Hollywood, Hollywood, and maybe a couple surrounding neighborhoods. Santa Monica probably. These areas are the heart of actual LA, where a majority of the jobs, culture, decent food, etc. are (just look at the 10 during morning commutes or weekend traffic and you will see both directions jammed between downtown and Santa Monica). You want to live in these neighborhoods? H'wood might get you under a mill if you love the crime and retardedness. Rest of these will be easily over a mill unless you are shopping for a 1000 sqft barfy '70s condo.

Because I live and work in these neighborhoods, my "commute" is literally 12 minutes and the gas money saved not idling stupidly and time I save are extremely value-added to my quality of life.

Philistine says

LA is Mid-City/Wilshire, Westwood, Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, Culver City, West Hollywood, Hollywood, and maybe a couple surrounding neighborhoods. Santa Monica probably. These areas are the heart of actual LA, where a majority of the jobs, culture, decent food, etc. are

That's nonsense. Those areas you described are exactly where you do NOT want to live.

Decent food? LOL. We have some of the best restaurants here in Calabasas, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village, Malibu. From Indian to Thai to BBQ. And no issues to park - room to breathe.

Some people like to live in area's that are actually nice. Where you can hike out your backyard and live close to the ocean. To get to the ocean from any of the area's above its a haul, you end up never going. When is the last time you went for a walk?

Well, I say that...because I am blessed and work from home so I don't have to live in car smog. I barely drive.

Still, I know many people that commute right into Hollywood. And they all say that its worth driving home to a nice area.

Just my 2 cents...

PS: Hollywood?? Now, there is a $hithole...

Completely concur. Hollywood is a total POS. And it emblematizies exactly why LA sucks. I guess we just think places like Calabasas, etc. are bland, quasi-suburban, everyplaces.

But there is always a Chili's/Target/Home Depot shopping plaza waiting for you around every corner. Always feels like home, no matter which one of those paint-by-number zipcodes you live in.

The reason we really like the Pasadena area is that it has a good amount of architectural buildings, is more or less centrally located, nice tree lined streets, and has good schools.

I love the idea of living out in the Malibu, which has a rural feel to it, but the commute would get old.

Hancock Park is great too, but is still insanely overpriced.

No matter the price or the area, the real point is that I refuse to pay the same or more than what the seller bought it for in 2006.

nw888 says

We're looking for a $1.4-2.2M house in the Los Angeles area

Philistine says

Playa Vista, Venice, Redondo Beach??, Hermosa??, Manhattan Beach--all of these places you have listed are *not* LA. They are outlying areas that *might* appeal to some people, but Manhattan Beach and Redondo are like literally an hour to get most places actually in LA.

The OP said LA area, not LA proper.

Philistine says

LA is Mid-City/Wilshire, Westwood, Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, Culver City, West Hollywood, Hollywood, and maybe a couple surrounding neighborhoods. Santa Monica probably.

OK, how about this in Hancock Park?:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/631-N-Mccadden-Pl-90004/home/7101139

Philistine says

These areas are the heart of actual LA, where a majority of the jobs, culture, decent food, etc. are

You forgot to mention crappy schools, bad air, surface street congestion, high crime rates, and plastic people.

Philistine says

Because I live and work in these neighborhoods, my "commute" is literally 12 minutes and the gas money saved not idling stupidly and time I save are extremely value-added to my quality of life.

My commute is 30 secs. I work from home. The OP never mentioned anything about his/her commute. Maybe they can clarify where they work, if they do.

Waitingtobuy says

My commute is 30 secs. I work from home. The OP never mentioned anything about his/her commute. Maybe they can clarify where they work, if they do.

I work from home mostly, but sometimes have to commute to the movie studios, which are mainly in Burbank or Culver City. My wife can work anywhere there is a hospital. I'd like to stay close to studios, but it's not detrimental. And the only reason we don't leave Southern California is because we have a lot of family here, and that is very important to us.

I am in the Internet business, work from home, and also have to go to the studios. I arrange my client visits after 1030. Last week, it took me 30 mins from the South Bay to get to the Paramount lot. Burbank would take 45 mins-1 hr on a good day...but it depends what your definition of sometimes is..if once a month, doable. If once/week, not.

JodyChunder says

nw888 says

Typically, people in that situation have millions to spend because they worry MORE about bubbles, where there money is going, and how their assets are doing. Not worrying about things like this is one of the reasons most people never find themselves in that situation.

Word.

But the bubble is over dudes. There is calculating risk and there is analysis paralysis. The point is this jockeys already willing to sink 2 mill for a dwelling. That right there puts you in loco territory. It's like saying you are worried that paying forty dollars for a gallon of milk instead of 34 dollars for the same gallon when you know its insane either or. I don't want to overpay too much, but I am still willing to overpay by a lot.

That's a very different statement from what you said before. Not worrying about a bubble because you have millions and not worrying about a bubble because it's over are very different standpoints. The first is ridiculous, and a sure fire way for someone with millions to soon become someone 'without' millions. The second is debatable. Is the hysteria that drove prices up rapidly over? Probably. Are some areas still overpriced and some sellers delusional? Also probably true. And if the hysteria is over than that's all the more reason to avoid buying in those areas.

When I'm on a project with a studio I will then have to be there 5 days a week, so commute is important to me. More and more I want to just work from home and not deal with this rat race anymore.

I just want a nice house, with a good size yard, a pool, a 15 minute commute, and under $400 a square foot. That price to me is still insane! I remember when the average price in Beverly Hills was $250 per square foot in 1999, and now it's something like $600+ still? South Pasadena with a good piece of land-1/4 to 1/2 acre is $6-800+ per square foot. It's out of control. I refuse to pay these inflated asking prices.

Maybe I'm asking too much and being unrealistic. I wish interest rates would go up so prices would be forced to come down further, but that won't be happening until at LEAST 2014 according to the fed. Maybe a crisis will force the issue....

"Maybe I'm asking too much and being unrealistic. I wish interest rates would go up so prices would be forced to come down further"

When interest start rising this time, you will be left at the gate looking for that "dream house" The market is in "recovery" per the time magazine report. Home Depot stock soaring, New Home Starts at a 2 year high, employment up, unemployment down, rents rising.
The spring buying season around Mar 15 to May 30, will be the best in years, and your selection of houses in your price range will get smaller and smaller.

Thank you for your reply. I 100% disagree with you.

nw888 says

When I'm on a project with a studio I will then have to be there 5 days a week, so commute is important to me. More and more I want to just work from home and not deal with this rat race anymore.

nw888 says

I work from home mostly, but sometimes have to commute to the movie studios, which are mainly in Burbank or Culver City.

nw888 says

I just want a nice house, with a good size yard, a pool, a 15 minute commute, and under $400 a square foot.

If you have to be in either Burbank or Culver City, where are you going to find a place in LA that is 15 mins from either Burbank or Culver City, unless you own a helicopter? Aren't you confined to a place like Hancock Park, and even then, on a good day, you are looking at 25-30 mins to either?

Waitingtobuy says

nw888 says

When I'm on a project with a studio I will then have to be there 5 days a week, so commute is important to me. More and more I want to just work from home and not deal with this rat race anymore.

nw888 says

I work from home mostly, but sometimes have to commute to the movie studios, which are mainly in Burbank or Culver City.

nw888 says

I just want a nice house, with a good size yard, a pool, a 15 minute commute, and under $400 a square foot.

If you have to be in either Burbank or Culver City, where are you going to find a place in LA that is 15 mins from either Burbank or Culver City, unless you own a helicopter? Aren't you confined to a place like Hancock Park, and even then, on a good day, you are looking at 25-30 mins to either?

nw888 says

Maybe I'm asking too much and being unrealistic. I wish interest rates would go up so prices would be forced to come down further, but that won't be happening until at LEAST 2014 according to the fed. Maybe a crisis will force the issue....

I used to think this way too. The thing is that the Fed will keep rates low until inflation picks up in order to stimulate economic growth. If inflation picks up, housing prices will go up with the price of everything else. There isn't necessarily an inverse correlation to all of this.

Yes, the 15 minutes comment was just an ideal. I know that the reality is that it does take a long time to get anywhere in this city. I think I'm unrealistic about finding the "perfect" spot. Hancock park actually is pretty perfect though. Very pricey for what you get.

Hmmm...maybe I can find a good price on a helicopter.... ;)

The issue for me with Hancock Park is schools. Elementary may be fine, but once the kids get to middle school, you may need private schooling. With two kids, that is grades 6-12 (7 years) * 2 kids * $18,000+/yr= an extra $250,000. In today's dollars.

I would look at Culver City which has a good school system, and grit it out for your commute to Burbank.

Waitingtobuy says

I used to think this way too. The thing is that the Fed will keep rates low until inflation picks up in order to stimulate economic growth. If inflation picks up, housing prices will go up with the price of everything else.

What changed your view?

My view is this:

Historically housing does not go up with inflation. No one needs to purchase a home. They can rent instead. Real wages don't go up, therefore rents won't go up. Things people must have go up. Food and fuel.

The only way to curb inflation is by raising interest rates. Raising interest rates makes mortgage payments higher. The only thing that can give will be house prices.

nw888 says

Historically housing does not go up with inflation.

Huh? Historically, housing prices absolutely have gone up with inflation.

You can argue that they won't in the future, but you can't argue that they haven't historically.

Waitingtobuy says

The issue for me with Hancock Park is schools. Elementary may be fine, but once the kids get to middle school, you may need private schooling. With two kids, that is grades 6-12 (7 years) * 2 kids * $18,000+/yr= an extra $250,000. In today's dollars.

I would look at Culver City which has a good school system, and grit it out for your commute to Burbank.

Yeah I've looked at that too. It's outrageous for those private schools. Even though it's minor, the streets suck in that area too. They're basic LA streets with cracks and potholes. It's still LA, with LA police response time. A private city has nice roads and quick police response.

tatupu70 says

nw888 says

Historically housing does not go up with inflation.

Huh? Historically, they absolutely have.

You can argue that they won't in the future, but you can't argue that they haven't historically.

Let me rephrase that. I'm talking about rapid inflation problems, not inflation over the course of decades. I've never seen a situation in any country with out of control inflation where housing has suddenly spiked.

nw888 says

The only way to curb inflation is by raising interest rates. Raising interest rates makes mortgage payments higher. The only thing that can give will be house prices.

There are two ways to slow inflation: raise interest rates and slow the growth of the money supply.

nw888 says

Historically housing does not go up with inflation. No one needs to purchase a home. They can rent instead. Real wages don't go up, therefore rents won't go up. Things people must have go up. Food and fuel.

The price of building materials is impacted by the price of oil. PVC, for example, is made out of petroleum resins. The cost to transport materials to a building site are also impacted by inflation. So are construction wages. And it's not just for new homes either.

nw888 says

I'm talking about rapid inflation problems, not inflation over the course of decades. I've never seen a situation in any country with out of control inflation where housing has suddenly spiked.

This country has not, and may never, have the inflation problems of a Weimar Republic Germany, Brazil in the 1980s and 1990s, or current Zimbabwe. We own the printing presses for the world's reserve currency (or at least for the next 20 yrs, it is), so we can slow down the presses and raise interest rates.

nw888 says

Yeah I've looked at that too. It's outrageous for those private schools. Even though it's minor, the streets suck in that area too. They're basic LA streets with cracks and potholes. It's still LA, with LA police response time. A private city has nice roads and quick police response.

Which is why I suggested Culver City. Good private city with nice roads, quick police response, and good schools.

Philistine says

I guess we just think places like Calabasas, etc. are bland, quasi-suburban, everyplaces.

I guess if you consider nature, the mountains, views and space bland then yes, you are right. Very bland. You sound like a NYker. :)

Some people enjoy having an ugly skyscraper peeking into your backyard and having telephone poles and electric lines across your pool.

Do yourself a favor, drive out to Malibu...then take encinal canyon up the hill from the PCH, the go to Decker Canyon...take Decker Canyon to Westlake Village, drive around there then get on the 101...exit Kanan RD. Head North into Agoura Hills...

If you don't think its just drop dead gorgeous then I don't know what is. It's very clean around here, roads are kept up and brand new, yet the neighborhoods are old enough to have a lot of old old landscaping, trees etc.
Also, drive on Mullholland. Some awesome houses there.

If you want to be close to shopping, then Agoura and Westlake Village are a bit better as you have Whole Foods, Gelsons, Ralphs, Vons, Trader Joes, right around the corner including thousands of little boutique shops. A million restaurants in all styles of food and tons of parking.

Another thing is weather - if you don't like 110 degrees SF Valley BS then you should come to the conejo valley, ocean breeze - we don't use A/C other than 10-15 times a year. Amazing! It gets 85-100 to in the summer but only peak hours and come 4pm that ocean breeze cools everything off so fast, just open windows and it cools off. That's the only aspect I don't like about Malibu - its a little chilly there, even in the summer. Barely an 80 degree day and lots of 100% overcast marine layer days. All of June, most of July and still a lot during the whole year.

But whatever floats your boat. If you want to be in a city, LA is not really the place to be - move to Boston, you can walk around. NY...etc..