patrick.net

HOT DAMN
enough lunacy to fill up CA.

There would be no Patrick.net if he'd bought a house in Palo Alto in the 90s. And if he had, even after the current crash, he would have still seen an insane profit.*

But he didn't and so here we are.

* Not applicable for all neighborhoods. Your results may vary.

BACHINGA!

Billybigrig says

rooemoore says

There would be no Patrick.net if he'd bought a house in Palo Alto in the 90s. And if he had, even after the current crash, he would have still seen an insane profit.*

But he didn't and so here we are.

* Not applicable for all neighborhoods. Your results may vary.

And here you are hanging out the very place you dispise the most , I think the term is coined SADOMASOCHISM

Actually, I was making an observation. The area (Palo Alto and Menlo Park) that Patrick has been renting for years and years would have been a great investment.

Seems topical to this thread and this site. I don't despise Patrick.net. No need to be so negative about my observation. Then again, if I was underwater in Yorba Linda, I'd probably be cranky too. ;)

pazuzu says

That is a great image showing both remorse and shame and guilt. It could have been a cover a current book on this entire real estate disaster fiasco scam.

Billybigrig says

RentalWatch says

duckhead says

"There are tax advantages to owning." ---YES--- "Houses always increase in value in the long run." ---SHAKABOOM--- "Renters have no opportunity to build equity.” ---SCHWING--- Finally we see the doomerati coming to papa, amazing. Well now all you need to do next is follow up on these important points and buy buy buy houses, rent them out and become rich like ROBERTO REALTORO, and don’t forget this new genius MIKE2. Congrats MIKE2!!!! ZOOBOWOW

Pimping, pandering and whoring!!! WhEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

LoL! Priceless...

Like this smoke and mirror real estate more like OVERPRICED.

rooemoore says

There would be no Patrick.net if he'd bought a house in Palo Alto in the 90s. And if he had, even after the current crash, he would have still seen an insane profit.*

But he didn't and so here we are.

* Not applicable for all neighborhoods. Your results may vary.

What if he had bought a house in the year 2012 in Palo Alto?
He still would be 25% ahead or more? I am sure all the renters are now CRYING about their rents going skyhigh but if you had bought your payments would have been fixed. There are bidding wars on rentals now just like bidding wars on Buying. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda!

True that! They could all be in a good $$$ position right now or retired. Instead they are FUMING about those damn rent increases! COulda, woulda, shoulda!

CDon says

Looking back, its truly amazing how poisonous the environment was here at what turned out to be the bottom of the market.

I'll keep pointing this out when I read statements like quoted. Tell me where the bottom was in thirty years. Unless you're meaning is "the bottom for the most recent downturn."

FunTime says

CDon says

Looking back, its truly amazing how poisonous the environment was here at what turned out to be the bottom of the market.

I'll keep pointing this out when I read statements like quoted. Tell me where the bottom was in thirty years. Unless you're meaning is "the bottom for the most recent downturn."

You are going to wait out the next thirty years to time the market? Or you mean you are going to keep checking back here for thirty years to prove a point to someone long disinterested on the internet?

Yuck.

Let's take worst case scenario from historical data. During the Great Depression and the recent housing market downturn, house prices tumbled 31% to 33%. I just did the math for my house, figuring in those 30 years I would pay off the house (provided I can remain employed through said economic woes). My equity in the house would have grown to 100% which would be a net 66% total gain over the initial downpayment. That's even with my house falling 31% in value. Sure, interest, maintenance, taxes, are all costs associate with owning the home as well, but as forced savings/investment into a major economic downturn, seems like a pretty reasonable deal to me.

In the doomsday scenario you paint, if you are renting and investing elsewhere, you are assuming less than a loss of 31%? Are you so sure those alternative investments are safe?

FunTime says

I'll keep pointing this out when I read statements like quoted. Tell me where the bottom was in thirty years.

You must be joking right? 30 years? Lets look at the case of the 1995 renter in SF when case shiller was around 65 - well off the 1990 peak of 75:

http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-ca-san-francisco-home-price-index

The issue at the time, raging in the early chatrooms of the usenet interwebs was - is now a good time? Despite these high (300K) prices, is it now safe to buy? Or are the bears right that another massive drop is right around the corner, and if we buy now we will be devastated when prices drop down to 225K?

Well, even though it has "only" been 19 years now, I am going to go out on a limb here...

Dear 1995-2014 renters - I hate to tell you this but the 225K prices you have been waiting 19 years for are NOT going to happen. DO NOT WAIT 30 YEARS to confirm this. Here, now, at the 19 year mark, cut your losses, admit your devastating mistake, pick up the pieces of your shattered dreams and go out and live - make the best of the time you have left. DO NOT spend the next 11 years waiting.

And again Funtime - the issue I raised here is the bottom. It is not about the merits of rent vs buy - it is not about whether buying is the best investment out there - the issue is the bottom which truly does not care whether it "makes sense" via some calculator or not.

Thus, the issue 1990-1995 and again 2005-2009 was - we are in a bubble - a limited temporal event which some people can wait out for a brief period of time such that they may buy closer to the bottom than the top.

For the people who can afford it - for the ones who one day want to simply buy a house and move on with their lives - I say, yes the bottom is here and gone. That Case Shiller value of 119 hit in March 2009 was indeed the bottom and you will never see it again.

Do you disagree? If you do - for those who passed on the 2009 levels of CS @ 119 - how much longer do you tell them to wait before you can safely conclude "gee I guess that really was the bottom after all"?

By the way Funtime - if you want to see the consequences of how this plays out - take a look at this discussion between myself and RFHTC near the end of this thread

http://patrick.net/?p=1221690

So to recap, per Case Shiller

1. SFBA bottomed at 117.71 in 2009
2. When RFHTC and I first debated this in 2013 when Case Shiller was @ 146.23, he said, yes wait for it to crash below the 117 level of 4 years earlier.
3. I brought it up again one year later in 2014 @ 180.19 to see if he was still in "wait and see" mode and he choose not to discuss it.

He could have mitigated his damages in 2013 @ 146.23. Yet he decided to double down on his call, and now its @ 181.5 further hurting those who relied on his decision to "wait".

If history is any indication, this market will top out around 230. It's hard to believe the housing market can go up another 25%- 30% from here, but history repeats itself.

For those that have no clue what you're talking about, you're not doing the readers any favor by going around and chanting doom and gloom. Having heated debates are great because housing is a huge investment. Unfortunately, when you're trolling with housing is going to collapse around the corner with no data to back it up, you're potentially ruining someone else's life by listening to your ill advice. Remember, what goes around comes around.

E-man says

If history is any indication, this market will top out around 230. It's hard to believe the housing market can go up another 25%- 30% from here, but history repeats itself.

Saved for posterity.

CDon says

Dear 1995-2014 renters - I hate to tell you this but the 225K prices you have been waiting 19 years for are NOT going to happen.

What cities were selling for 225K in 1995 in NorCal? Just curious, I don't know which ones off-hand, myself. Even if we're to go with your strawman argument, 225K in 1995 is about 350K today per CPI.

controllio asked: What cities were selling for 225K in 1995 in NorCal?
You're making me nostalgic for 2/1 cottages in Berkeley.
Party like its 1995; see this listing.

rooemoore says

There would be no Patrick.net if he'd bought a house in Palo Alto in the 90s. And if he had, even after the current crash, he would have still seen an insane profit.*

But he didn't and so here we are.

* Not applicable for all neighborhoods. Your results may vary.

You can also become wealthy by working for it. Remember that?

corntrollio says

E-man says

If history is any indication, this market will top out around 230. It's hard to believe the housing market can go up another 25%- 30% from here, but history repeats itself.

Saved for posterity.

@corntrollio,

I was looking at the Case Shiller HPI this morning, which currently stands at 214, and I remember of your post. In just over 1 year, the HPI goes from 181 to 214. What's the likelihood of it hitting 230 do you think?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Deahead is back!

I'd like to see a deadhead on "So you think you can dance" just up there gyrating their shoulders and rolling their arms to Scarlet begonias or Franlkin's Tower from a show that sounds like it was recorded from the concession stand in the lobby of the venue.

"And cue music..."