patrick.net

drfelle says

Proof: Where was all this talk (on Patrick.net) on Health Care before the Messiah started preaching about it?

Patrick.net is, first and formost, a site about the housing bubble. It was peope like you who really started bringing up health care here. Personally, I wish that the "HOUSING CREASH" forum would stick to, I dunno, the housing crash. In the mainstream, though, health care debate has existed since the 1940s. Did talk die down a bit during boom times? Of course! Nobody really notices how fucked up the insurance-based system is when everybody has jobs that are mostly paying for insurance. It's when we have 10+% unemployment rates that things start to rise to the surface again. And, yes, of course Obama talks about health care a lot. Health care was the biggest component of his platform -- the platform that the majority of the country elected him on. Not the economy, not the wars, not the gross violation of human rights under the previous administration. Health care. It was his issue #1 from the moment he announced his candidacy. Please don't pretend otherwise. I know it's strange for a President to actually try to push the agenda that they were elected on. Reagan certainly followed through on his campaign agenda, but Clinton and both Bush's ignored everything their campaigns were saying on or around February first.

All I know is that I still can’t afford to buy into a neighborhood where I make more than the average for that zip. This is with a 20% down. I just continue to rent below my means and stack cash. By the time the market normalizes I should have 30-40% for a DP and no other debt.

On a different thread I posted a link that mentioned 8,000+ homes sold in the bay area in June 2009 which was a little less but similar to June 2003. Why do banks have to unload their bad assets? They've been doing it very slowly up to this point, why all of a sudden now? If they've been planning on avoiding a rush of foreclosures at once, why would they all of a sudden change their mind? They are going to trickle foreclosures onto the market with the help of the gov't. I think cities/counties should do what you are saying, but they haven't to this point, why would they start now? It's not like 2009 is the first year CA was in trouble. They've been in trouble for a while. Even if local gov'ts did start putting pressure on the banks, the fed gov't would step in and help them out.

I see a lot of properties come back on the market after only a few months. Are these counted as "new" sales? If the same houses keep getting sold over and over that is not reducing the inventory at all. Why would investors want to sell so quickly if these are easy to rent? It doesn't add up.

camping says

On a different thread I posted a link that mentioned 8,000+ homes sold in the bay area in June 2009 which was a little less but similar to June 2003.

What does it prove? Please elaborate what you are trying to convey by comparing with 2003 numbers. Did you take 2003 price and inventory level into account? Selling 80 homes out of 100 is lot different from selling 80 homes out of 400 homes in market. Oh, yes I forgot 32% June 2009 sold homes are from foreclosure sales which is clearly reflected in depressed price. camping says

Why do banks have to unload their bad assets? They’ve been doing it very slowly up to this point, why all of a sudden now? If they’ve been planning on avoiding a rush of foreclosures at once, why would they all of a sudden change their mind?

Because they cannot keep them holding FOREVER (unless of course banks start renting those properties and get into real estate investment). They have to unload - slowly or fast. Nowhere I made argument that they are going to sale foreclosed properties "suddenly now" or with "rush". You are using those words. All I said that sooner or later they have to sell those foreclosed properties. Oh, yes more defaults are coming: Foreclosures dip but default notices rise. Let's see how banks can continue holding those properties.

It seems as if owners are setting prices at below market price on the low side of the market and thus generating bidding wars. This seems a pretty good marketing strategy from the sellers side particularly if the house buyer is a "home" buyer, in other words emotionally involved. I don't fault the sellers for this if I was selling I would do the same, shear the sheep. There is a perception, mis perception in my opinion among some of the "home" buyers that inventory is falling and prices are stabilizing or going up. This is generating sales which might create a temporary false bottom. Given the fundamentals of the market that I follow, North Bay, the bottom is not in sight though affordability on the low end has increased significantly since the peak.

2003 was part of the bubble era. If we are seeing sales numbers similar to that, it leads me to believe that there are obviously a lot of people out there buying right now. If they are buying now even in a terrible economic environment, why would you expect buying to stop when the economy actually starts doing better? You keep equating NODs with foreclosure. How do you know the mortgages won't be re-worked? Plus, banks don't need to hold onto houses FOREVER, they just need to hold onto them until they can sell them for the price they want. I'm a believer that inflation is coming. Banks may only have to wait a few more years before they can sell at their price. Read the other thread about why banks don't need to unload their inventory. Plenty of people made arguments why the banks are getting away with stuff and holding onto properties. You can keep believing how things should work out, but like the other thread said, the banks control the game. If they control the game, they aren't going to lose.

camping says

2003 was part of the bubble era. If we are seeing sales numbers similar to that, it leads me to believe that there are obviously a lot of people out there buying right now. If they are buying now even in a terrible economic environment, why would you expect buying to stop when the economy actually starts doing better?

It got to be very same rational that keeps shifting as time goes by. When median price goes up - "median going up, market is bouncing back". When median goes down, but price per sq-ft goes up - "median is useless. Look at price per sq-ft. It's up. Market is bouncing back.". And when price per sq-ft goes down, but sale volume goes up - "sale is up. market is recovering". Let me ask you a simple question: What metric (or combination of metrics) do you consider to measure market condition? Just sale volume means nothing unless you look at the underlying reasons and factors. Let's compare between 2003 and 2009: Interest rate: 2003 low (with all kind of toxic loans), 2009 low (but banks no longer offer those toxic loans) Inventory: 2003 low, 2009 high Foreclosure (and foreclosure sale): 2003 low, 2009 high The psychology "real estate is safe investment": 2003 lots of people believed it after dot-com bust, 2009 guess? Unemployment: 2003 limited to hi-tech industry only, 2009 all across board and higher So, care to explain why 2009 market will play same script of 2003 market? Just to give an idea, in 2003/2004 even strawberry picker could buy $700K home. Do you think they can do it today?

camping says

You keep equating NODs with foreclosure.

Please do put your word in my mouth. Please read the article, if you can. The article said that NOD are leading indicator of foreclosure. camping says

How do you know the mortgages won’t be re-worked?

So, give us a ballpark figure about the percentage of loans could be re-worked. 100%, 50%? camping says

Plus, banks don’t need to hold onto houses FOREVER, they just need to hold onto them until they can sell them for the price they want. I’m a believer that inflation is coming. Banks may only have to wait a few more years before they can sell at their price.

Few more years!!!! I understand few months, I understand one year. Do you understand the lost opportunity for banks to hold properties for "a few more years", unless there is a significant appreciation in home value in near future that would beat other types of investments? Secondly, who will manage and maintain those properties for "a few years" so that they remain in salable state? Banks don't have any ability to manage real estates. Unless they get into real estate investment, I don't think they are capable of holding assets for "a few years" without screwing themselves farther.

camping says

Plenty of people made arguments why the banks are getting away with stuff and holding onto properties.

I read other threads but I am not sure you are referring to the same. Please point out specific post. Nowhere I read someone arguing, with legitimate points, that banks will/can continue to hold properties for "a few years". That's a stretch. People argued for banks holding properties (as they are doing already). If I say "I am holding my breath", that does not mean that I am holding my breath for "a few years".

I keep hearing so many so called good news about housing recovery. Yesterday, I saw on CBS5 news that housing has recovered in some cities like Lafayette in east bay while others like Concord are languishing. It is no surprise that Concord is in dumps, but I wondered how Lafayetter is any better. Agreed, Lafayetter is a far better neighborhood, but prices have declined everywhere from their highs in 2005-2006. I paid close attention to what they were saying and found out how real numbers are used to come up with improper conclusions. The story was about how the city governments are suffering due to reduced property taxes. Concord had a lot of new homes built in the last few years, which artificially inflated the city property tax revenues, while Lafayette had little or no new homes built and there were very few sales of older homes. So, Lafayette city did not witness huge percentage increse in its property tax revenue as compared to Concord. Now that there are many foreclosures, Concord is witnessing drastic reduction in its propert tax revenue while Lafayette isn't. The house sales in Lafayette right now are actually resluting in incresed property tax revenues because vast majority of them were last sold over ten years ago. One example quoted in the report was of a house which went 50% above its 1999 sale price. This obviously results in increased property tax for the city, but does it imply that house value appreciation in Lafayette is any better than in Concord? Absolutely not! 50% appreciation over ten yrs is roughly about 4% annual return! lousy!!

Read the thread titled: "Fixing the rules: Per request from Patrick." Angrish, in particular, made some good points. As far as holding properties, I'm not necessarily talking about the banks foreclosing and then owning them, I'm talking about the banks just delaying the foreclosure. Letting the people stay in there for however long. You are aware the gov't is paying them to do this, not to mention the billions of dollars the gov't is continuously giving them, right? I can't respond to all of your questions. I do actually have some work to do. At this point I'm not even sure where this is all going. You can believe that there is a wave of foreclosures coming. From what I've been seeing, I am having my doubts about such a situation.

camping says

but like the other thread said, the banks control the game. If they control the game, they aren’t going to lose.

Ok, I am waiting for a link for that extra-ordinary thread that CONCLUDED that "banks control the game". Don't tell me that extra-ordinary thread is no different from this very thread - different people making different arguments, some of them are valid and some of them are not. I am not disagreeing that banks have enormous influence over govt policies. But they cannot control the market. If they could, you wouldn't see foreclosures (or banks failing) in first hand.

camping says

As far as holding properties, I’m not necessarily talking about the banks foreclosing and then owning them, I’m talking about the banks just delaying the foreclosure.

And delaying foreclosure does not mean delaying for "a few years". Keep in mind that owner is not paying mortgage for to-be-foreclosed home. So bank is getting nothing from it, UNLESS they foreclose and sell it.

camping says

Read the thread titled: “Fixing the rules: Per request from Patrick.” Angrish, in particular, made some good points.

Actually I followed the thread very closely. Many made interesting comments. But nobody based their argument that banks can hold properties "a few years" to avoid loss. Banks don't have that kind of infrastructures to hold properties for that long time.

Some Guy says

WillyWanker says

Some Guy says

It’s just tearing you guys up that a black man became president, isn’t it?

Uhmmm, the guy is a MULATTO. His mother was WHITE, his father was a BLACK MUSLIM. That makes him a half~breed, MULATTO. It’s just tearing you guys up that a MULATTO man became president, isn’t it? And that his mother had the outrage to be white.

Dude, that’s just stupid. Are you mentally retarded? What exactly is 'stupid' about that, moron? Are you too much of an idiot to not know the difference between a Mulatto and a black man? Or are you so angered by Obama's white mother that you can't even get your head out of your ass? Please advise.

Considering you questioned my ability to read you should you should probably read a little better yourself. From the other thread: Angrish said: @SoCal, they let the people sit in those houses. They create squatters. The house isn’t abandoned, just the person “squatting” in it doesn’t pay for it anymore. The lawns and the windows and everything will still be fine. Some people have brought up loss of cash flow for banks. That’s more than compensated for by setting a 0% rate for them to borrow at from the Fed and 5% rate they can lend to the treasury at, all for doing nothing more than signing some papers. No more work needed. Cash flow continues unabated, just from a different source. The absence of property taxes will just make the state bailouts bigger. And we can keep printing while people are willing to buy our debt. I thought that was about to break a month or so ago, but it looks like the worse things get, the more the confidence in (or last resort attitude towards) US debt grows. All good arguments people, but I’m still looking for that one invariant, that they can’t fool. ------------------ Although it does not explicitly state "for a few years," it's clear that the above logic can be applied long term.

camping says

Considering you questioned my ability to read you should you should probably read a little better yourself.

Straw man argument. I asked you to read the article because it was very clear that you were putting words in my mouth without reading it. camping says

Although it does not explicitly state “for a few years,” it’s clear that the above logic can be applied long term.

LOL! I still fail to connect between your argument of bank delaying foreclosure for "a few years" until home values go up again (which in turn allows bank to foreclose eventually, kick out "squatter" and sell it in higher price), and that specific discussion which eventually ended in following comment.

I think I’m probably not gonna say this again. But I agree. This can’t continue. What I’m looking for is that simple causal process that will break something. Logic you say? Well set axioms, set rules, and show me a logical progression that leads from here to a contradiction of those axioms, thereby implying that this “can not” go on forever. I went short on the home builders in 2006, and banks n 2007. We all saw the exuberance. But now we don’t see as much because it’s happening behind closed doors. The game is being fixed. This is why we’re discussing things here. Pre-2008 was easy, the rules weren’t changing. Now they are, and in the face of this fact, we’re trying to see (1) What has changed and (2) How will that eventually fail. I guess that’s about as clearly as I can put it. I’m not saying this will go on forever, but I’m unable to find a convincing logical progression that’ll show me how it’ll end.

Some Guy says

And in 2004, there were 14,104 sales. So no, 8,000 is not “bubble” levels of sales. It’s actually 16.1% below average.

Irrespective of 2004/2003 sale numbers, it is a stretch to conclude that just because sale number of 2009 is same/similar to 2003 therefore Bay Area housing market will behave same way as it did in 2003-2007.

P2D2 says

Some Guy says

And in 2004, there were 14,104 sales. So no, 8,000 is not “bubble” levels of sales. It’s actually 16.1% below average.

Irrespective of 2004/2003 sale numbers, it is a stretch to conclude that just because sale number of 2009 is same/similar to 2003 therefore Bay Area housing market will behave same way as it did in 2003-2007.

Talk about straw man arguments. Where did I say it was going to behave the same way as it did in 2003-2007?

P2D2 says

camping says

Considering you questioned my ability to read you should you should probably read a little better yourself.

Straw man argument. I asked you to read the article because it was very clear that you were putting words in my mouth without reading it. camping says

Although it does not explicitly state “for a few years,” it’s clear that the above logic can be applied long term.

LOL! I still fail to connect between your argument of bank delaying foreclosure for “a few years” until home values go up again (which in turn allows bank to foreclose eventually, kick out “squatter” and sell it in higher price), and that specific discussion which eventually ended in following comment.

I think I’m probably not gonna say this again. But I agree. This can’t continue. What I’m looking for is that simple causal process that will break something. Logic you say? Well set axioms, set rules, and show me a logical progression that leads from here to a contradiction of those axioms, thereby implying that this “can not” go on forever. I went short on the home builders in 2006, and banks n 2007. We all saw the exuberance. But now we don’t see as much because it’s happening behind closed doors. The game is being fixed. This is why we’re discussing things here. Pre-2008 was easy, the rules weren’t changing. Now they are, and in the face of this fact, we’re trying to see (1) What has changed and (2) How will that eventually fail. I guess that’s about as clearly as I can put it. I’m not saying this will go on forever, but I’m unable to find a convincing logical progression that’ll show me how it’ll end.

While Angrish said he doesn't think it will go on forever, he also can't find a reason why it will stop and no one provided a valid one. I don't understand why you think a few years equals forever (not what you said, but what you are implying by citing this conclusion). I'm not saying it will go on forever, just long enough. One of your initial posts in this thread was to disprove the fact that low inventory is because of sales, and your justification is that banks aren't foreclosing. Well, if they did this for the past year, why is it such a stretch that they will do it for another year (thus several years)? We've had 3 month moratoriums by the fed and now CA, why is it so impossible for you to imagine them doing a 1 year moratorium when it starts getting bad again?

As far as I am concerned, we should nationalize the health care system, just what we did with banks. Financial crisis exposed us to concept of "too big to fail". Similarly health care crisis shows us that that american health care system is "too important to fail" and hence what president should do is that instead of relying on Nancy chudasi and Henry fucked, just pass a decree and nationalize the health care system. Fire the CEOs of health insurance companies and doctors who demand too much money. You can get doctors who are equally good and charge 50 % less from developing countries. If we can do this in engineering why not in medical field. 1200 dollar in emergeny room bills for simple cough and fever and 1 hour of hospitalization, should tell you that more than financial system, it is the american health care system that is seriously broken.

Some Guy says

WillyWanker says

What exactly is ’stupid’ about that, moron? Are you too much of an idiot to not know the difference between a Mulatto and a black man? Or are you so angered by Obama’s white mother that you can’t even get your head out of your ass? Please advise.

Jesus Christ. Did you get dropped on your head when you were a baby? I would “advise” you to jump off a bridge because you are too stupid to live. Or better yet, take your white sheet and burning cross and shove ‘em up your ass.

I don't know if your retardation was caused because your mother and father are brother and sister or because your father banged your head against the headboard each night in lieu of bedtime stories~~~regardless your condition would make you an ideal candidate for euthanasia. Just think of it as doing the world a favor, asswipe. As far as I am concerned, you can go and sit on 0bama's flag pole and 'advise' him on policy while gyrating lewdly. Just don't assume I care about your past, present or future. But thanks for sharing.

I thought this was a housing forum ...

camping says

Talk about straw man arguments. Where did I say it was going to behave the same way as it did in 2003-2007?

So please elaborate what you meant with following statements when you compared 2009 with 2003

2003 was part of the bubble era. If we are seeing sales numbers similar to that, it leads me to believe that there are obviously a lot of people out there buying right now. If they are buying now even in a terrible economic environment, why would you expect buying to stop when the economy actually starts doing better?

Please just tell me where I said anything about the market behaving like the period of 2003-2007, not just 2003, but the 2003-2007 period.

camping says

One of your initial posts in this thread was to disprove the fact that low inventory is because of sales, and your justification is that banks aren’t foreclosing.

Incorrect. I said banks are not listing their foreclosed homes (what is known as "shadow inventory") at the same pace as they did in past. Foreclosures are happening. And I posted SF Chronicle link for foreclosure database. This link is available for more than a year now and I monitored this database in regular basis. The numbers are increasing - sometime in slow pace, sometime in faster pace. So far I have never seen numbers are going down. Just to give a comparison, in Santa Clara County there were 400+ foreclosure at the same time last year. Currently there are more than 5200. On the top of that, now there are good number of foreclosures on those areas where people never saw foreclosure in past. Example, Palo Alto (including 94301), Los Altos, Cupertino (including Monta Vista), Woodside, Belmont, Mission district in Fremont. camping says

Well, if they did this for the past year, why is it such a stretch that they will do it for another year (thus several years)?

Well, it is nothing unusual for banks to listing the property 3-6 months after repossessing it. Let me put it this way - banks are lousy when it comes to handling real estates. They never had good infrastructure to handle it in efficient manner. However, it did not matter in past due to three reasons 1. In past, volume of foreclosures were pretty low compare to regular housing market. Therefore, a few foreclosures did not make any impact in market. 2. As the home value increased over time (some places modestly, some places rapidly), the 3-6 months delay (or even more) delay to list/auction foreclosed property did not have impact. 3. In pre-bubble era, 20 or 10% downpayment (of non-toxic standard loans) used to cover the loss anyway. So banks did not have much to lose. But it is different time and different situation now. In some areas foreclosure volume is much bigger than regular housing market. As banks are lousy to handle foreclosed properties, they are simply overwhelmed with the foreclosures with this magnitude. This sheer volume worked against them another way - in some neighborhood multiple properties are foreclosed from same bank. So if they are listed at the same time, they would start competing against each other. As an example, let's assume in Rivermark (Santa Clara) there are five foreclosures and all are from Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo simply would not want to compete those properties against each other. So they need to stream line the foreclosed properties in such a way (probably in staggered fashion) so that competition does not happen. And they are not doing very good job (and they never did in past). This problem is more prevalent in new constructions where multiple loans were issued from same bank at the same time (remember the name Countrywide?). I know a guy who works for a bank in SF and developing software to track foreclosed properties (and their relevant information) in more efficient manner. The last news is: they are still working on it. :) So far I have seen anywhere between six months to one year delay for listing foreclosed properties. But it does not surprise me, considering the volume of foreclosures. camping says

We’ve had 3 month moratoriums by the fed and now CA, why is it so impossible for you to imagine them doing a 1 year moratorium when it starts getting bad again?

Well, I am not trying to imagine anything at this moment. If I want to, I could imagine lots of hypothetical scenarios. How about this one: multiple asteroids will drop in neighborhoods where there are too many foreclosures and will destroy all the properties. Banks will collect insurance from insurance company. End of story. No foreclosed property in market, home value goes up. Or may there will be an earthquake. Basically, there are infinite possibilities to "imagine". I would like to see some facts on ground (or atleast some kind of rumors leaked from banks that they are trying to hold those properties forever or long enough). Moratoriums are band-aid solutions from lawmakers to keep citizens and local govts happy. Some banks actually resisted the idea. For example, Bank of America negotiates clouded legal waters

As four U.S. senators joined the chorus of political leaders and activists calling for a foreclosure moratorium, Bank of America continued to resist requests that it voluntarily adopt such measures on Countrywide Financial Corp. loans. "We understand the concerns that have been raised," Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton told Legal Newsline on Tuesday, "and believe there are better alternatives for our customers and communities than broad moratoriums."

camping says

Please just tell me where I said anything about the market behaving like the period of 2003-2007, not just 2003, but the 2003-2007 period.

Ok, may be I misinterpreted you. And I am sorry for that. But please elaborate your point about 2003 and 2009 comparison. I would like to hear it.

Bass, On “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act” (HIPAA). >>Which basically was the frame work for a health care system with “Huge” technical, administration and logistical specification. HIPAA streamlined and standardized all the billing codes and other administrative aspects of the health insurance industry. This is a great improvement. What is wrong with that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA

>> No, it’s obviously the white supremacist forum. Waay to many wingnuts here lately. In fact, there is a huge surge in wing-nuttery all over the web the last 4 months or so.

That's a pretty cool Chronicle link. Thanks. If banks do a bad job of managing properties, what are they going to do with a flood of them? Your long paragraph talks about how slow banks are, yet you find it unreasonable that they may take years to unload foreclosures if they are flooded with them. Not to mention that they have devoted a ton of people to work on "re-working mortgages" now, so they are probably even slower. I personally do not think they are in any rush to unload properties. As you said, they may have to stagger properties as well. Well, if they have 5 in one area and each takes 1 month to sell, then you have a delay of 5 months for the last one, no? Again, if there is a flood of foreclosures, they will stagger them over a longer period of time, which could take several years. As for the 2003 / 2009 comparison, that was in context which is above. In short, it was related to how everyone thinks we're in the crapper, jobs are being lost left and right, yet there are still a decent number of sales going on. If/when the economy picks up, I would think sales would pick up even more. We've only spent like $60B of the $800B+ of the stimulus package and there may be second stimulus package. I think all of that money is going to do something (inflationary).

>> your questioning the actual implementation. Bogus, I did no such thing Anyway, let us talk HIPAA cost and put some numbers on it. Here is an example from a web search: # The complete HIPAAsuite with all the listed modules is $25,000 for the server and one client. # Each additional client is $2,500 # The yearly maintenance fee that guarantees upgrades and service is 20% of the sale price # Price includes data base licenses by IBM. Doesn't seem all that onerous to me. Say you have five doctors in a medical building, buy a server license and some clients, The cost should be pretty managable,. The yearly upkeep is 5k/year per server and $500/year per client. HIPAA is not rocket science. It's just a few thousand billing codes and a database. What's the big deal? Any simple PC can handle this workload, no big iron required. I think the complaints about HIPAA are dishonest. It is just Clinton-did-it-so-it must-be-wrong talking. >> And so much for medical privacy. Bogus again. HIPAA strengthens privacy. Bottom line: Any small business needs an accounting and customer database system. HIPAA is an effective and standardized system for accomplishing what everyone needs in any case. HIPAA creates a big market and creates competition among software vendors. That's how we get efficiency of scale. It's all good.

Some Guy says

WillyWanker says

I don’t know if your retardation was caused because your mother and father are brother and sister or because your father banged your head against the headboard each night in lieu of bedtime stories~~~regardless your condition would make you an ideal candidate for euthanasia. Just think of it as doing the world a favor, asswipe. As far as I am concerned, you can go and sit on 0bama’s flag pole and ‘advise’ him on policy while gyrating lewdly. Just don’t assume I care about your past, present or future. But thanks for sharing.

This is why cousins shouldn’t marry.

No, you are proof of why your parents should not have been allowed to reproduce. Abortion would have been a blessing for you.

Some Guy says

pkowen says

I thought this was a housing forum …

No, it’s obviously the white supremacist forum.

Funny how pointing out 0bama's Mullato heritage has riled you into a frenzy. The fact that his mother was white is something you just can't handle. BitterMuch?

camping says

Your long paragraph talks about how slow banks are, yet you find it unreasonable that they may take years to unload foreclosures if they are flooded with them.

Because I am debating against the argument for reason for delay (not the outcome). Initially you alluded to point that bank would hold properties because they don't want to sell them (to keep inventory artificially lower). I am saying that it is not that they want to, but they have to - because most likely they don't have infrastructure to unload faster. In addition, moratoriums are slowing down foreclosures (hence repossessed properties coming back to market in slower rate). camping says

As you said, they may have to stagger properties as well. Well, if they have 5 in one area and each takes 1 month to sell, then you have a delay of 5 months for the last one, no? Again, if there is a flood of foreclosures, they will stagger them over a longer period of time, which could take several years.

You have to ask yourself, why there is staggering? Because there are there are already too many foreclosed properties in the market, and some of them from very same bank. And if there are too many in market, that defeats your initial argument that banks are intentionally not listing foreclosed homes in market. I don't think anybody would care (except bank itself) if certain foreclosed properties are taking one year to come to market. You have to see how many foreclosed properties are already in market. Rapid inventory will depress the home value in faster rate, and slow increase of foreclosed properties will do it in slower rate. That's the only difference. In the end, what matters is the market trend. So far it's only downwards and no sign of going upward.

camping says

n short, it was related to how everyone thinks we’re in the crapper, jobs are being lost left and right, yet there are still a decent number of sales going on. If/when the economy picks up, I would think sales would pick up even more. We’ve only spent like $60B of the $800B+ of the stimulus package and there may be second stimulus package.

First, just sale volume (and nothing else) is not a good metric to gauge market. Even in worst housing market, there will be certain amount of sales. You have to look at the underlying factors for sales. In 2009 32% sale volume is driven by foreclosure sale. What was the number in 2003? It was definitely not 32%. In fact if there are more foreclosed homes in market, there will be even higher volume sale - probably even higher than 2004/2005 numbers. It does not demonstrate that health of the market is positive. BTW, in 2002-2003 Bay Area was indeed in bad shape. Unemployment in hitech sectors were pretty high. So today's scenario is not exactly same, but not all that different either. However, people's mentality was lot different. In 2003 people used to consider real estate is a safe investment - after losing money on stocks and evaporating stock options. So people were willing to buy house, even if they were expensive. But today not many people think same way. Today's volume of sale driven by different mentality - opportunity to grab foreclosed properties in cheaper price (at least cheaper than two years back).

Most of what you said contradicts itself. The banks don't have the means to unload foreclosures, but the market has too many foreclosures, but they are staggering their foreclosures, and they aren't doing it to keep inventory lower, yet rapid inventory will depress home values faster. You are correct the difference is the rate of the drop in home values. My current view (changes from time to time) is that a slow drop in home values will be offset by inflation and higher mortgage rates to the point where buying in the near future if you can get a deal may be a better option than waiting until 2012.

camping says

Most of what you said contradicts itself. The banks don’t have the means to unload foreclosures, but the market has too many foreclosures, but they are staggering their foreclosures, and they aren’t doing it to keep inventory lower, yet rapid inventory will depress home values faster.

It is not contradiction, but the complexity of the current situation. - Yes, banks don't have means to unload foreclosures in faster rate. - Yes, market has too many foreclosures. - Yes, they are staggering their foreclosures. - Yes, they are not doing it to keep inventory lower. - Yes, rapid inventory will depress home value faster. It's the complexity of current housing market. And I don't think anybody can describe it with simple one liner. So, where is the contradiction?

camping says

y current view (changes from time to time) is that a slow drop in home values will be offset by inflation and higher mortgage rates to the point where buying in the near future if you can get a deal may be a better option than waiting until 2012.

Any given day I would prefer higher interest rate + smaller principal than lower interest rate + bigger principal. Because in later case, the risk is much lower - especially in this volatile time.

If they don't have the means to unload foreclosures, then how does the market have too many foreclosures? They got there somehow. If they are staggering foreclosures, then they are doing it to keep inventory lower (avoid competing with themselves) to avoid depressing home values. Similarly, if they know rapid inventory will depress home values, how can you say they are not doing it to keep inventory lower?