patrick.net

@FAB,

Thanks for the link. I just posted a note on the boston.com board to let them know. I'm glad Carol Lloyd is with the program - it's clear she's lurking on this and other RE boards!

Hi Carol!

The NAR is smoking crack. I don't know if that's ever been in contention. We beat this to death many months ago in Realtors(tm), Credibility and Influence.

And to answer Carol's question: How can it be a good time both to buy and to sell? Isn't that like saying it's a good time both to buy Microsoft and to sell Microsoft? I know, I know, this isn't a perfect analogy.

It can very easily be good to both buy and sell MSFT, so long as it's not the _same person_ doing it. That is, it can be in both parties profitable interest to both buy and sell. The same applies to real-estate.

skibum,

Carol's coverage of the topic has been...... careful. Understand many of her readers are homedebtors and it seemed like she needed a little more convincing lest she be labeled an "alarmist". Most journalists do check the blogs to gauge sentiment but I'd definitely say we've had an influence on her and perhaps others as well. When she was done, there was a smoking hole and the charred remains of $40mil in it.

Didn't we just do a thread on this and conclude that we were all just JBR's basically venting?

Randy H,

Agreed and I think Carol so much as admitted it wouldn't be a perfect analogy. I guess it all depends on your cost basis, wether you are harvesting a tax loss or covering a short.

At it's core though her statement holds up. With the considerable RPM's of NAR's spin it can be difficult to know where to grab on. I don't often hear of the stock market being referred to as a buyer's or seller's market b/c we all show every damn day with very different agendas. Right now the NAR needs more inventory like the need another hole in the head so they felt compelled to couch things in those terms. Carol just got stuck in an argument w/ a drunk, that's all.

Didn’t we just do a thread on this and conclude that we were all just JBR’s basically venting?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Yes, we're all JBR's. Where's ConfusedRealtor to remind us?

Randy H,

Of course it makes sense that in any inefficient market there can be good opportunities to both buy AND sell. However, the NAR is clearly trying to imply that the overall RE market is great for both as a rule, not as an exception with individual circumstances. It's implausible to me how the larger overall "RE Market" can be such that it's good to both buy and/or sell at the same time.

It can very easily be good to both buy and sell MSFT, so long as it’s not the _same person_ doing it. That is, it can be in both parties profitable interest to both buy and sell. The same applies to real-estate.

Yep, this is why trade between nations and trade between individuals takes place. Each side derives more value from the good that they receive than the good that they sell.

If I could take out a 100 year loan at 0% and there's some old guy who'd like his cash for his house now so he can travel the globe before he croaks, we both benefit from him selling his house to me at a monthly payment which matched my current rent even though that means a purchase price of $2.6 Million. (ok, ok, taxes and mobility loss factors in as well, but you get the point) Super low interest rates do have an effect on our ability to make a mutually acceptable deal.

Don't be overwhelmed by the dismal science; it's not all about profit and loss. When I bought my first new car a few years ago, I knew that I took a 20% paper loss as soon as I signed the papers accepted the keys. I still love the car and have derived enough value already to make the purchase price worth it.

Of course, a $4000 paper loss is a lot easier to swallow than an $140K paper loss... gulp...

@FRIFY,

Yes, I'll buy that there are examples in any RE market where a real estate transaction is mutually beneficial to buyer and seller. And, I'll agree that the "utility factor" needs to be accounted for. In fact, most RE transactions to some degree HAVE to benefit both buyer and seller, otherwise, there would likely be no motivation on the part of either or both parties, and even fewer transactions than there currently are! Exceptions are primarily when the seller is being "forced" to sell due to job relocation, divorce, foreclosure, all the usual stuff.

That aside, I reiterate my point, that the NAR's implication is that overall market conditions, which they list in that now infamous ad - low interest rates, inventory about to plummet (yeah, right), AG saying the worst is behind us, all that CRAP - couldn't be better for both buyers and sellers.

That is patently untrue.

Three cheers for Carol Lloyd!

I remember when she was firmly in the bubble-denier camp no so long ago. In fact, I think I once flamed her about that. In any case, she has come full circle and fully repented her sins. The same cannot be said of Alan Greedspin, who continues to spew shit (from 'retirement' no less), all with the aim of protecting his so-called "legacy".

Speaking of Charlie Rangel...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/rangel.mississippi.ap/index.html

I am a big fan of Carol LLyod's "Surreal Estate" and have been reading since its inception as an online only column (it now also appears in print). Just as a FYI, she has been though (I think) three real estate transactions within the last couple of years:
DIY SOMA TIC -> Alameda House -> SF House
To her credit, she writes about her personal experiences including a recent HELOC remodel. Also, according to her byline:
,i>She teaches a class on buying your first home in the Bay Area...

I'd have to say that Carol has always shown "bubble curious" tendencies. Even when she was outwardly professing to be as All American RE Perma Bull as the next gal there were......... certain.......signs. Little things really.

It can very easily be good to both buy and sell MSFT, so long as it’s not the _same person_ doing it. That is, it can be in both parties profitable interest to both buy and sell. The same applies to real-estate.

I suppose it is true, to some extent, that it can be simultaneously a "great time to buy" an asset (for person A) and a "great time to sell" the same asset (for person B), giving differing utility, time horizon, tax considerations, etc.... However, in retrospect it was a terrible time to buy and a great time to sell Amazon.com for almost anyone when it hit $216/share in 2000, just as it was a terrible time for almost anyone to buy New Orleans real estate (and a great time to sell) pre-Katrina.

Utility considerations are less relevant when speaking of investments. Assuming for the moment that real estate is an "investment," we should measure it as such. For the vast majority of investors, it is a "great time to buy" if above-average returns can be earned in the future by buying a particular asset today. And it is a "great time to sell" if below-average returns will be earned if you hold an asset instead of selling it and redeploying your funds.

In hindsight, you can see which periods of time were "great times to buy" and "great times to sell" assets. Looking forward, it is very hard to predict. And it is almost certainly *not* the case that it is a great time to buy *and* a great time to sell for the majority of market participants in the current RE market.

giving = given

Very well said, Glen.

Impolitic, but keep in mind his core constituency (before the yuppies invaded Harlem) are the people who fled Mississippi and Alabama about two generations ago.

I still maintain the South sucks. Not necessarily sucks more than Harlem, but at the very least, the Southern weather really sucks.

Goober - yah know, there was a reason why I stay semi-anonymous...I really can't afford more dental work;)

I really can’t afford more dental work;)

You just need to learn kick-boxing well.

Np, goober.

Granted the South isn't without it's problems, esp. ongoing race issues, and is not exactly, er... "progressive" on technology and science. Nonetheless, I get a little tired of all the California=liberal Paradise / South=backward red-state Hell nonsense. At least in most parts of the South (excepting FL), most working-class families can still afford to buy an average house on one salary, while their kids can attend public school without having to dodge bullets and/or learn a foreign language.

The flag of mississippi still incorporates the confederate battle flag. The state voted 2-1 to retain the flag as recently as 2001. This is in a state with almost a 1/3 African American population. So in other words, the overwhelming majority of white Mississippi voters chose to retain this symbol of oppression.

Their senior Senator said that the country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been elected President on his pro-segregationist platform.

They rank last in the nation in aptitute test scores and per capita GDP.

I have never been to Mississippi, but all indications seem to be that it is still a pretty backward place.

Also, Astrid says the weather sucks. Why is it so windy in Mississippi? Because Louisiana sucks and Alabama blows (credit to Al Franken for that one, though he used it re: MN).

Not arguing about the racism. It's a whole lot better than, say, 1960, but still there. My wife is hispanic and experienced some firsthand when we lived in Atlanta 12 years ago.

Also, Astrid says the weather sucks.

Maybe so, but have you ever been to Minnesota in January? (better bring a snowplow & parka)

HARM,

I'm not so sure about those Mississippi public schools... They also rank last in spending per pupil.

Sure, you could afford to buy a house there. But you would probably have to settle for employment at the local Stuckey's. Not a lot of good jobs.

HARM,

One of the things I really want to do before I die is to spend a winter in Trondheim (northernmost city in the world), so Minnesota winter doesn't sound so bad.

Though I haven't tried yet, I might really hate it.

sorry, that's Tromso...silly me.

HARM,

Atlanta is "the New South." I'm guessing Mississippi is worse by several orders of magnitude.

Minnesota weather sucks too. I grew up in Massachusetts and the weather sucks there too. Maybe it is smug to say so, but California really does probably have the best overall weather. Coastal Florida is probably #2, but the humidity is pretty bad in the summer.

One good thing about the muggy weather, though, is that they have a lot of very lush greenery in the south and the spring air smells sweet (unless you are down-wind from the Gulf coast refineries).

goober,

Lighten up. Just making conversation. I never claimed to be an expert on Mississippi.

I could be totally wrong about Mississippi. Maybe the weather is beautiful and the state is full of PhD scholars and Green party activists for all I know. Maybe they chose to incorporate the Confederate flag as an ironic indictment of their racist past. Anything is possible.

Nevertheless, it seems silly to me that I would actually have to go and live there before I could form any kind of an impression.

I grew up in Massachusetts and the weather sucks there too. Maybe it is smug to say so, but California really does probably have the best overall weather.

Ahhh freedom, you see, if you are from Mass, you can go just about anywhere, California natives however have a certain Faustian bargain; we have sunshine shackles. It’s the colostomy bag defense, “well at least you’re not crapping in a bag”.

Maybe they chose to incorporate the Confederate flag as an ironic indictment of their racist past. Anything is possible.

Or maybe they are bad artists and meant to hoist the Union Jack.

test

[img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-035.gif[/img]

testes

I find that when I live in a place, I learn less about it than when I visit. (Assumes a visit of at least a week or two.) When I'm traveling, I spend time walking around, exploring, and observing. I'm also getting a more objective view; it's very easy to become accustomed to things when you encounter them all the time.

e.g. "Bob likes kicking puppies, but he's a great family guy, so we've learned to live with his eccentricities."

Maybe the weather is beautiful and the state is full of PhD scholars and Green party activists for all I know.

Who says either of these would be a good thing???

It’s the colostomy bag defense, “well at least you’re not crapping in a bag”.

WTF??? Is that the next higher level beyond the Chewbacca defense?

skibum,

Not good or bad, just contrary to the stereotyp of Mississippians.

oops. stereotype

Either way, I agree w/ surfer-x. Californians in general are way too geocentric. I think it really comes off as very condescending to non-Californians. Funny thing is, quality of life here sucks for lots of people compared to many other parts of the country.

Ouch. I almost feel I'm being baited about the South, but refuse to believe it. It reminds me of the 'freedom fries' moment.

Y'all behave, now...

Goober,

Very true. I was stating subjective personal impressions about Mississippi and Alabama, as observed by someone who lived in Oklahoma for a couple years and really hated Houston weather.

We do have a close family friend who was a grad student in Columbia for a while, so I do stand by my statement about the suckiness of Harlem.

Skibum, I agree, but if you were b/r (born raised) in Santa Cruz, went to school at Cal Poly and live in $anta barbara, exactly where else are you going to live? You have no choice but to don the knee pads and take it like a man.

Bruce,

Fine. How about we spend our time bashing a certain Swedish vodka producer, accompanied by a drinking game of some sort?