patrick.net

Funny...I've noticed the same thing here in L.A.

My ZipRealty search for most of Westside and the southern part of San Fernando Valley (SFRs, 2+ beds, no price limit) had a low of around 1750 properties at the end of december, its shot up to 1850-ish since jan 1st.
A lot of what on there seem to be very large houses (4000 sq ft) on smaller lots, or what I like to refer as 'resets' - places that were listed during 2006, taken off, and relisted (with new prices and DOMs, natch).

Interestingly, it seems to be swelling by area - Pacific Palisades (an insanely expensive area wedged between Santa Monica and Malibu) had over 20 new listings on 2nd Jan, with Beverly Hills and Studio City on the 3rd, followed by Santa Monica on the 4th.

As expected, prices have not fallen much - most of the resets are coming back at the same prices they came off on - and you won't find anything near the coast for less than 700K, no matter how small they are. In the 'my homes' section, there's only been 2 price reductions (both less than 5%) since mid-december.

Guess 'Spring' came early to LaLaLand....;-)

Does one need 30 days for reset on MLS? I remember something about MLS implementing a new rule of forcing relisted properties to stay off for at least 30 days to be considered a "new" listing without showing previous dom.

That sounds like an artificial way to keep the listings off.

SP,

*snark*

It's a good thing that the NAR doesn't seasonally adjust inventory the way they do sales, given that January (and February) are such slow sales months. It sounds like the actual inventory/sales multiples are going to be WAAAAYYYY up there for the next month or two.

/*snark*

Wow, it's already a recovering market - http://tinyurl.com/ygh9ub

"...are up an average of 15% since Dec 31."

So you're saying the sellers upped their asking price by an average of 15% in just this short span of 2007? Well, those are some very hopeful House.com stockholders. I can only guess the local buzz means that 2007 will be another year of solid gains. It's fortunate the Bay Area has so many intelligent, like-minded people to confirm our aspirations in one collective wallet-hug.

"The 15% growth is in the number of results in saved searches that meet the search criteria."

SP-
Ah...thanks, sometimes I skim things too quickly, and I almost believed my mistake, given local talk how the market will recover for 2007.

Ronald Reagan, are you posting as FoodStampCheaters?

The Median 401K balance for workers 65 and over is only $53,400.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060116/16intro.htm

If 401k balances are included they will not make a significant difference to the saving rate. The balances are too small

Anyone claiming that the currently low to negative savings rate is rational will have to explain why it is different now. From the 1960 to the 1980 the savings rate went from 8% to 12% before falling below zero in 2005.

Why didn't voters earlier assume that Congress was willing to "loot anything that moves"?

By the way a Federal Reserve researcher did make an attempt to explain what is different now.

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-30.html

His explanation uses a behavioral explanation. His factors include

...rapid increases in stock market and residential property wealth, which households apparently view as a substitute for the QUAINT PRACTICE OF PUTTING ASIDE MONEY EACH MONTH from their paychecks.

I wish the RE market would correct it self faster. I am a young 26 yearold with a wife and I would like to settle down. I can't raise a kid in the crap hole I live in now, but I also can't afford anything I would be willing to raise a family in; at least not with the standard 30 year mortgage.

How long do these things take to correct themselves? Do any of the more experienced people know a good answer to that question? I would like any pearls of wisdom that I can get.

eburbed Says:

> Ronald Reagan, are you posting as FoodStampCheaters?

I was going to let Different Sean handle this guy since I know he can't imagine even a single person abusing welfare, food stamps, or public housing...

cruzpo Says:

> To thenuttyneutron, Bought a house in South Berkeley in
> 1989 and it gradually lost about 20% of it’s value by 1995.
> Alameda County even lowered our property taxes in
> recognition of this.

I was not doing a lot of detailed research on East Bay values back in the early 90’s, but on the Peninsula and in the South Bay (where I was looking at a lot of REO property) and in Southern California (where I was watching closely as my equity in some apartments disappeared) the values dropped slowly from the day when I called the top (in January 1991 the same day that GHW Bush started calling “Desert Shield” “Desert Storm”) for over 18 months. In those 18 months the drop in values were so small that Realtors did not have to mess with the data much to say that values were “flat” and there were even a few sales at high prices breaking records that gave me hope (remembering that since I had seen real estate make my parents rich I had 98% of my net worth in apartments). In the next 18 months it got ugly with most of the (25% on average drops in N. Cal and big 50% drops in S. Cal). Most CA markets kept dropping a little in 1994, then 1995 to 1998 were basically flat until the dot com boom kicked things in to high gear up here with S. Cal following (and most markets actually outperforming N. Cal on a percentage basis)…

I think that things will play out about the same with timing. I called the top in October 2005 (the day that GW Bush got Iraq to sign the “constitution” that would be the start to “peace in the middle east”). I’m not planning to see things get really ugly until after tax day this year (when all the people that “had to sell in the Spring” either loose their homes or start dropping prices to move them. Last time we had high interest rates “dropping” (and making homes more affordable and investment property make more sense) this time we had record low rates just before the top with rates in the way up to their historic mean. Last time we had almost everyone with a 30 year fixed rate loan and a nice equity cushion, this time we have almost all new owners with crazy suicide loans and almost no equity (and 24 olds owning multiple homes that will all soon be sold by the lenders). It is going to be fun to watch, let’s hope that thenuttyneutron can get his wife on board so they both agree that now is a good time to be a renter and watch this thing melt down…

P.S. I heard a quote today that “every year a couple statisticians drown in rivers with an average depth of three feet and freeze while hiking in forests with an average temperature of 60 degrees”…

Person Says:

>> Why didn’t voters earlier assume that Congress
>> was willing to “loot anything that moves”?

> Well, back then, for that generation of savers,
> it wasn’t apparent that the Social Security system
> would be bankrupt and only be able to thrive through
> massive tax increases.

Anyone that has ever looked at the growth of the ratio between people getting Social Security (who have been living longer every year) compared to the people paying in to Social Security knows that the system is just a slow moving Ponzi scheme.

The year after Social Security was enacted in 1935 Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon questioned its solvency and told Americans that the way the system was structured it would fail in the long run.

After FDR won in what may have been the most lopsided presidential victory in US history most Republicans (along with the Dems.) decided never to mention the solvency of Social Security ever again…

Person:

I am curious what you would call massive tax increases to fix social security. See the table on the top right of the following link Options to Restore Solvency - Table 1

http://www.factcheck.org/article309.html

An increase in payroll taxes by 2% would fix problems in social security for 75 years. Not exactly a massive tax increase

Gavin

Haiku for the McDebtor:

BLACK HOLE HOUSING

That McEdifice
is a McOrifice. Fool!
It will suck you dry...

I checked out Cyberhome, it actually gives HIGHER valuation than zillow in the west side of Bay Area. My home is "worth" $170K more on CH, can I ask for a check for that extra $170K please?

All these free valuation sites are just entertainment sites, both zillow and CH are showing values of homes in 2006 higher than 2005, which we all know is not the case for most homes in most neighborhoods in the Bay Area. I have no idea what their algorithm is, but that algorithm is certainly NOT working in a down market.