0
0

If you are a NINJA...


 invite response                
2007 Mar 19, 1:58pm   8,286 views  94 comments

by Peter P   ➕follow (2)   💰tip   ignore  

... what do you have to lose?

Will you be loyal to your master (i.e. the house and its true owner, aka the bank)?

Will you do whatever necessary to survive (i.e. avoiding foreclosure)?

Who are your enemies (JBRs, MSM, etc)?

Are Japanese kitchen knives any good?

#housing

« First        Comments 90 - 94 of 94        Search these comments

90   DinOR   2007 Mar 20, 7:12am  

Glen,

You're probably right, especially so for the "prime" areas. Las Vegas? Phoenix? No so "prime". They'll probably free fall. I don't subscribe to the theory though that each and every re-set needs to result in a default for this to A) be meaningful or B) take forever.

91   Glen   2007 Mar 20, 7:25am  

Dinor,

I agree...we won't need for the last of the resets to happen for semi-sane prices to return. A tightening of credit should drive down demand, just as the defaults of marginal FBs, excess new construction, etc. add to supply.

However, I wouldn't anticipate a recovery (ie: appreciation) until at least '10 or '11. Maybe later. Because all of the resets will continue to add supply over an extended timeframe and I don't see how we could get a spike in demand to absorb all the new supply.

If you buy in '08 or '09, you will probably be able to get a decent price. But you won't get any appreciation for a while thereafter, IMO.

92   OO   2007 Mar 20, 8:41am  

not to be a dick, but that $1M open lot in Palo Alto has a good reason to be sold for higher-than-average per acre price for city lot. I am not saying it is justified, I am just trying to explain why they are asking such ridiculous price.

Right now, for areas that I track (Los Altos, west Cupertino, west Saratoga, Los Gatos and west Almaden), lots are going for around $2M per acre for flat land. If the slope is 45 degrees steep, of course the price is a lot cheaper. However, undeveloped city lot in Palo Alto goes much higher, as shown in this example, pretty much $3M per acre.

The reason is because of the nasty Palo Alto city codes, it is excruciatingly difficult to tear down a house, in fact, it is almost impossible to tear down a home. All the buyers of these run-down shacks in Palo Alto who plan to tear down and rebuild are in for a big surprise, because they need to battle for months, if not years to get their permit. Therefore, land with no structure on it is far more desirable than those with structure.

In a sense, the city building codes skew the market for urban lots. If you go out to outlying places, for example, Gilroy (my favorite example), you can do whatever you want because Gilroy has very laissez-faire codes, so a flat lot asking for $500K per acre is having trouble finding any buyers. There are hundreds of lots in that price range for sale in Gilroy, and I suspect if the price will easily drop back to $100K per acre, which was the case 3 years ago.

93   LowlySmartRenter   2007 Mar 20, 8:52am  

Funny and sad post allah. "hell i'd beg borrow or stgeal at this point". Seems to me, that's what got her in this mess in the first place.

94   DaBoss   2007 Mar 20, 12:49pm  

Here is what I found from BusinessWeek

http://www.businessweek.com/common_ssi/map_of_misery.htm

Seems California is peppered with payment options loans. Seems like 30-40% is common.

« First        Comments 90 - 94 of 94        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste