« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 241 Next » Last » Search these comments
thenuttyneutron,
You are welcome to re-distribute as you see fit. Unfortunately, what you see is what you get, quality-wise. It was just a composite of a bunch of low-quality news jpegs I got off the net, so that limits the size somewhat.
I cannot unload my overpriced $1.8 million home -- how about a raffle. Now that's creative!
Big dream$: Since last fall, the Mount Madonna School -- a college prep academy in the hills outside Santa Cruz with an enrollment of 180 students -- has been promoting one of the most unusual raffles we've ever seen.
The prize is a $1.8 million "dream house'' in west Santa Cruz, with tickets going for $150 each. The school has been promoting its home sweepstakes in newspaper ads across the Bay Area, including in The Chronicle.
But here's the odd part:
The school doesn't really expect to give away the picture-postcard, three-bedroom house. In fact, it doesn't even own it.
According to spokesman Neal Martin-Zeavy, the school intends to give away the house only if it sells at least 26,500 raffle tickets. Otherwise, the winner will receive half the raffle's net earnings -- a figure that Martin-Zeavy puts at about $1 million.
Martin-Zeavy insists that while this isn't mentioned in the newspaper ads, it is explained in the fine print of the official rules and regulations posted on the school raffle Web site.
Even if the school does sell enough tickets to meet its goal, the winner still has the option of taking $1.5 million in cash instead of the house.
If the winner takes the house, the couple who own it will hand it over to the school and get their $1.8 million.
Whatever happens by Friday's entry deadline, the school looks to make a killing.
If only 20,000 or so tickets sell, as appears likely, the total take is about $3 million. Deduct $1 million for the grand prize winner (in lieu of the house), $140,000 in runner-up prize money and the $100,000 or so spent promoting the contest, and the little school still stands to clear more than $1.5 million.
So much for the old-fashioned bake sale.
thenuttyneutron,
Interesting!
WRONG! But... interesting.
(Actually you're spot on. I just love saying that) :)
In typical Vegas fashion the mentality is that if you can "hang in there" long enough the big pay-off will be there, but only HARM can asnwer that for sure.
skibum,
You can find the link to the old Photoshop thread in my "May 15th, 2007 4:34pm" post above.
In the 90s when a smaller version of this meltdown happened I remember one creative homeowner hired a panel of English teachers and had an essay contest. It cost $X to enter your essay and the winner was given the house. I didn't think it was legal at the time but it was an interesting story that the local news picked up.
ozajh Says:
Homeowner’s equity gets an A+, because it’s just about at the highest NOMINAL value ever, despite in PERCENTAGE terms being very low.
No kidding. And what happens to all that vaunted vapor-equity if prices really start taking the plunge? We're just at the start of the roller-coaster downslope on lender tightening and option-ARM resets, with 5-6 more years to go, if history is any guide. FBs better hope heli-Ben starts aggresively reflating soon.
Prices increased for the third month in a row to a new record, a real estate information service reported.
See, no bubble! :)
Buy, Buy, Buy!
Indicators of market distress are moving in different directions. Financing with adjustable-rate mortgages is declining significantly. Foreclosure activity is rising but is still in the normal range. Down payment sizes are stable and flipping rates and non-owner occupied buying activity is down, DataQuick reported.
Coming from Pollyanna/NAR-fanboys like DQ, this is like saying, "The sky is falling! Run for the hills!!"
I'll know the RE perma-bull dam has really cracked when I see Kudlow turning bearish.
Indicators of market distress are moving in different directions.
Like "Haywire?"
"Sales have decreased on a year-over-year basis the last 27 months."
Did I read that right?
tannenbaum,
Well said. Unless you're in the industry you either have to:
A. Take it at face value
B. Get the funny feeling something isn't right
C. Find room for one more reminder "post-it" on your PC
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_5910126
"But in those expensive counties, there's a catch to understanding the increase in median prices: The mix of homes that are selling has changed. Considerably fewer homes than normal are selling in the least expensive neighborhoods. With those out of the mix, the median price rises. Some homes in some neighborhoods are gaining in value, certainly - but this spring, "market mix" is also a factor clearly influencing the increase in median prices."
Also, the trend for asking prices is decidedly down while the trend of inventory is firmly up.
http://www.housingtracker.net/old_housingtracker/location/California/SanJose/
The only reason the median has increased in the last 3 months is because of a higher proportion of high end sales versus the plummeting of entry level sales. Few entry level sales skews the numbers to a higher median price. Funny how Data Quick never really mentions this.
To DataQuick's credit they explicitly mention this phenomena in yesterday's release for the SoCal numbers. Note that parts of Socal are seeing over a 45% (San Bernadino and Riverside counties) dropoff in sales (which clearly affects the mix). The average drop in sales for SoCal is ~28% while NorCal is ~18% (with the highest drop offs in Solano and Contra Costa).
And as lunarpark points out, some of the news agencies are catching on to the fact that the median is not the whole story.
EBGuy,
I'm not out to totally... discredit DQ but doesn't it seem odd that they only reveal certain interpretations of the data when it's all but obvious? Perhaps the "median debate" isn't as hotly contested in the MSM as it is here but there have been those over the last few quarters that have challenged it's value.
I am not a fan of Freud. I like Jung better. Synchronicity all the way!
All I did was quoting a scholarly publication by a famous man.
People can still question your motive.
If I were to psychoanalyze you, I would say that you have a subconscious desire for conflicts.
Won’t you say you learned something new today from Herr Freud?
I learn something new every day. That is the wonder of living.
In tough housing times like this, shouldn’t people be able to afford less expensive homes? Shouldn’t lower end homes be selling quicker?
Absolutely not. The ability for lower-end people to afford housing has been affected. As a result, low-end housing are not transacting.
Is there data to back this up somewhere? For example, the average house square foot should have gone up in the recent year (bigger house = more expensive) if this is true, right?
Not necessarily. Better homes in better locations are more expensive.
You can also take a look at the asking price trend. If the median asking prices is going down while the median sale price is going up, you know the mix is changing.
@James,
Excellent question. We know the median price can be skewed in either direction (up or down) by a greater-than-average number of sales of either very high-end houses or low-end houses. It can also be skewed by lower-than-average sales volume (like we're seeing now), because each individual sale that gets recorded represents a larger fraction of total sales for a given area.
But the real question for us is, do the numbers really support the assumption that mostly high-end houses are selling, and skewing the median higher?
I'm pretty sure the OFHEO quarterly sales report is coming out soon (tomorrow?), and that it --unlike CAR's "median" stat-- mostly relies on same-house sales. In other words, while it's not perfect (excludes condo/townhouse/co-op sales) it is a little better at comparing apples to apples: http://www.ofheo.gov/HPIFAQ.asp
If anyone out there has some good stats/links on what the break-down is for houses that are selling now vs. previous years, please post them.
However, I do not expect prices to have come down significantly already. Core Bay Area is still a Frickin Fortress.
"Yeah, that usually happens when it hits the fan" LOL!
Watch out below, above and to the sides! Aw the hell with it, get coveralls and rubber boots!
Watch out below, above and to the sides! Aw the hell with it, get coveralls and rubber boots!
I would just leave the room.
I’m a little suspicious of www.housingtracker.net’s data. It claims that the current inventory of the SF area is 15639 and the data is taken from MLS listings. But if I go to mlslistings.com and choose the San Francisco, Alameda, and San Mateo counties, I see only 2778 listings available. Am I missing something here?
Feel free to email the guy - I've done it before. He's pretty friendly.
The phenomenon of falling house prices on the outskirts while prices of homes in the prestigious areas are stable has occurred in Sydney, Australia a couple of years ago based on news reports I have seen.
Anyone with more experience of the Australian housing market would care to explain why prices of the more expensive homes in Sydney remained stable.
Gavin,
Sydney is the financial centre of Australia, so the London/Manhattan effect applies (on a smaller scale, of course) to the more expensive houses.
HARM,
IIRC the Case-Schiller methodology used by S&P to obtain the prices for their traded futures is also based on repeat sales.
I would suggest this might be the most carefully measured/calibrated of all the house price indices, because S&P have a real monetary interest (trading volume) in it being an "honest measure".
Only applies to 10 cities, though.
ozajh and HARM,
I would tend to agree with all of you about the Case-Schiller and OFHEO indices as being most accurate, especially compared to the NAR and even the Census Bureau data. What I've always wondered about was the relatively small sample size resulting inaccurate representation of the "true" trend.
And BTW, the Case-Schiller index is decidely DOWN for SF.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 241 Next » Last » Search these comments
A Farewell to (option-)ARMs
David Lereah has officially vacated his post as chief
shill,propagandist, economist for the NAR. Needless to say, we're really going to miss him here at Patrick.net. Over the many months we have been following him, we have come torevile,detest,loathe, appreciate him as a reliablebald-faced liar,shameless industry whore, source of real estate market information, as well as the public face of the NAR.David will most likely be replaced by well known NAR
lackey,toady,devil spawn, senior economist Lawrence Yun, as he moves on to pursue other interests. He reportedly left his post at the NAR due tobeing universally reviled,having zero credibility,the repeated death threats, wanting more time to spend with his family and to accept a new position as Chairman of Move, Inc.So long, David! We all wish you the best!
HARM & the gang
#housing