patrick.net

Do they even know that the median has gone up 666.666 % since last Friday?

Wow - the number of the beast on BOTH sides of the decimal! Now I know for sure that this bubble is the work of the devil...

Guys,

you've gotta play with propertyshark more, too bad that they only let me get 15 free reports a day, this thing is so addictive that I am playing my Second Life on propertyshark. Propertyshark also has far more detailed transaction records dating further back than Zillow. Sorry that I almost sound like a salesperson for propertyshark. This is just so much fun, it is like playing SIMS for the first time.

Now I have ventured into the habit of randomly clicking highly priced properties in zillow and figuring out the stories behind them on propertyshark. I have encountered at least 7 properties that were bought for $350-800K more in 2000 than their transaction price in 2005-2006, they were all in the price range of $2-3M. And then you cross check the owner names with the internet searches, and the foreclosure reports, voila, Real Life is more exciting than the Second Life. Somebody should design a game around this.

eburbed,
Did you look at the pics from your 101 crash story? What the heck was that truck transporting? Looks like very large pieces of cardboard to me. Maybe it was on its way to the latest McMansion development to be used for making walls????

OMG, a missle attack? I'm pretty sure that website is a 'put on' and not for real. I mean, it HAS to be.

One really cool feature I think propertyshark should add is, when you check a property, it will automatically show the transaction price of comparable properties in the neighborhood for all the previous years, if available. That gives you a much better idea of how much the SAME HOUSE sold for throughout history, that will be the ultimate Robert Shiller index for a particular neighborhood.

Since propertyshark even has lot information, now I have a much better idea of how much the owners paid for the land, when and how much debt he took on (at least initially). When the market slows, I have a far better yardstick to use in my own negotiation.

SFBB,

Also note the couple in the FL article had almost all of their specuvestment activity occur from 2005 on!

Oh, jeeesh.... and they refuse to sell the Outer Banks vacation home. Well, these folks will definitely continue to bleed for awhile. What is scary is that when all is said and done they are probably better off than 99% of the retirees out there. Their net worth still will be north of $1 million (don't cry for me Argentina).

I do enjoy everyone's reports from the field, but a lot of numbers being thrown around here are a ways from the median (nose bleed territory that I have a hard time even comprehending). Aren't houses around the tails of the distribuionalso inherently more volatile anyway?

DAQU,

the sfgate article says that the 6% gain is driven by upscale market, but the transaction number is down 20%. When the market has fewer transactions, and most of the transactions are dominated by you upper class queen bees, it becomes hardly relevant for the majority of us living in or aspiring for a worker bee comb cubicle.

Most of us worker bees cannot afford a $3.85M mansion, and even if I had $5M to spare, I wouldn't put $3.85M into my primary residence. I wonder how much does that $3.85M mansion rent for?

Collapsing sales + falling prices can still equal rising median as the bottom rung gets kicked out first. Learn some math, please. Failing that, learn to hold your breath, cause that's a skill you'll need with your head stuck where it is.

(I mean the sand, you dirty minded sickos!)

DAQU,

No, I will not buy your house until AFTER the foreclosure.

Love, SFBubbleBuyer.

P.S. please stop sending nudie pics.

"So your hypothetical renter never had a rent increase? Riiight."

OK, this quote is many posts up. I have to counter this though.

Oakland is the ONLY place in the country where I've lived for 5 consecutive years in the same building for the entire 5 years WITHOUT a rent increase. I mean it. My apartment isn't rent controlled, while Oakland has rent increase caps that apply. My landlord doesn't even raise my rent according to the caps. My experience isn't unique. Most of my friends who live in Oakland have not had any rent increases in years.

I lived in the same apartment in Chicago for seven years from 1994-2000. Every year in that apartment I had a rent increase. Every year the landlord wanted a 10% increase in rent! For the first four years I was able to talk him down to a 5% increase every year. The last three years were 10% increases due to a change in management (they were jerks!). I ALWAYS have paid my rent on time no matter where I've lived. In Chicago rent increases are customary and expected. That's why most renters move every couple of years there. (I just hate moving and really, it costs more to move than to pay the increase in rent most of the time).

Even in Davenport, Iowa I had a rent increase for the two years I lived there. It was about 5%.

From what I've learned from people who have lived here longer than me in Oakland is that so long as you pay your rent on time, most likely the landlord won't raise your rent because they appreciate good tenants here. That has been my experience. I know I'm not unique.

In my experience, the Bay Area is one of the more renter-friendly areas I've lived in.

Actually, having moved out about 5 years ago, and then moved back, I'm pay LESS rent for a better place now than when I left. So, yah, it's possible you have no rent change for 5 years. Or even a decrease. I was just pointing out that she was constructing an obvious strawman argument.

BTW, what do you think that $850,000 property will be worth in 3 years? Well over $3.5 million, that’s for sure.

If go with an annual 2% real price increase and 3% inflation, I get 3.6M which I think is generous since I think the $850,000 properties are about $200,00 overpriced. If I give it the 200,000 hair cut now and then apply 5% I get 2.8M.

You may scoff at 2% real but there was a study done about Amsterdam and over 400 years real appreciation was 0.4% annually.

I also can do better by margining my equities. Personally I don't like the risk of margin loans but then again I don't like the risk of huge mortgage on overpriced property either. I would say that unmargined equities are less risk over 30 years than one house since I would be completely diversified in equities. Any house I buy could be destroyed by an earthquake. I could buy earthquake insurance but it's expensive and would tilt calculation further in terms of equities. There are no end catastrophes that can befall one concentrated investment. Even an event like the Enron meltdown is non-issue in a fully diversified equity portfolio.

You may still prefer real estate. I really don't care. What annoys me are people who claim real estate has some magically high risk return ratio that can not be matched by other investments. Such a claim is completely false and misleading. My buyers are on the road to foreclosure because they bought into such non-sense.

DAQU

When are we gonna get to see those pix of yourself you promised a couple threads ago? Quit teasing us. At least point us to your realtor mugshot (but most here are expecting something that shows leg).

Thanks DAQU!!!

New Thread everyone!