patrick.net

Serpentor says

tatupu70 says

Serpentor says

Did prices in homes go up in 2009, in general prices crashed. Did some areas go up some because of goverment intervention? most likely, but in general prices crashed.

You really do live in a fantasy world. Prices generally went up. About 10%.
Please post ANY article saying prices “crashed” in 2009. Anything. The crickets are standing by…

Right.. just because I misspoke about one year, I live in a fantasy world… has the underlying problem been fixed? How about massive intervention by the government, vast majority of mortgages backed by FHA, massive printing of money, tax credit handouts? Is that the only thing you can find to criticize me on?

Nope--my main criticism was that you attribute motives to other posters and think that people post here in hopes of affecting the overall housing market.

Yes, I think the underlying problem has been mostly fixed. Underwriting standards have been significanly tightened. There will still be higher than normal foreclosure levels for some time, but they will be highly localized to certain areas. Prices will fall in those areas.

Tatupu...Prices are going to fall because a lot of people over-leveraged on their purchases. Very many bought because they got suckered into the idea of it being an investment.... buy and hold for a few years and sell.

My aunt did that. She bought a property for 650,000 (stupidly) beause she wanted to flip it in 5 years to a bigger idiot. She had no common business sense, and well she lost several years of her life and ballooned payments up to a bank and of course foreclosed.

An average person still cannot afford what houses are on the market for. Last year they were all 499 in our area, this year they are all at 399... some are going slowly into 349 bracket. And the reason I know it will go down, because it was originally worth 210 thousand before the ponzi scheme came to life driving the prices up. So it's about another year and a half of price reductions and Bernanke printing money to give to the banks to make them look good on paper.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

Tatupu…Prices are going to fall because a lot of people over-leveraged on their purchases. Very many bought because they got suckered into the idea of it being an investment…. buy and hold for a few years and sell.

No--that's why they have already fallen. Chris_In_LosAngeles says

An average person still cannot afford what houses are on the market for

That may be true in LA--but it's not true in many, many areas of the US.

Mr.Fantastic says

Not all of us want to live in the midwest, high dessert, or other podunk areas. If you had stated that earlier, you wouldn’t have wasted so much time.

Do I detect a note of superiority in that? Not all of us want to live in CA either. When I lived in CA., I think the most annoying part were all the conceited people out there. I'm very happy where I am, thank you.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Not all of us want to live in the midwest, high dessert, or other podunk areas. If you had stated that earlier, you wouldn’t have wasted so much time.

Do I detect a note of superiority in that? Not all of us want to live in CA either. When I lived in CA., I think the most annoying part were all the conceited people out there. I’m very happy where I am, thank you.

Too much defending, not convincing.

Defending? That's rich. You really do think everyone wants to live in CA, don't you? Hey--if you like it, that's all that matters, right?

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Anyone buying a house between 1995 and 2020 is toast. By then, though, the oil will run out and the price of food will start doubling every year as the big ag conglomerates put the squeeze on us. Starving tens of millions of unemployed will turn cannibal after the pets, shoes and discarded wallpaper are consumed. America will fragment into medieval fiefdoms ruled by psychopaths who’ve gathered up the most armaments, draft animals and horses. Rich Chinese tourists will arrive by the millions on hunting tours in which they’ll be free to shoot the survivors from helicopters for a fat fee - payable in Swiss francs.

LMAO We're also here for comic relief.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Not all of us want to live in the midwest, high dessert, or other podunk areas. If you had stated that earlier, you wouldn’t have wasted so much time.

Do I detect a note of superiority in that? Not all of us want to live in CA either. When I lived in CA., I think the most annoying part were all the conceited people out there. I’m very happy where I am, thank you.

Too much defending, not convincing.

Defending? That’s rich. You really do think everyone wants to live in CA, don’t you? Hey–if you like it, that’s all that matters, right?

Still not convinced.

That makes sense because I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

tatupu70 says

Nope–my main criticism was that you attribute motives to other posters and think that people post here in hopes of affecting the overall housing market.
Yes, I think the underlying problem has been mostly fixed. Underwriting standards have been significanly tightened. There will still be higher than normal foreclosure levels for some time, but they will be highly localized to certain areas. Prices will fall in those areas.

Your main criticism noted and ignored, repeatedly. I have just as much right to state my opinion as anyone. so SUCK IT.

You are free to tell me how I should post, I'm free to ignore it and post whatever the fuck I want. :-)

The underlying problem has NOT been fixed. Underwriting standards have been fixed but the main problem is the huge number of mortgages that are either in foreclosure limbo, shadow inventory, underwater, or about to explode. not to mention the unemployment rate and the fact that the rates have been suppressed to artificially low levels... whatever, I feel like a broken record because people clearly are going to hear what they want to hear and ignore reality...no matter how many times you repeat it.

Mr.Fantastic says

Plausible deniability. You don’t have it.

Huh? What are you even trying to say?

Serpentor says

I feel like a broken record because people clearly are going to hear what they want to hear and ignore reality…no matter how many times you repeat it.

I know how you feel. I feel the same way....

Mr.Fantastic says

Oh I see. tatupu is trolling because he couldn’t afford to live in California. Nice.

Oh, I see. I can't afford it? You really think everyone wants to live in CA?? You need to get out more. Honestly.

tatupu70 says

Serpentor says

I feel like a broken record because people clearly are going to hear what they want to hear and ignore reality…no matter how many times you repeat it.

I know how you feel. I feel the same way….

Try again. This time try actually addressing the topic.

Mr.Fantastic says

Let’s see, you rented in NorCal, and tried to find affordable housing for your 100k salary, and found that it didn’t go very far. So you moved into the boonies and are happy with it. That’s fine. I think all of us who were able to stay in California are happy for you.

Not really. I was perfectly happy renting--my rent on a very nice house was less than my current payment. And I live in a large metro area now--believe it or not there are lots of very large cities in the other 49 states. Maybe you've heard of Chicago, or New York, or Philadelphia?

I'm sure you enjoy Irvine--everyone in the other 49 states is happy for you too!

Mr.Fantastic says

Yes but the fact was you couldn’t afford to live here (certainly not on your 100k salary) so you moved. So your opinion can’t really be trusted. It’s like a guy who says “Ferrari sucks” but can’t actually afford one. You’re that guy.

First of all--you don't know my salary. Or my wife's salary. Let's just say it was north of what you are proposing. But, more importantly, we didn't move because we were having a hard time making ends meet. Like I said in my previous post, my housing outlay in my current location is higher than what it was in CA. And our house in CA was nicer than what we are living in here.

So, nice try. I know you find it hard to believe that someone moved from CA because they didn't like it there, but believe me there are LOTS of people like me. I'm not sure why you are so offended by that thought. Do you identify yourself so closely with CA that it's a personal insult to you?

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Yes but the fact was you couldn’t afford to live here (certainly not on your 100k salary) so you moved. So your opinion can’t really be trusted. It’s like a guy who says “Ferrari sucks” but can’t actually afford one. You’re that guy.

Like I said in my previous post, my housing outlay in my current location is higher than what it was in CA. And our house in CA was nicer than what we are living in here.

Good lord, where did you move to, Tokyo or Manhattan? Or maybe London? I can't think of anywhere that has worse housing stock for more money than CA.

Mr.Fantastic says

He’s also a liar. He clearly said his salary was 100k. He couldn’t afford to buy a house in California based on that, but now he’s supposedly living in a much more expensive area? I think tatupu has just been exposed.

Not at all. I just said my wife also worked and our household income was north of the salary you mentioned. I also said in the previous post that we lived very comfortably and rented a house in a very nice area. Where exactly did I lie?

Do you think that there aren't any nice areas outside of CA?

Mr.Fantastic says

He couldn’t afford to buy a house in California based on that, but now he’s supposedly living in a much more expensive area?

And I think you are missing the point. I could have bought a house if I wanted to, but I realized that it was MUCH cheaper to rent. So I rented. And pocketed the difference. That's what pat.net is all about.

Do you not understand this?

pkowen says

Good lord, where did you move to, Tokyo or Manhattan? Or maybe London? I can’t think of anywhere that has worse housing stock for more money than CA.

(edited). Nice areas exist in every metro region. And they are all expensive. Furthermore, I'm cheating a little because I'm comparing my rent with my mortgage payment so it's not exactly apples to apples, but it kind of is. It's housing cost to housing cost.

Mr.Fantastic says

Yes I do.
You RENTED a home here in the Bay Area, and saw that you couldn’t afford to buy one. So you moved to the podunks and bought a big house. Good for you.
Still, the fact is you couldn’t afford to stay here, and now you are in the podunks telling everyone who will listen “not everyone wants to live in California”, yet you tried and failed. Your opinion in invalid.

My lord. I live in one of the top 20 metro areas of the US. If that's podunkville to you, then so be it. I rented because it was cheaper to rent. I moved because I didn't like it there.

Seriously--why does it bother you so much that someone doesn't like CA?

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

He’s also a liar. He clearly said his salary was 100k. He couldn’t afford to buy a house in California based on that, but now he’s supposedly living in a much more expensive area? I think tatupu has just been exposed.

Not at all. I just said my wife also worked

That’s even worse. You now have a double income requirement just to live in your house in the podunks. I don’t understand how that makes things better.
Also you said you “rented” because you chose to, that may be true, but even if you tried to buy, you wouldn’t be able to afford it at 100k.

Are you trying to put me down because I made $100K when I lived out there? Wow--you got me. I feel so inadequate. Because you know, that's how I measure someone--by their paycheck.

And why is rented in quotes? I think you should have put chose in quotation marks because I assume you are implying that I rented out of necessity and not choice. So, despite being an avid reader of pat.net, you think I can't figure out renting was MUCH cheaper than buying?

Seriously--if you're trying to remind me why I didn't like it out there, you're doing a pretty good job.

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

He’s also a liar. He clearly said his salary was 100k. He couldn’t afford to buy a house in California based on that, but now he’s supposedly living in a much more expensive area? I think tatupu has just been exposed.

Not at all. I just said my wife also worked

That’s even worse. You now have a double income requirement just to live in your house in the podunks. I don’t understand how that makes things better.
Also you said you “rented” because you chose to, that may be true, but even if you tried to buy, you wouldn’t be able to afford it at 100k.

Are you trying to put me down because I made $100K when I lived out there? Wow–you got me. I feel so inadequate. Because you know, that’s how I measure someone–by their paycheck.
And why is rented in quotes? I think you should have put chose in quotation marks because I assume you are implying that I rented out of necessity and not choice. So, despite being an avid reader of pat.net, you think I can’t figure out renting was MUCH cheaper than buying?
Seriously–if you’re trying to remind me why I didn’t like it out there, you’re doing a pretty good job.

It is this kind of mindless back and forth, tit for tat, waste of time crap is what has caused so many to leave Patrick.net and not post or even read anymore. I have had a few past posters and readers tell me that the incessant nitpicking, bullying, rude discourse, name calling, cyber fighting, egotistical and hollier than thou attitudes on here had just become too much and I'm sure that more and more are feeling the same way.

that's, more or less, how all forums are. you have to sift through the noise to find the good information.

if you can't handle it, you don't belong on the internet. There is always the Disney channel for all your feel good, pc, reality escaping needs.

I agree. If Mr. Fantastik wants to make an ass out himself, then he can have at it. I have no problem showing him for what he is...

This forum could be very frustrating experience for bulls. :)

lol at bubblesitter.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/12/house-prices-and-months-of-supply-and.html

for the US(represented by 20 cities for CS) not SF

• This is worth repeating: the real price indexes(both CS and CoreLogic) are at post-bubble lows. Those who argued prices bottomed some time ago are already wrong in real terms, and will probably be wrong in nominal terms soon.

bubblesitter says

This forum could be very frustrating experience for bulls.

the only frustrating part is all of the misinformation.

yeah anything that you don't agree with is "misinformation".

toothfairy says

bubblesitter says

This forum could be very frustrating experience for bulls.

the only frustrating part is all of the misinformation.

Oh! you want rosy news. YOY home price increased 20%? That ain't gonna happen. I am sorry that the information is not coming out the way you want. LOL.

bubblesitter says

toothfairy says

bubblesitter says

This forum could be very frustrating experience for bulls.

the only frustrating part is all of the misinformation.

Oh! you want rosy news. YOY home price increased 20%? That ain’t gonna happen. I am sorry that the information is not coming out the way you want. LOL.

How about unemployment applications down sharply. Lowest level in 2.5 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101230/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

Signed contracts up 3.5% in November. Up 22% since low point in June.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Signed-contracts-to-buy-homes-apf-2609887512.html?x=0

Just the headlines from today. But I know--I must be a desperate homeowner trying to justify my purchase. Otherwise why would I post anything on pat.net that might be construed as good news??

Mr.Fantastic says

http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-shiller-if-house-prices-keep-falling-this-fast-the-economy-is-screwed-2010-12?source=patrick.net#yui-main
The Case Shiller was brutal. If you subscribe to Reggie Middleton, it’s even worse. On a year-over-year basis, sales are down more than 25% and the months’ supply of unsold homes is about 50% above where it was during the same months of last year.
But hey, let’s give Tatapu some support before he starts crying again.

No worries. I won't be crying. I pay more attention to forward looking stats. I know where things were 3 months ago--I'm more interested in where they'll be 3-6 months from now....

So, falling unemployment and rising signed contracts = prices falling off a cliff? Is that how it works in your world?

Mr.Fantastic says

Not if it’s Lawrence Yun who is providing the data. The article you posted is a NAR cheerleader press release. Honestly, that guy has never been right about ANYTHING.

I don't care about the fluff in the story. The statistic is the important part.

tatupu70 says

How about unemployment applications down sharply. Lowest level in 2.5 years.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/ICNSA.txt

2010-12-04 585678
2010-12-11 490276
2010-12-18 496955
2010-12-25 521834

Not as bad as 2009 or 2008:

2009-12-05 665685
2009-12-12 555383
2009-12-19 565243
2009-12-26 556517

2008-12-06 760481
2008-12-13 629867
2008-12-20 719691
2008-12-27 717000

But still not "good":

2005-12-03 444600
2005-12-10 391961
2005-12-17 359108
2005-12-24 433397

Things getting less worse is not really getting better!

As the class of '09 runs through their EUC, the loss of those transfer payments ($5B/mo or so) will in fact start rippling out into communities. The 2% FICA cut will help a lot in softening the blow, but we're really only treading water now.

ARRA payments to states are also running out, and with the Party of No given control of the nation's fisc I ain't expecting any miracles on this front, at least not to any "blue" states.

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Not if it’s Lawrence Yun who is providing the data. The article you posted is a NAR cheerleader press release. Honestly, that guy has never been right about ANYTHING.

I don’t care about the fluff in the story. The statistic is the important part.

I'm curious, do you ever read the comments section of those articles?

tatupu70 says

falling unemployment

unemployment actually isn't "falling", either.

from the article:

"Employers added a net total of only 39,000 jobs in November, the Labor Department said earlier this month, and the unemployment rose to 9.8 percent.

"Most economists expect the December jobs report will show larger job gains. The report comes out on Jan. 7. The total number of people receiving unemployment benefits rose in the week ending Dec. 18 to 4.13 million."

~~

40,000 jobs and 9M jobseekers.

Are you beginning to see the problem here?

Troy says

Things getting less worse is not really getting better!

If you had said things getting better doesn't equal things being good, then I'd agree. But things are getting better.

Mr.Fantastic says

Do you even question why “sales” are down” even though “signed contracts” have gone up? Seriously, I’m beginning to question if you’ve ever analyzed any data, ever.

Do you understand time? Signed contracts turn into sales several weeks to a few months later. That's why it's a forward looking statistic. It's not really complicated. Even someone making a measly 100K can understand it...

Troy says

tatupu70 says

falling unemployment

unemployment actually isn’t “falling”, either.
from the article:
“Employers added a net total of only 39,000 jobs in November, the Labor Department said earlier this month, and the unemployment rose to 9.8 percent.
“Most economists expect the December jobs report will show larger job gains. The report comes out on Jan. 7. The total number of people receiving unemployment benefits rose in the week ending Dec. 18 to 4.13 million.”
~~
40,000 jobs and 9M jobseekers.
Are you beginning to see the problem here?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Things were very bad. I agree. Now things are less bad. That's an improvement. Hopefully the trend will continue and in 6 months, things will be even less bad. That will be another improvement.

tatupu70 says

But things are getting better.

To be 'better' requires being good in the first place. Initial claims now are only back to their sustained levels of the 2001-2002 recession.

Manufacturing employment levels are at what they were during the Truman recessions.

Unemployment is still 2-3X as bad as the tech recession:

And that's not even looking at underemployment.

Retail employment is back at 1997 levels:

All Employees: Retail Trade (USTRADE)

If you're in the military, or healthcare, or engaged in some other form of rent-seeking, you're doing OK in this economy still.