Here are two interesting videos to watch from Prechter. He called the crash…. then he called the reflexive bounce at the end of February 2009…...... and now he’s calling for a depression like pull back…... after the expected reflexive bounce alla 1929-1930….
I don’t understand why the realtor keeps the listing and doesn’t blow out the client.
I need a drink.
Posted by Freetrader on 08/15/09 at 08:09 AM
That’s just weird. They move it down by a few thousand (or one hundred!) every few months. And then they have the audacity to try to “take advantage” of the rally by raising the price 10k in June. I wonder whether they get any offers.
Posted by Anonymous on 08/15/09 at 08:25 AM
Good article in wsj today
The New American Dream: Renting
It’s time to accept that home ownership is not a realistic goal for many people and to curtail the enormous government programs fueling this ambition. By Thomas J. Sugrue
Sure looks like they’re fishing for any fool who has got too much cash and needs to overpay for a depreciating asset. As for the realtor, he’s probably got nothing else going on, so why not go fishing as well. Have a beer, the fish aren’t biting these days.
Posted by socalappraiser on 08/15/09 at 08:55 AM
No Vaseline -
Not sure what the deal is in this particular case. In my experience dealing with realtards, (used house salesmen) a lot of them take the listing just to get their sign up in the front yard so the rest of the sheeple think that realtard is the area “specialist”. As IR says the monopoly on the information is being broken day by day. I think back to appraisal days at the dawn of digital photography and how the Fotomat stores thought “people love the tradition of getting photos developed” and “digital will never replace film quality” I see the same outcome for realtards. There may always be a market for the ultra rich person that does not have or want to take the time to do for themselves. But for most people in SoCal will they continue to give 10-20k to someone to push paper? You could get an attorney (that has actually gone to school and passed a significant exam instead of a high school educated, bored housewife with breast augmentation and a leased Lexus) to do the same papaerwork for 5k or less. Either way the average used house salesman will go the way of the Fotomat. Appologies to the 10% of good agents out there.
Cheers,
Socalappraiser
Posted by Sue in Irvine on 08/15/09 at 09:15 AM
Ah, it’s down the street from the long ago infamous Castle house. The huge lot at the end of Kron. That was a good story way back when. Owner vs city, bar owner sends his girls to help fix it up. I’m planning on winning the Irvine raffle today at 3:00 out in Woodbury. I’ll take the $248,000 or even the second place Prius.
As a realtor, sometimes you keep the listing up keep your name on the sign. You have already done the work of putting the listing in the MLS, etc. For the realtor, they are not only fishing for a buyer for this house, but also to get leads for buyers to show other houses.
The homeowner is the one that has final say on the price so I place most of the blame on them. Realtors should try to get the sellers to a realistic price however.
The government-sponsored housing programs should never have existed in the first place. They all skewed development towards increasingly remote suburbs while redlining good city nabes during the 50s and 60s, and have always promoted careless lending and overborrowing.
They started as part of Roosevelt’s conviction that the best way to improve the lives of Americans was to get them out of the cities to the countryside, while the poor were given housing projects and, much later in the 70s, Section 8.
All these various programs have accomplished is to drive both rentals and purchase prices up and gut our cities, both by promoting suburban-sprawl development and by destroying intact neighborhoods with Section 8.
You will notice that most people in this country aren’t any better housed than they were 50 years ago, and that we have more homeless people than ever, while everyone else has been paying a much larger percentage of their incomes for lesser dwellings.
Posted by MalibuRenter on 08/15/09 at 11:59 AM
Don’t apologize to the 10% of good agents.
Agents and the local associations of realtors need stronger and different regulation. They also need to put some actual money into software. MLS software varies from place to place. Much of the third party software kicks its butt. Aerial views? Sales price history? Nearby rents? Not on many MLS systems, but on other systems like Redfin, Trulia, Hotpads, or Ziprealty.
Posted by Alan on 08/15/09 at 12:53 PM
It looks like a nice, middle-class house. All it really needs is a middle-class affordable price. At the rate theyÄre going with the listing, maybe in 10 more years? Unless of course a foreign cash buyer stops by.
Posted by steve smith on 08/15/09 at 02:29 PM
Does anyone know what happened to advantix lending? I think they went under. They no longer have a website? The management were a bunch of scumbags.
Posted by tjwilliams on 08/15/09 at 03:43 PM
define: chasing the market.
Posted by LC on 08/15/09 at 03:44 PM
My God, the WSJ just drives me crazy. Thy are absolutely fixated with the idea of keeping the existing money/power structure in place—or maybe a return to the good old days of robber barons and plantations.
Who needs an American Dream? Just this past week we had Moorlach saying “do we really need buses in Orange County?” The clock just seems to go backwards for these people. I know that capitalism cannot be pure evil. Is there really no place for helping the lowest members of our society?
Posted by norcal on 08/15/09 at 04:11 PM
I don’t think FCBs go for 37-year-old houses. They like new ones, and for that kind of money, they should!
Posted by OC_Boston_Bay on 08/15/09 at 05:23 PM
did you go get one at 8:10 a.m.? Even when I was on a lengthy vacation this summer I could never pour myself a drink at 8am. It just felt wrong. And I feel old.
Posted by SPREAD THE WORD!! on 08/15/09 at 07:39 PM
Irvinerenter,
Irvine homes should not sell for more than $250 - $275 per sf. SPREAD THE WORD!! If you take year 2000 price/sf and inflate by 4% per year this is where in comes in at. Do not overpay!! Do the math. This is no lie. You need to give people on this blog specific #‘s so that people understand.
Posted by awgee on 08/15/09 at 08:26 PM
95% of government sponsored anything should never exist, including Medicare.
You note that people are not better housed with government intrusion. Ditto medical care.
Posted by chuckconners on 08/15/09 at 08:27 PM
8 AM cocktails? Too early. What kind of trouble could I get into the rest of the day. And I feel old,also.
Posted by awgee on 08/15/09 at 08:28 PM
There is a place for people to help the struggling in society. Forcing people to “help” via government intrusion is the opposite of help.
Posted by NickelDime on 08/15/09 at 08:44 PM
oh where to begin.
read the previous posts… IR has long since discussed equivalent rent / gross rent multiples as a means of deriving value.
start here: http://tinyurl.com/kphthn
Posted by NickelDime on 08/15/09 at 08:45 PM
Sorry wrong link:
http://tinyurl.com/oqgzzt
Posted by MalibuRenter on 08/16/09 at 05:24 AM
Which policies are you talking about promoting sprawl? The mortgage interest deduction? Cheap lending? Interstate highway system?
If you want to know why people move to those outer areas, the four most common reasons are: lower crime, lower housing prices, more space, and better schools. In many places, you can also include getting away from restrictive building rules, or pollution.
Local zoning and development laws are often a source of development elsewhere. Santa Barbara is an excellent example. The City put such a tight lid on development that nearby Santa Maria exploded in size, with many people living outside of the Santa Barbara city limits coming to work there. They got much of the traffic congestion, with less of the income from things like property taxes. Similar pattern in Santa Monica. Despite many people wanting to live there, it has a lower population than 1980. Driving toward Santa Monica at rush hour has some of the lightest traffic in LA.
Posted by MalibuRenter on 08/16/09 at 05:35 AM
The government “supports” which should be eliminated are:
1. The home mortgage interest deduction in its current form. If you want such a deduction, it should only apply to a maximum of the initial loan. No cashout refis. No home equity loan deductibility. If this law had been different, the bubble would have been moderately smaller.
2. Make cashout refis and home equity loans triggers for additional CA property taxes. Refinances for less than the initial sales price of the house would not trigger any additional property tax. This would have also had a modest effect in CA.
3. Require larger and larger downpayments as price to rent ratios get higher. This is the opposite of what actually occurred. This would have had a huge effect on the bubble. It would have removed much of the fuel from the fire. It would also have made losses to the banking system and taxpayers far smaller.
Posted by LC on 08/16/09 at 11:35 AM
It is not the government sponsorship that caused the blooming suburbs. You can’t make that connection. Government sponsorship also leads to high density housing. I can point to many, many examples. The automobile probably did more to cause that. Maybe it was the government sponsoered roads. Ultimately, it always seems to be the fault of government. I would rather have a home-owning middle class. We are not getting rid of the government any time soon, despite the WSJ’s best efforts. What do we want the government to do?
Posted by T on 08/17/09 at 06:08 PM
re: Astute Observation by MalibuRenter
2009-08-16 06:35 AM
Agreed.
But I would like to see Home mtg interest deduction eliminated altogether. And I’d like to see the rent subsidies targeted at teachers and lower paid govt workers not dead beats… and I’d like to see govt pension entitlements decimated… to the same level as my entitlements. Let em use the same health care deals as the rest of us, and then see how fast the mess gets fixed.
As I recall, Prechter called the crash in late 2007—and the one in 2006, and the one in 2005, and the one in 1997, too.
Statistically, constantly calling doom will work about once every 7-10 years, more or less; constantly calling happy days will work about half the time, and expecting stasis in the coming year will work about a third of the time.
One the whole, then, Prechter’s advice is rather worse than the average CNBC nightingale’s! He’s too much like a stopped clock—right twice a day—to provide useful advice.
Posted by mav on 08/16/09 at 08:14 AM
Here are two interesting videos to watch from Prechter. He called the crash…. then he called the reflexive bounce at the end of February 2009…...... and now he’s calling for a depression like pull back…... after the expected reflexive bounce alla 1929-1930….
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/298981/Inflation-Not-a-Problem-“Deflationary-Depression”-in-Our-Future-Prechter-Says?tickers=skf,sds,sso,dxd,ddm,iyr,srs
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/299205/Bob-Prechter-“Quite-Sure”-Next-Wave-Down-Will-Be-Bigger-and-March-Lows-Will-Break
The next move is a move to cash equivalents.
Posted by no_vaseline on 08/15/09 at 07:05 AM
I don’t think they want to sell this house.
I don’t understand why the realtor keeps the listing and doesn’t blow out the client.
I need a drink.
Posted by Freetrader on 08/15/09 at 08:09 AM
That’s just weird. They move it down by a few thousand (or one hundred!) every few months. And then they have the audacity to try to “take advantage” of the rally by raising the price 10k in June. I wonder whether they get any offers.
Posted by Anonymous on 08/15/09 at 08:25 AM
Good article in wsj today
The New American Dream: Renting
It’s time to accept that home ownership is not a realistic goal for many people and to curtail the enormous government programs fueling this ambition. By Thomas J. Sugrue
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350432677038184.html
Posted by JL on 08/15/09 at 08:49 AM
Sure looks like they’re fishing for any fool who has got too much cash and needs to overpay for a depreciating asset. As for the realtor, he’s probably got nothing else going on, so why not go fishing as well. Have a beer, the fish aren’t biting these days.
Posted by socalappraiser on 08/15/09 at 08:55 AM
No Vaseline -
Not sure what the deal is in this particular case. In my experience dealing with realtards, (used house salesmen) a lot of them take the listing just to get their sign up in the front yard so the rest of the sheeple think that realtard is the area “specialist”. As IR says the monopoly on the information is being broken day by day. I think back to appraisal days at the dawn of digital photography and how the Fotomat stores thought “people love the tradition of getting photos developed” and “digital will never replace film quality” I see the same outcome for realtards. There may always be a market for the ultra rich person that does not have or want to take the time to do for themselves. But for most people in SoCal will they continue to give 10-20k to someone to push paper? You could get an attorney (that has actually gone to school and passed a significant exam instead of a high school educated, bored housewife with breast augmentation and a leased Lexus) to do the same papaerwork for 5k or less. Either way the average used house salesman will go the way of the Fotomat. Appologies to the 10% of good agents out there.
Cheers,
Socalappraiser
Posted by Sue in Irvine on 08/15/09 at 09:15 AM
Ah, it’s down the street from the long ago infamous Castle house. The huge lot at the end of Kron. That was a good story way back when. Owner vs city, bar owner sends his girls to help fix it up. I’m planning on winning the Irvine raffle today at 3:00 out in Woodbury. I’ll take the $248,000 or even the second place Prius.
Posted by Walter on 08/15/09 at 09:23 AM
As a realtor, sometimes you keep the listing up keep your name on the sign. You have already done the work of putting the listing in the MLS, etc. For the realtor, they are not only fishing for a buyer for this house, but also to get leads for buyers to show other houses.
The homeowner is the one that has final say on the price so I place most of the blame on them. Realtors should try to get the sellers to a realistic price however.
Posted by Jack on 08/15/09 at 10:58 AM
I wish they sell it this time.
Posted by Laura Louzader on 08/15/09 at 11:56 AM
The government-sponsored housing programs should never have existed in the first place. They all skewed development towards increasingly remote suburbs while redlining good city nabes during the 50s and 60s, and have always promoted careless lending and overborrowing.
They started as part of Roosevelt’s conviction that the best way to improve the lives of Americans was to get them out of the cities to the countryside, while the poor were given housing projects and, much later in the 70s, Section 8.
All these various programs have accomplished is to drive both rentals and purchase prices up and gut our cities, both by promoting suburban-sprawl development and by destroying intact neighborhoods with Section 8.
You will notice that most people in this country aren’t any better housed than they were 50 years ago, and that we have more homeless people than ever, while everyone else has been paying a much larger percentage of their incomes for lesser dwellings.
Posted by MalibuRenter on 08/15/09 at 11:59 AM
Don’t apologize to the 10% of good agents.
Agents and the local associations of realtors need stronger and different regulation. They also need to put some actual money into software. MLS software varies from place to place. Much of the third party software kicks its butt. Aerial views? Sales price history? Nearby rents? Not on many MLS systems, but on other systems like Redfin, Trulia, Hotpads, or Ziprealty.
Posted by Alan on 08/15/09 at 12:53 PM
It looks like a nice, middle-class house. All it really needs is a middle-class affordable price. At the rate theyÄre going with the listing, maybe in 10 more years? Unless of course a foreign cash buyer stops by.
Posted by steve smith on 08/15/09 at 02:29 PM
Does anyone know what happened to advantix lending? I think they went under. They no longer have a website? The management were a bunch of scumbags.
Posted by tjwilliams on 08/15/09 at 03:43 PM
define: chasing the market.
Posted by LC on 08/15/09 at 03:44 PM
My God, the WSJ just drives me crazy. Thy are absolutely fixated with the idea of keeping the existing money/power structure in place—or maybe a return to the good old days of robber barons and plantations.
Who needs an American Dream? Just this past week we had Moorlach saying “do we really need buses in Orange County?” The clock just seems to go backwards for these people. I know that capitalism cannot be pure evil. Is there really no place for helping the lowest members of our society?
Posted by norcal on 08/15/09 at 04:11 PM
I don’t think FCBs go for 37-year-old houses. They like new ones, and for that kind of money, they should!
Posted by OC_Boston_Bay on 08/15/09 at 05:23 PM
did you go get one at 8:10 a.m.? Even when I was on a lengthy vacation this summer I could never pour myself a drink at 8am. It just felt wrong. And I feel old.
Posted by SPREAD THE WORD!! on 08/15/09 at 07:39 PM
Irvinerenter,
Irvine homes should not sell for more than $250 - $275 per sf. SPREAD THE WORD!! If you take year 2000 price/sf and inflate by 4% per year this is where in comes in at. Do not overpay!! Do the math. This is no lie. You need to give people on this blog specific #‘s so that people understand.
Posted by awgee on 08/15/09 at 08:26 PM
95% of government sponsored anything should never exist, including Medicare.
You note that people are not better housed with government intrusion. Ditto medical care.
Posted by chuckconners on 08/15/09 at 08:27 PM
8 AM cocktails? Too early. What kind of trouble could I get into the rest of the day. And I feel old,also.
Posted by awgee on 08/15/09 at 08:28 PM
There is a place for people to help the struggling in society. Forcing people to “help” via government intrusion is the opposite of help.
Posted by NickelDime on 08/15/09 at 08:44 PM
oh where to begin.
read the previous posts… IR has long since discussed equivalent rent / gross rent multiples as a means of deriving value.
start here: http://tinyurl.com/kphthn
Posted by NickelDime on 08/15/09 at 08:45 PM
Sorry wrong link:
http://tinyurl.com/oqgzzt
Posted by MalibuRenter on 08/16/09 at 05:24 AM
Which policies are you talking about promoting sprawl? The mortgage interest deduction? Cheap lending? Interstate highway system?
If you want to know why people move to those outer areas, the four most common reasons are: lower crime, lower housing prices, more space, and better schools. In many places, you can also include getting away from restrictive building rules, or pollution.
Local zoning and development laws are often a source of development elsewhere. Santa Barbara is an excellent example. The City put such a tight lid on development that nearby Santa Maria exploded in size, with many people living outside of the Santa Barbara city limits coming to work there. They got much of the traffic congestion, with less of the income from things like property taxes. Similar pattern in Santa Monica. Despite many people wanting to live there, it has a lower population than 1980. Driving toward Santa Monica at rush hour has some of the lightest traffic in LA.
Posted by MalibuRenter on 08/16/09 at 05:35 AM
The government “supports” which should be eliminated are:
1. The home mortgage interest deduction in its current form. If you want such a deduction, it should only apply to a maximum of the initial loan. No cashout refis. No home equity loan deductibility. If this law had been different, the bubble would have been moderately smaller.
2. Make cashout refis and home equity loans triggers for additional CA property taxes. Refinances for less than the initial sales price of the house would not trigger any additional property tax. This would have also had a modest effect in CA.
3. Require larger and larger downpayments as price to rent ratios get higher. This is the opposite of what actually occurred. This would have had a huge effect on the bubble. It would have removed much of the fuel from the fire. It would also have made losses to the banking system and taxpayers far smaller.
Posted by LC on 08/16/09 at 11:35 AM
It is not the government sponsorship that caused the blooming suburbs. You can’t make that connection. Government sponsorship also leads to high density housing. I can point to many, many examples. The automobile probably did more to cause that. Maybe it was the government sponsoered roads. Ultimately, it always seems to be the fault of government. I would rather have a home-owning middle class. We are not getting rid of the government any time soon, despite the WSJ’s best efforts. What do we want the government to do?
Posted by T on 08/17/09 at 06:08 PM
re: Astute Observation by MalibuRenter
2009-08-16 06:35 AM
Agreed.
But I would like to see Home mtg interest deduction eliminated altogether. And I’d like to see the rent subsidies targeted at teachers and lower paid govt workers not dead beats… and I’d like to see govt pension entitlements decimated… to the same level as my entitlements. Let em use the same health care deals as the rest of us, and then see how fast the mess gets fixed.
Posted by DeadBeatRenter on 08/18/09 at 09:30 AM
Seems priced right for the neighborhood!
http://www.zillow.com/homes/map/15082-Glass-Cir,-Irvine,-CA-92604-_rb/#/homes/for_sale/map/33.690617,-117.779498,33.688831,-117.784342_rect/17_zm/1_rs/
Posted by PQuincy on 08/23/09 at 10:52 PM
As I recall, Prechter called the crash in late 2007—and the one in 2006, and the one in 2005, and the one in 1997, too.
Statistically, constantly calling doom will work about once every 7-10 years, more or less; constantly calling happy days will work about half the time, and expecting stasis in the coming year will work about a third of the time.
One the whole, then, Prechter’s advice is rather worse than the average CNBC nightingale’s! He’s too much like a stopped clock—right twice a day—to provide useful advice.