If this house can’t even get $850K in coastal CA, in an affluent town known for its amenities, then the rest of us out here in other parts of the country are in even worse trouble and our properties are proportionately more overpriced.
Everyone saw the Chicago home for $998K that I posted. It’s typical of listings for SF homes in my lake front neighborhood in its wishing price.
From what I’m reading on other SoCal housing blogs, prices there are dropping like a de-cabled elevator. So much for the rest of the country, where houses are just as overpriced vs. local incomes, and inventories just as bloated, as there.
Posted by blackbox on 12/01/07 at 03:49 AM
well surely, if a 2 br condo in Irvine is prices at half a million bucks, surely a SFR should be priced at least 800K these days.
Geez, this thing really got so nuts that these are the discounted prices…............................
A half million 2 br condo in IRVINE?
That’s just insane…..... ——-
Posted by mark on 12/01/07 at 07:30 AM
Is the seller losing just $91.600 (the downpayment) or are they losing more? What about the payments to service the debt? If they’d rented this place for $3,000-$5,000, that would be “lost” as well.
My point is, these people are not in a financial crisis because they miscalculated the value of the home (outside of their control). They’re in a financial crisis because they didn’t stick to simple home buying standards that were very much within their control.
If they’d refused to finance any home greater than 2.5 times their household income, and refused to incur a total monthly housing cost greater than 28% of their monthly gross, then they’d be okay. In the worst case, they’d be looking at hundreds of thousands of negative equity which would confine them to this home for more than a decade until the debt realigned with the value.
Posted by mark on 12/01/07 at 08:01 AM
“This is also why mortgage interest rates are going to rise. Future borrowers are going to have to pay the increased insurance costs and make up for the losses on these loans made during the bubble.”
That sounds reasonable, but if mortgage rates are forward looking (30 years), and knowing everything we know today, why is prime 30 year fixed just slighly above 6% today? The spread for jumbos is about 100 bps, but that’s still a very low, by historical standards, 7%.
These rates are tied to shorter treasuries and LIBOR rates, but the spread hasn’t widened too much in light of all these mortgage losses to date.
I would hardly call that “payments to service the debt”
Chuck Ponzi
www.socalbubble.com
Posted by no_vaseline on 12/01/07 at 08:51 AM
If this home can legitimately be sold at $850k (and getting the lender to take that kind of write down will be shocking), and it doesn’t…...........to me, that means it’s still overpriced.
mortgage rates are moved much more by 10 year rates and a reasonable spread. Spreads the past few years have been unbelievably low. They are stil low, but a little better. Everyone is expecting that the FED will kill the dollar and stomp on the heart of our currency. Guess we’ll see what happens.
Posted by MalibuRenter on 12/01/07 at 09:26 AM
The spread shouldn’t widen on new loans. The stupidity and risk was far greater on 2003-2006 loans than it will be in 2008.
There is a surprisingly large amount of money out there looking for people with good credit, a 20%+ down payment, and a house in a nonbubble market.
Posted by covered on 12/01/07 at 09:42 AM
Did Burl Ives ever cut a record called “Comp Killer”?
Posted by ipoplaya on 12/01/07 at 10:02 AM
Asking rents on the same street for the same sized homes are $4600-4800. Couple of them have been listed for quite a while… I’d say the market rent there is $4400-4500 considering you can rent 2,800-3,000 sf in guard-gated Northpark for $4600-4800.
If you use IR’s 160 GRM number, we are talking about a price of $720K. Things really need to come down in Columbus Grove. You can buy a brand new 2,800 sf right up the road in VC (still Irvine schools but Tustin address) for $880K on a larger lot and those aren’t selling either.
The property tax load on these Desert Willow properties is $1500-1600 per month. No way rents in the $4500 range could produce positive cashflow.
Posted by No_Such_Reality on 12/01/07 at 10:38 AM
How long was it for sale at $850K? How many offers went to the bank?
The fact that it didn’t sell doesn’t necessarily say anything, the bank probably didn’t even respond to any offers if they did get an offer. What would really show the weakness was if it sat at $850K for a month and still didn’t get any offers.
That said, nobody stepped up at the courthouse to catch it at a touch over one million. Understandable, few have that cash lying around and more importantly, if you do, you won’t take that bullet unless you think you can do a fix the wear and tear and turn around and quickly sell it at $1.4M. Which was clearly shown to be fat chance in hell.
Columbus and the other newer Irvine properties will get really interesting when the banks deal with the foreclosure pros. The pros are going to want to pick it up 30-40% below market so they have a chance to fix the damages and still sell it for a decent profit.
SWAGing it, I think an experienced foreclosure crew won’t touch these for over $650K maybe a little more if they can snag it pre-foreclosure and it’s still in new condition, once the bank has it, maybe less. Of course, that’s today. February could well be worse.
“Today’s property is a perfect example of how negative amortization loans given to people who can not afford the payments destroy property values.”
Hey, those folks did the right thing and went deep into debt, just as the ‘experts’ advised them to do just two years ago:
“If you own your own home free and clear, people will often refer to you as a fool. All that money sitting there, doing nothing.”
http://www.burbed.com/2007/11/30/tommys-parents-avoided-being-foolish/
Mindboggling, isn’t it???
(link via Atrios)
Posted by Chris on 12/01/07 at 11:12 AM
Is it accurate to use a 6% commission on an REO sale? I wonder if the bank can negotiate down the listing agent’s commission (is there even a listing agent? Do the banks have in-house listing agents?)
Given that being a realtor is difficult at this point, I would think the banks would have leverage when choosing the realtor, particularly since by pricing properties to move, the banks are more attractive to the realtor. The realtor needs a seller who is willing to do what it takes to generate a transaction.
Not just pressure on the neighbors, having a 5/3 selling for $850,000 is going to put more downward pressure on those 2 and 3 bedroom POS listing for over $500,000.
I don’t think banks like paying more than 2% on REOs. It is an easy, guaranteed sale for a realtor, so they are usually willing to accept the lower commission.
Posted by stanford grad on 12/01/07 at 08:35 PM
Please. You’re kidding right? After reading your “sanitized bio” and how much you hate being called a “bitter renter”...I would think you owe it to the regular sheeple of this blog to come up with a better response than that. Not all of us are stuck in a crummy job like you. Besides your move from FL and your failure in the stock market, I bet you are kicking yourself for taking up that horrible major in college. Once you remove the buy or rent discussion, you are simply another FloriDUH transplant trying to make another go at it in CA.
IR’s work on this blog goes far beyond the buy vs. rent discussion. he has dissected this bubble on a number of levels and has been a primary contributor to this blog over the past 10 months - I can think of at least five successful sites covering other metro areas that have spawned since his arrival that openly pay tribute to IHB and IR.
your comments are unwelcome and irrelevant.
Palo Alto. Big leagues. Wow.
Posted by ipoplaya on 12/01/07 at 10:12 PM
Always amazes me how many morons will actually chime to tear down people or things they don’t like when they could just tune out. Take the idiot here stanford grad… If he doesn’t think IR’s information is useful or relevant, why the hell is he/she on the site?! Reminds me of all the ultra-conservatives screaming about what’s on TV. Just turn the TV off people or flip to another darn channel! How hard is that?!
Hey IR, I am supposing you have some pretty thick skin if you are doing this, but for what it’s worth, you rock man. I don’t always agree with you, but you obviously dedicate a good bit of your time to this blog and produce some kickass analysis. I might not be as smart as stanford grad (I got my undergrad in economics and accounting from a lowly state school and my MBA out of a box of Cheerios), but somehow manage to keep my CFO gig (not a crummy job at all) and still find your information valuable, useful and entertaining.
Posted by ValleyBroker on 12/02/07 at 12:42 AM
Re: last few posts:
1) The records I see show the property was purchased with 5% down, like $63,000. THese records also claim that the 1st was at 8.5% adjustable, which would suggest subprime. Citibank is the named lender at foreclosure, though they may just be the servicing lender. They foreclosed on the 1st, though they may also hold the 2nd.
2) MLS records that I have access to show it was on the market for over 160 days, at a ‘range price’ of $920,000 - $1,100,000. I see no mention of $850,000.
3) FYI, banks are paying much more than 2% in nearly all cases, though the brokers may not get it. Typical listing commission on an REO in this range is 5 - 5.5%, though typically there is an outsourcer involved who takes 30% of the listing side (this is a difference in this foreclosure cycle as compared to the 1990s cycle, when far fewer banks used outsourcers) as well as a small flat management fee charged to the bank, usually around $1000.
As this market collapses, these are not easy guaranteed sales at all. Out where I am in the San Fernando Valley, where our October sales volume was off over 50% from a slow 2006 October, REOs are sitting on the market for months despite being priced below the sale comps of 3 months ago. I don’t care what the median numbers say, values in the Valley have already fallen 20%, except at the bottom of the market - where cheap condos are already off over 30%.
Posted by lawyerliz on 12/02/07 at 07:54 AM
What, stanford grad, do you disagree with that irvine renter has said? Ok, you don’t like his resume’, but what in his presentations do you think is wrong?
Posted by StanfordBites on 12/02/07 at 10:58 AM
I don’t believe this property will bring down the values of neighboring similar properties. The values of the other properties are already down, and the owners simply refuse to acknowledge it.
The value of a property is what a buyer is willing to pay for it. Nobody is willing to pay $1.2 million for these properties, so they are worth less than $1.2 million.
If this home eventually sells for $799K, it does not mean the values of the other properties will subsequently fall to $799K as well. It means that the other similar properties were always vauled at $799K, and it took a sale at that price to evidence that fact to the other property owners.
Posted by snicker on 12/02/07 at 09:03 PM
” Comment by stanford grad
2007-12-01 20:35:29
Please. You’re kidding right? After reading your “sanitized bio” and how much you hate being called a “bitter renter”…I would think you owe it to the regular sheeple of this blog to come up with a better response than that. Not all of us are stuck in a crummy job like you. Besides your move from FL and your failure in the stock market, I bet you are kicking yourself for taking up that horrible major in college. Once you remove the buy or rent discussion, you are simply another FloriDUH transplant trying to make another go at it in CA.
“
ROFL!!!!!
I bet stanford grad is still living in his mommy’s basement trying to pay off that student loan he took 10 years ago.
OR
A bitter homedebtor…
Snicker.
Posted by Not a Stanford grad on 12/02/07 at 09:28 PM
” Comment by stanford grad
2007-12-01 20:35:29
Please. You’re kidding right? After reading your “sanitized bio” and how much you hate being called a “bitter renter”…I would think you owe it to the regular sheeple of this blog to come up with a better response than that. Not all of us are stuck in a crummy job like you. Besides your move from FL and your failure in the stock market, I bet you are kicking yourself for taking up that horrible major in college. Once you remove the buy or rent discussion, you are simply another FloriDUH transplant trying to make another go at it in CA.
”
FloriDUH - wow, I’m impressed. Truly, a reflection of insight, intellect and wit of a 6th grader. Make that a none-too-bright 6th grader.
IR, I usually just lurk but I would like to express my appreciation for this site and your posts. I find interesting, thoughtful information on this blog and am for one grateful for its existence.
I don’t get enough fan mail like stanford grad. I think the bitter homedebtor community will start coming by more often to snipe at me as the market continues to unwind. The denial is starting to turn to anger. Have any of you seen Truthiness over at Lansner’s blog?
Nothing people can say about me will impact my opinion of me, so I give them the freedom to say whatever they want. When I read those comments, my reaction is amusement. stanford grad is entitled to an opinion (although I didn’t really see one in the post.) If people start name calling, I will censure them, but stanford grads comments sound a bit like something you would hear in grade school or junior high. It is hardly worth noting.
Thank you all for your support.
Posted by NoWow!way on 12/03/07 at 02:43 AM
One guy in that neighborhood is RENTING a ROOM from a neighbor while he is renting out his HOME, there, to someone else b/c he cannot afford the mortgage. He’s hoping that the property prices are going up so that he can sell. He was in the RE “industry” and bought the home hoping to flip for a nice profit. Ouchies.
I loved Stanfordgrad’s comments! Keep em coming! Picking on a “sanitized” bio, while RE is crashing all around is a bit like fiddling while Rome burned, don’t you think?
Posted by john on 12/04/07 at 08:30 PM
That Stanford grad is a liar.
You dont go to a prestigious school like that and end up so stupid.
I graduated from UCLA, not quite a Stanford, but even I could see this debacle that was coming, great shorting last few months, I LOVE Countrywide!
That guy is a realtor, or a guy watching his neighborhood go to pot due to foreclosures, not a Stanford grad.
Posted by Stupid on 12/05/07 at 11:12 PM
Got a ZipRealty mail today, this property showed up
28 DESERT WILLOW Irvine, 92606 $1,029,000
Beds: 5 | Baths: 3 | Sq. Ft.: 2,790 | Lot Size: N/A
Yr. Blt: 2006 | Listing Date: 12/05/07
Your ZipRealty rebate: up to $6,174**
Description
Wow, this must be the best value in the city of irvine. The home features five bedrooms and three bathrooms. A private spa, association pool,spa and club house to include bbq area and recreation room. Close to all the great stuff in irvine; the great schools, parks and more. Come home to irvine and live the orange county life today…
Posted by Laura Louzader on 12/01/07 at 09:03 AM
If this house can’t even get $850K in coastal CA, in an affluent town known for its amenities, then the rest of us out here in other parts of the country are in even worse trouble and our properties are proportionately more overpriced.
Everyone saw the Chicago home for $998K that I posted. It’s typical of listings for SF homes in my lake front neighborhood in its wishing price.
From what I’m reading on other SoCal housing blogs, prices there are dropping like a de-cabled elevator. So much for the rest of the country, where houses are just as overpriced vs. local incomes, and inventories just as bloated, as there.
Posted by blackbox on 12/01/07 at 03:49 AM
well surely, if a 2 br condo in Irvine is prices at half a million bucks, surely a SFR should be priced at least 800K these days.
Geez, this thing really got so nuts that these are the discounted prices…............................
A half million 2 br condo in IRVINE?
That’s just insane….....
——-
Posted by mark on 12/01/07 at 07:30 AM
Is the seller losing just $91.600 (the downpayment) or are they losing more? What about the payments to service the debt? If they’d rented this place for $3,000-$5,000, that would be “lost” as well.
My point is, these people are not in a financial crisis because they miscalculated the value of the home (outside of their control). They’re in a financial crisis because they didn’t stick to simple home buying standards that were very much within their control.
If they’d refused to finance any home greater than 2.5 times their household income, and refused to incur a total monthly housing cost greater than 28% of their monthly gross, then they’d be okay. In the worst case, they’d be looking at hundreds of thousands of negative equity which would confine them to this home for more than a decade until the debt realigned with the value.
Posted by mark on 12/01/07 at 08:01 AM
“This is also why mortgage interest rates are going to rise. Future borrowers are going to have to pay the increased insurance costs and make up for the losses on these loans made during the bubble.”
That sounds reasonable, but if mortgage rates are forward looking (30 years), and knowing everything we know today, why is prime 30 year fixed just slighly above 6% today? The spread for jumbos is about 100 bps, but that’s still a very low, by historical standards, 7%.
These rates are tied to shorter treasuries and LIBOR rates, but the spread hasn’t widened too much in light of all these mortgage losses to date.
Posted by Chuck Ponzi on 12/01/07 at 08:39 AM
They bought with a neg-am, right?
I would hardly call that “payments to service the debt”
Chuck Ponzi
www.socalbubble.com
Posted by no_vaseline on 12/01/07 at 08:51 AM
If this home can legitimately be sold at $850k (and getting the lender to take that kind of write down will be shocking), and it doesn’t…...........to me, that means it’s still overpriced.
Look out below neighbors!
Posted by Chuck Ponzi on 12/01/07 at 08:53 AM
mortgage rates are moved much more by 10 year rates and a reasonable spread. Spreads the past few years have been unbelievably low. They are stil low, but a little better. Everyone is expecting that the FED will kill the dollar and stomp on the heart of our currency. Guess we’ll see what happens.
Posted by MalibuRenter on 12/01/07 at 09:26 AM
The spread shouldn’t widen on new loans. The stupidity and risk was far greater on 2003-2006 loans than it will be in 2008.
There is a surprisingly large amount of money out there looking for people with good credit, a 20%+ down payment, and a house in a nonbubble market.
Posted by covered on 12/01/07 at 09:42 AM
Did Burl Ives ever cut a record called “Comp Killer”?
Posted by ipoplaya on 12/01/07 at 10:02 AM
Asking rents on the same street for the same sized homes are $4600-4800. Couple of them have been listed for quite a while… I’d say the market rent there is $4400-4500 considering you can rent 2,800-3,000 sf in guard-gated Northpark for $4600-4800.
If you use IR’s 160 GRM number, we are talking about a price of $720K. Things really need to come down in Columbus Grove. You can buy a brand new 2,800 sf right up the road in VC (still Irvine schools but Tustin address) for $880K on a larger lot and those aren’t selling either.
The property tax load on these Desert Willow properties is $1500-1600 per month. No way rents in the $4500 range could produce positive cashflow.
Posted by No_Such_Reality on 12/01/07 at 10:38 AM
How long was it for sale at $850K? How many offers went to the bank?
The fact that it didn’t sell doesn’t necessarily say anything, the bank probably didn’t even respond to any offers if they did get an offer. What would really show the weakness was if it sat at $850K for a month and still didn’t get any offers.
That said, nobody stepped up at the courthouse to catch it at a touch over one million. Understandable, few have that cash lying around and more importantly, if you do, you won’t take that bullet unless you think you can do a fix the wear and tear and turn around and quickly sell it at $1.4M. Which was clearly shown to be fat chance in hell.
Columbus and the other newer Irvine properties will get really interesting when the banks deal with the foreclosure pros. The pros are going to want to pick it up 30-40% below market so they have a chance to fix the damages and still sell it for a decent profit.
SWAGing it, I think an experienced foreclosure crew won’t touch these for over $650K maybe a little more if they can snag it pre-foreclosure and it’s still in new condition, once the bank has it, maybe less. Of course, that’s today. February could well be worse.
Posted by Gray on 12/01/07 at 10:40 AM
“Today’s property is a perfect example of how negative amortization loans given to people who can not afford the payments destroy property values.”
Hey, those folks did the right thing and went deep into debt, just as the ‘experts’ advised them to do just two years ago:
“If you own your own home free and clear, people will often refer to you as a fool. All that money sitting there, doing nothing.”
http://www.burbed.com/2007/11/30/tommys-parents-avoided-being-foolish/
Mindboggling, isn’t it???
(link via Atrios)
Posted by Chris on 12/01/07 at 11:12 AM
Is it accurate to use a 6% commission on an REO sale? I wonder if the bank can negotiate down the listing agent’s commission (is there even a listing agent? Do the banks have in-house listing agents?)
Given that being a realtor is difficult at this point, I would think the banks would have leverage when choosing the realtor, particularly since by pricing properties to move, the banks are more attractive to the realtor. The realtor needs a seller who is willing to do what it takes to generate a transaction.
Posted by socalhousingbubble on 12/01/07 at 11:20 AM
Thanks for following through with an update!
SCHB
Posted by doug r on 12/01/07 at 12:34 PM
Not just pressure on the neighbors, having a 5/3 selling for $850,000 is going to put more downward pressure on those 2 and 3 bedroom POS listing for over $500,000.
Posted by IrvineRenter on 12/01/07 at 01:03 PM
“There is a surprisingly large amount of money out there looking for people with good credit, a 20%+ down payment, and a house in a nonbubble market.”
How many buyers in the United States does this describe? Three, maybe five?
Posted by IrvineRenter on 12/01/07 at 01:04 PM
In these new neighborhoods with the very high taxes and HOA fees, I don’t think a 160 GRM even gets to breakeven.
Posted by IrvineRenter on 12/01/07 at 01:07 PM
I don’t think banks like paying more than 2% on REOs. It is an easy, guaranteed sale for a realtor, so they are usually willing to accept the lower commission.
Posted by stanford grad on 12/01/07 at 08:35 PM
Please. You’re kidding right? After reading your “sanitized bio” and how much you hate being called a “bitter renter”...I would think you owe it to the regular sheeple of this blog to come up with a better response than that. Not all of us are stuck in a crummy job like you. Besides your move from FL and your failure in the stock market, I bet you are kicking yourself for taking up that horrible major in college. Once you remove the buy or rent discussion, you are simply another FloriDUH transplant trying to make another go at it in CA.
Posted by tealeaf on 12/01/07 at 08:54 PM
Stanford grad (oooh we’re all sooo impressed):
IR’s work on this blog goes far beyond the buy vs. rent discussion. he has dissected this bubble on a number of levels and has been a primary contributor to this blog over the past 10 months - I can think of at least five successful sites covering other metro areas that have spawned since his arrival that openly pay tribute to IHB and IR.
your comments are unwelcome and irrelevant.
Palo Alto. Big leagues. Wow.
Posted by ipoplaya on 12/01/07 at 10:12 PM
Always amazes me how many morons will actually chime to tear down people or things they don’t like when they could just tune out. Take the idiot here stanford grad… If he doesn’t think IR’s information is useful or relevant, why the hell is he/she on the site?! Reminds me of all the ultra-conservatives screaming about what’s on TV. Just turn the TV off people or flip to another darn channel! How hard is that?!
Hey IR, I am supposing you have some pretty thick skin if you are doing this, but for what it’s worth, you rock man. I don’t always agree with you, but you obviously dedicate a good bit of your time to this blog and produce some kickass analysis. I might not be as smart as stanford grad (I got my undergrad in economics and accounting from a lowly state school and my MBA out of a box of Cheerios), but somehow manage to keep my CFO gig (not a crummy job at all) and still find your information valuable, useful and entertaining.
Posted by ValleyBroker on 12/02/07 at 12:42 AM
Re: last few posts:
1) The records I see show the property was purchased with 5% down, like $63,000. THese records also claim that the 1st was at 8.5% adjustable, which would suggest subprime. Citibank is the named lender at foreclosure, though they may just be the servicing lender. They foreclosed on the 1st, though they may also hold the 2nd.
2) MLS records that I have access to show it was on the market for over 160 days, at a ‘range price’ of $920,000 - $1,100,000. I see no mention of $850,000.
3) FYI, banks are paying much more than 2% in nearly all cases, though the brokers may not get it. Typical listing commission on an REO in this range is 5 - 5.5%, though typically there is an outsourcer involved who takes 30% of the listing side (this is a difference in this foreclosure cycle as compared to the 1990s cycle, when far fewer banks used outsourcers) as well as a small flat management fee charged to the bank, usually around $1000.
As this market collapses, these are not easy guaranteed sales at all. Out where I am in the San Fernando Valley, where our October sales volume was off over 50% from a slow 2006 October, REOs are sitting on the market for months despite being priced below the sale comps of 3 months ago. I don’t care what the median numbers say, values in the Valley have already fallen 20%, except at the bottom of the market - where cheap condos are already off over 30%.
Posted by lawyerliz on 12/02/07 at 07:54 AM
What, stanford grad, do you disagree with that irvine renter has said? Ok, you don’t like his resume’, but what in his presentations do you think is wrong?
Posted by StanfordBites on 12/02/07 at 10:58 AM
I don’t believe this property will bring down the values of neighboring similar properties. The values of the other properties are already down, and the owners simply refuse to acknowledge it.
The value of a property is what a buyer is willing to pay for it. Nobody is willing to pay $1.2 million for these properties, so they are worth less than $1.2 million.
If this home eventually sells for $799K, it does not mean the values of the other properties will subsequently fall to $799K as well. It means that the other similar properties were always vauled at $799K, and it took a sale at that price to evidence that fact to the other property owners.
Posted by snicker on 12/02/07 at 09:03 PM
” Comment by stanford grad
2007-12-01 20:35:29
Please. You’re kidding right? After reading your “sanitized bio” and how much you hate being called a “bitter renter”…I would think you owe it to the regular sheeple of this blog to come up with a better response than that. Not all of us are stuck in a crummy job like you. Besides your move from FL and your failure in the stock market, I bet you are kicking yourself for taking up that horrible major in college. Once you remove the buy or rent discussion, you are simply another FloriDUH transplant trying to make another go at it in CA.
“
ROFL!!!!!
I bet stanford grad is still living in his mommy’s basement trying to pay off that student loan he took 10 years ago.
OR
A bitter homedebtor…
Snicker.
Posted by Not a Stanford grad on 12/02/07 at 09:28 PM
” Comment by stanford grad
2007-12-01 20:35:29
Please. You’re kidding right? After reading your “sanitized bio” and how much you hate being called a “bitter renter”…I would think you owe it to the regular sheeple of this blog to come up with a better response than that. Not all of us are stuck in a crummy job like you. Besides your move from FL and your failure in the stock market, I bet you are kicking yourself for taking up that horrible major in college. Once you remove the buy or rent discussion, you are simply another FloriDUH transplant trying to make another go at it in CA.
”
FloriDUH - wow, I’m impressed. Truly, a reflection of insight, intellect and wit of a 6th grader. Make that a none-too-bright 6th grader.
IR, I usually just lurk but I would like to express my appreciation for this site and your posts. I find interesting, thoughtful information on this blog and am for one grateful for its existence.
Posted by IrvineRenter on 12/02/07 at 09:31 PM
I don’t get enough fan mail like stanford grad. I think the bitter homedebtor community will start coming by more often to snipe at me as the market continues to unwind. The denial is starting to turn to anger. Have any of you seen Truthiness over at Lansner’s blog?
Nothing people can say about me will impact my opinion of me, so I give them the freedom to say whatever they want. When I read those comments, my reaction is amusement. stanford grad is entitled to an opinion (although I didn’t really see one in the post.) If people start name calling, I will censure them, but stanford grads comments sound a bit like something you would hear in grade school or junior high. It is hardly worth noting.
Thank you all for your support.
Posted by NoWow!way on 12/03/07 at 02:43 AM
One guy in that neighborhood is RENTING a ROOM from a neighbor while he is renting out his HOME, there, to someone else b/c he cannot afford the mortgage. He’s hoping that the property prices are going up so that he can sell. He was in the RE “industry” and bought the home hoping to flip for a nice profit. Ouchies.
I loved Stanfordgrad’s comments! Keep em coming! Picking on a “sanitized” bio, while RE is crashing all around is a bit like fiddling while Rome burned, don’t you think?
Posted by john on 12/04/07 at 08:30 PM
That Stanford grad is a liar.
You dont go to a prestigious school like that and end up so stupid.
I graduated from UCLA, not quite a Stanford, but even I could see this debacle that was coming, great shorting last few months, I LOVE Countrywide!
That guy is a realtor, or a guy watching his neighborhood go to pot due to foreclosures, not a Stanford grad.
Posted by Stupid on 12/05/07 at 11:12 PM
Got a ZipRealty mail today, this property showed up
28 DESERT WILLOW Irvine, 92606 $1,029,000
Beds: 5 | Baths: 3 | Sq. Ft.: 2,790 | Lot Size: N/A
Yr. Blt: 2006 | Listing Date: 12/05/07
Your ZipRealty rebate: up to $6,174**
http://www.ziprealty.com/buy_a_home/logged_in/search/home_detail.jsp?listing_num=U7004980&mls=mls_so_cal&cKey=x7t4vczm&source=SOCALMLS
Description
Wow, this must be the best value in the city of irvine. The home features five bedrooms and three bathrooms. A private spa, association pool,spa and club house to include bbq area and recreation room. Close to all the great stuff in irvine; the great schools, parks and more. Come home to irvine and live the orange county life today…