What are you talking about then? Because you were trying to poke fun at my math, when it was correct, and yours is not a proper way to calculate an increase in percentage terms.

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 12:05 AM

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

Sunshine - 06 November 2009 11:31 PM

= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase.  Seriously, write down the problem on paper.

Okay… again.. I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was saying… I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let’s try it this way.

10.1 - 9.8 =
9.8% + 3% = 12.8%

9.8% + .3% = 10.1%
or
.098 + .03 = .101

If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1

I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying

RoLar,

I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, “How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%?” 

Seriously, stop.  I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I’m not kidding.  You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading.  Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math.  Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.

OMG… I do need to go to bed because I can’t get anything through to you guys. Not trying to sound like a smart ass but read carefully. And, yes, this requires CAPS

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, NOR WAS I EVER. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 12:08 AM

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 12:05 AM

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

Sunshine - 06 November 2009 11:31 PM

= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase.  Seriously, write down the problem on paper.

Okay… again.. I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was saying… I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let’s try it this way.

10.1 - 9.8 =
9.8% + 3% = 12.8%

9.8% + .3% = 10.1%
or
.098 + .03 = .101

If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1

I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying

RoLar,

I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, “How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%?” 

Seriously, stop.  I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I’m not kidding.  You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading.  Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math.  Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.

OMG… I do need to go to bed because I can’t get anything through to you guys. Not trying to sound like a smart ass but read carefully. And, yes, this requires CAPS

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, NOR WAS I EVER. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.

Read the bold parts Sunshine highlights for you, because… THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID!

graphrix - 07 November 2009 12:11 AM

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 12:08 AM

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 12:05 AM

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

Sunshine - 06 November 2009 11:31 PM

= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase.  Seriously, write down the problem on paper.

Okay… again.. I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was saying… I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let’s try it this way.

10.1 - 9.8 =
9.8% + 3% = 12.8%

9.8% + .3% = 10.1%
or
.098 + .03 = .101

If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1

I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying

RoLar,

I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, “How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%?” 

Seriously, stop.  I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I’m not kidding.  You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading.  Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math.  Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.

OMG… I do need to go to bed because I can’t get anything through to you guys. Not trying to sound like a smart ass but read carefully. And, yes, this requires CAPS

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, NOR WAS I EVER. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.

Read the bold parts Sunshine highlights for you, because… THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID!

Yes, and like I’ve stated four different times now. I understand what you guys are saying, that’s not what I meant, there was a miscommunication. So that there are no more miscommunications on this topic, how would you explain (in words) the equation on the google calculator image that I posted.

(9.8%) + (.3%) = 10.1% or .101

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 12:13 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 12:11 AM

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 12:08 AM

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 12:05 AM

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

Sunshine - 06 November 2009 11:31 PM

= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase.  Seriously, write down the problem on paper.

Okay… again.. I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was saying… I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let’s try it this way.

10.1 - 9.8 =
9.8% + 3% = 12.8%

9.8% + .3% = 10.1%
or
.098 + .03 = .101

If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1

I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying

RoLar,

I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, “How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%?” 

Seriously, stop.  I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I’m not kidding.  You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading.  Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math.  Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.

OMG… I do need to go to bed because I can’t get anything through to you guys. Not trying to sound like a smart ass but read carefully. And, yes, this requires CAPS

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, NOR WAS I EVER. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.

Read the bold parts Sunshine highlights for you, because… THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID!

Yes, and like I’ve stated four different times now. I understand what you guys are saying, that’s not what I meant, there was a miscommunication. So that there are no more miscommunications on this topic, how would you explain (in words) the equation on the google calculator image that I posted.

(9.8%) + (.3%) = 10.1% or .101

In order to add or subcontract percentages, the numbers must be some portion of the same whole.  Accordingly, the Google calculator is correct.  Let’s say there are 10 apples total, and you and I each have 5.  We both have 50% of the whole, and 50% + 50% = 100%. 

The unemployment percentages that you posted are not part of the same whole.  The month-over-month percentages would never equal 100%.  Each month represents a portion to the whole, on a standalone basis.  Therefore, you cannot add and subtract the percentages from month to month. You have to first calculate the non-percentage difference (.3 using the numbers in your post) and then determine the percentage change, month-over-month (3%).

There is a reason why calculating it in terms of percentages are more important than calculating them in terms of basis points. Even if the unemployment rate drops from 10.2% to 9.8%, that doesn’t mean that less people are unemployed because the labor force will have increased due to population growth, and the amount unemployed can actually go up as the labor force goes up.

Employment improved slightly in 93 and home sales and prices increased slightly/looked stable. But… as employment and GDP improved greatly from 94-96 home sales decreased and so did prices. So even if employment “stabilizes/stagnates” and GDP improves, it doesn’t bode well for home sales and prices. OC is at 2002 job levels, and with all that housing stock that has been added since then and continues to added, then we need double digit employment growth numbers for the next 5-7 years to keep up and make up for that supply. It’s all about supply and demand, and demand comes from jobs. This is why any slight improvement to the unemployment rate is a weak statistic. This uptick in housing is a short term bump (dead cat bounce), when there is a longer term drag in employment which is the real problem for housing.

This from Calculated Risk:

“The reason REOs have declined is that flow of distressed properties into REO has been artificially restricted due to local, state and GSE foreclosure moratoria, loan modifications and servicer backlogs. This has led to a drop in the supply of REO properties, while at the same time sales (including REO sales) increased due to the artificially low rates and first-time homebuyer tax credits, which further depleted the supply of REOs. This dynamic has led to the rapid improvement in home prices over the last six to eight months.

However, the mortgage distress is high and rising as is evident by the 90+ day category, which means the pending supply is building up due to high levels of negative equity and rising unemployment. So we have a situation where at the back end (ie REOs) it appears as if it’s getting better, but it’s really a mirage as we know that the pending supply pipeline default (ie 90+ day DQs) is looming larger.”

Whether you call it shadow inventory, pending supply, or a train speeding down the tracks, it’s a comin’.

awgee - 08 November 2009 07:03 AM

This from Calculated Risk:

 

“The reason REOs have declined is that flow of distressed properties into REO has been artificially restricted due to local, state and GSE foreclosure moratoria, loan modifications and servicer backlogs. This has led to a drop in the supply of REO properties, while at the same time sales (including REO sales) increased due to the artificially low rates and first-time homebuyer tax credits, which further depleted the supply of REOs. This dynamic has led to the rapid improvement in home prices over the last six to eight months.

However, the mortgage distress is high and rising as is evident by the 90+ day category, which means the pending supply is building up due to high levels of negative equity and rising unemployment. So we have a situation where at the back end (ie REOs) it appears as if it’s getting better, but it’s really a mirage as we know that the pending supply pipeline default (ie 90+ day DQs) is looming larger.”

 

 

Whether you call it shadow inventory, pending supply, or a train speeding down the tracks, it’s a comin’.

*Nevermind, I don’t want a list.

And, I would just like to add, it would be nice right now if south orange county currently had more REOs listed.

RoLar_USC - 08 November 2009 08:29 AM

*Nevermind, I don’t want a list.

no_vaseline - 08 November 2009 09:20 AM

RoLar_USC - 08 November 2009 08:29 AM

*Nevermind, I don’t want a list.

I’ve already gone through a FR list and showed that most of the listings are incorrect. It takes a lot of time. Time that I don’t have right now. Besides, even if I prove it again, it won’t mean anything.

Foreclosure inventories continued their upward climb. The nation’s September 2009 foreclosure rate stood at 3.12 percent - a month-over-month increase of 2.6 percent and a year-over-year increase of 88.9 percent. Among individual states, Florida posted the most troubling results with 10.4 percent of loans in foreclosure, and more than 22 percent of loans reported as non-current.

Shadow Inventory Dwarfs Loan Mods

IR posted this in today’s blog comments:

Banks hold few foreclosures

Banks hold few foreclosures
November 7th, 2009, 1:00 am · 25 Comments · posted by Mathew Padilla
The latest foreclosure figures from First American CoreLogic show a growing divergence in what’s happening to problematic mortgages in Orange County.

The ratio of bank-owned houses and condos, known as REO, against all outstanding first mortgages declined for the 13th straight month to just 0.26% in September — the lowest in 26 months. That sounds like a good thing for the housing market and economy.

That is, there is (almost) no shadow inventory.  Heck, most of that 0.26% is probably either on the market or being actively prepped for sale.  Once the bank takes the property back, they almost always try to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

Of course, they are holding back on foreclosing a lot of properties.  The pre-shadow inventory is high (but not all will be foreclosed upon).  But the actual shadow inventory is very, very low.

Can someone please look up 18 Laurel Ln. Aliso Viejo 92656.  The owner told me it’s being forclosed and she just moved out, but this property is not showing up on FR…

David714 - 10 November 2009 02:41 PM

Can someone please look up 18 Laurel Ln. Aliso Viejo 92656.  The owner told me it’s being forclosed and she just moved out, but this property is not showing up on FR…

Nothing shows up in my search:

IrvineRealtor, thanks for looking that up, it’s very unusual.  I did not think that she was lying to me about the forclosure…  Our condo community is installing new garage doors (at no cost to residents) and I noticed that hers has not been installed yet.  When I asked her when her garage door is being installed, she said that she didn’t even schedule the installation because she is getting forclosed and won’t be around…  I’m puzzed as to what is really going on now.  Sorry for hijacking the thread…

SoCalRealtor - 06 November 2009 11:32 AM

Time will tell.  Nobody knows what the future holds.  We could recover a lot harder and faster than all of you think.  I’m not pretending to be in LA LA land about the problems still in existence, but it seems like everyone is so fast to believe and buy into negativity VS the possibility that something good might actually happen.  I do hope however that we get more property to sell, right now we’re having a hard time finding homes for our buyers.  It’s a cut-throat bidding WAR out there.  More inventory would be a Godsend. 

PS.  Follow me on twitter, TWEET TWEET   www.twitter.com/brandonlocascio

we could recover a lot harder and faster than all of you think

Less realtors would be a godsend