71 thoughts on “41% off in Irvine”

1. granite February 24, 2009 at 3:55 pm

   “Another group of people deeply impacted by bubble market volatility are those who chose not to participate. Some of these people recognized the bubble for what it was…”

   When I moved back to OC and decided to rent for a couple years in 2000, I never imagined I would still be renting in 2009. I have to admit it has been a bit like a low grade headache all these years but at least its not the pounding headache of high debt and impending foreclosure.

   Want proof this was an historic bubble? Look at this Robert Shiller chart.

   http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/SaJQVa1U2UI/AAAAAAAAIak/OshrGGGxusI/s1600-h/saupload_case_shiller_chart_updated.png
   1. Kelja February 24, 2009 at 7:28 pm

      Yes, I feel your pain … but it’s even more intense. I sold a house and condo in 2001 thinking the market was too frothy, too high and things would come back to normal. Imagine that! I watched (in horror) as home prices took off to the moon.

      Ah, I’ve learned that you can be right in your analysis but dead wrong in your timing. Now, I fully expect to see pricing fall to 2001 levels, and possibly below.

      I would’ve loved to have been a homeowner over those years but often wonder, if I had been, would I have been overcome by the Koolaid.
      1. maliburenter February 24, 2009 at 8:18 pm

         Unless there are major unexpected developments, late 2010 prices will be below 2001. By the end of 2010, we will probably be around 1998 prices, maybe 1997.

         Given the number of refis and HELOCs, that probably means more than two thirds of CA homeowners under water.
         1. maliburenter February 24, 2009 at 8:19 pm

            Actually, that’s 2/3 of homeowners with mortgages underwater. A moderate portion don’t have any mortgage.
            1. TheNumbersNeverLie February 25, 2009 at 12:31 am

               If you look closely in LA County, the low end has already touched 1998 levels. The real beauty of this correction will come when we see communities like Agoura Hills and Calabasas follow suit. Or are they immune?
            2. maliburenter February 25, 2009 at 7:49 am

               I’ve spent a lot of time looking at Calabasas and Agoura. They aren’t immune. They are already falling moderately.

               Calabasas will continue to suffer from Countrywide’s contraction.

               Malibu will suffer a bigger price drop, since it has a lot of second and third homes.
      2. Sam February 24, 2009 at 11:19 pm

         I, too, sold my condo in early 2002 that I had bought in early 1992! I wanted to buy a bigger place but wanted to sit on the side for a while – only to watch run-up in prices. At the peak, “my” condo doubled in price AFTER I sold it! Last I checked, price was coming down to 2002 levels. Maybe soon, I can afford to buy the “DETACHED” home as I had planned! I have the necessary down-payment, though, my fear now is “job security”. Oh, well, things are rarely perfect!
      3. flyovercountry February 24, 2009 at 11:55 pm

         Have you ever calculated how much you were saving in rent vs owning just in monthly payment costs?
   2. mav February 24, 2009 at 8:08 pm

      “I never imagined I would still be renting in 2009. I have to admit it has been a bit like a low grade headache all these years”

      That quote is hilarious. It makes me wonder why anyone who is responsible would want to live in Southern California. California risk taking bubbles teach those who do not participate, to participate the next time around. The responsible people either decide to adapt and benefit next time, or they move out of California.

      The massive debt bubble had an impact on the psychology of everyone in California. People now expect a certain standard of living. For some people the new reality will feel like a Depression, for others it will just be like a headache.
   3. Perspective February 24, 2009 at 9:07 pm

      “…When I moved back to OC and decided to rent for a couple years in 2000, I never imagined I would still be renting in 2009…”

      There’s a huge cost associated with housing, whether you’re renting or mortgaging. I have friends who like to brag about renting now, just like others who used to brag about the equity in their homes.

      Maybe IR should post alternative scenarios with the featured daily home? e.g. “Had this owner rented this unit at its reasonable value $___ for the past 5 years, they’d have spent $___ in rent. Therefore, their balance sheet would be this much stronger $___ .”
   4. Mike7 February 24, 2009 at 10:52 pm

      You should have bought in 2000.
      1. IrvineRenter February 24, 2009 at 11:43 pm

         Perhaps. We will not be able to make judgments on that until we see how bad it gets.
         1. Perspective February 25, 2009 at 1:17 am

            I think the better question is, how bad would it have to get for buying in 2000 to have been a poor decision? I think the answer is “really bad,” as in “the 2010 price would have to be at least 20% below the 2000 price” to even start considering if you would have been “better off” renting during that period.
            1. IrvineRenter February 25, 2009 at 1:52 am

               In 2000, prices were already elevated above comparative rents, so any purchase made in 2000 was costing the owner more than a renter. By 2004-2005, the renter was probably paying more than an owner, but the renter was still way ahead on costs. If we are at 2001 prices in 2010, the inflation adjusted basis will tip in favor of the renter, particularly since they had a discount in the early years. In short, I don’t think it has to get unrealistically bad to favor renting over owning in 2000. Inflation adjusted prices will almost certainly hit the late 90s levels. Nominal prices will probably hit 2001-2002 price levels, although I think it will be more like 2011-2012 rather than 2010.
2. granite February 24, 2009 at 4:05 pm

   Let’s try this link.

   http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-is-this-bubble-different-from-all.html
   1. AZDavidPhx February 24, 2009 at 10:35 pm

      Exactly right, but what he is saying is just a symptom of the real problem that is CREDIT and DEBT.

      The problem is that people have become totally desensitized to living in debt. The masters of the economy fully understand that the best kind of repeat-business is that which makes monthly payments and pays a king’s ransom in interest.

      Dumb down the population by promoting debt via title loans, payday loans, 0% financing schemes, etc. Peer pressure to have the latest and greatest toys that the Joneses have will be the fuel that perpetuates the machine. Narrow down the perspective of the sheep to the most myopic level that is what they can afford on a month to month basis and VIOLA.

      You have a population of enslaved players who equate wealth with toys which equals debt. The more you owe, the wealthier and cooler you are assumed to be. The players compare their socio economic status to each other based upon how much they can borrow rather than how much they actually have.

      Naturally prices will just rise to what the guy in the middle of the cross-section can borrow. The players don’t even care what the price is anymore and the masters at the top profit greatly as the banks churn out the cash to the masses to pay for it all.

      Why sell a 10K car for 10K when you can sell it for 50K knowing that a percentage of the masses will take out a loan and will pay whatever it takes so long as they are comfortable on a monthly basis for the next 5 years. Quite a system.

      Just look at housing. Nobody assumes that they can buy a house without putting in 30 years of monthly payments so the prices artificially rise to meet this perception. It’s engrained in our culture – we are programmed. Sure, the house maybe costs 100K to build, but those sheeple will be more than willing to borrow 400K and pay it off for 30 years – so 400K it is.

      Borrowing money has a purpose and a place, but not to the excessive levels that pervade our lives today.

      When people do not access to credit to purchase a stick of gum to a couch to a car, they will have a greater appreciation for the things that they already have and will choose to eat rather than buy overpriced personal transportation.

      Furthermore, they will think a lot harder about the bottom line price before they buy. This is exactly what the government does not want to happen – notice how nobody is talking about the debt problem in this country? No, they don’t like to use words like debt, they use words like credit and prescribe it to us as our life blood as though we are hopeless without it. Why? Because their business partners make a fortune off of you that way. They are the ones who are hopeless without you having credit. That is who they are trying to protect – not you.
      1. Chuck Ponzi February 24, 2009 at 11:27 pm

         I think you’re forgetting that there is no master design… humans themselves favor enslavement. It’s a kind of security blanket. They don’t want to be missing out with the rest of the slaves.

         Every day, people make the conscious choice to further enslave themselves. No amount of training or education will prevent 2/3rds of the world from choosing voluntary enslavement. You cannot save anyone else, just focus on you and yours; that’s what the world is all about.

         Chuck
      2. Sam February 24, 2009 at 11:31 pm

         I think it’s more like a the proverbial “catch 22”. That’s where we are now. If we do not spend $$ we are damned as businesses (small and large)and employment are lost; and if we spend we are damned as we consume things we do not produce! The same argument can apply to the world economy. If America does not consume, the world is damned, and if America consumes the world is damned because for how long can America consume by paying printed dollars? I think this game can be prolonged even though it does not make any sense!
      3. tonyE February 25, 2009 at 12:33 am

         You forgot about Soylent Green.
3. Forbear February 24, 2009 at 5:09 pm

   I’ve seen several properties on Redfin lately where the sellers are increasing their asking price, anyone have a clue what these people are up to?
   1. IrvineRenter February 24, 2009 at 6:58 pm

      The inventory in Irvine is low, and the majority of it is short sales that have no chance of selling. This has created a temporary shortage, and some sellers believe this will allow them to charge more. Of course, there are also the crazy sellers who are priced in WTF land. Everything those listers do is a fantasy.
      1. AZDavidPhx February 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm

         Did you see this dandy of a story about the school bus driver living in the 800K house who wants to be helped out by the government?

         http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/02/17/acosta.housing.cnn

         I am just guessing that this is going on somewhere in California given the ridiculous price of the house.
   2. george8 February 24, 2009 at 8:17 pm

      What the government is doing also contributes to this false sense of recovering in prices.
      1. maliburenter February 24, 2009 at 8:19 pm

         A false sense that they already are recovering? Or that they will recover in the future?
         1. mav February 24, 2009 at 8:43 pm

            I don’t think most sellers these days have much of a choice. They are all desperate whether they are an individual or a bank. Most people either need to sell for a price that will pay off all of their bubble debts, or they will get foreclosed on or go into bankruptcy….. for the banks, if they sell all of their potential housing inventory at too low of a price, they will go out of business…. potential buyers in more affluent areas will be dealing with this headache for many years in my opinion…
   3. freedomCM February 24, 2009 at 9:47 pm

      I follow two zips closely, about 300 listings currently, and the only ones that have raised their prices in the past quarter have been short sales that fell out of escrow.

      I’m inclined to think that this reflects the mortgage holding banks rejecting the SS price, so they list at the price the bank suggests that they will accept.
   4. nowwaat February 25, 2009 at 3:11 am

      There is really no increase in the asking price. However, some sellers (lien holders) and their R/E agents maybe feeling emboldended by the short supply of “DETACHED” houses under $500k in Irvine. I saw somewhere that there were about 1,800 homes foreclosed on in OC in the last quarter of 2008. Many of these will hit the market once the eviction process is completed which can at times be a lengthy process. I think lien holders will try to dispose of in an “orderly” fashion so to lower the price as little as possible!
4. Gindy February 24, 2009 at 6:16 pm

   How much grease did the appraiser get for jacking up the price of this beauty? You sort of have to wonder…
   1. tlc8386 February 24, 2009 at 8:02 pm

      The mortgage banker/broker made a killing because they were now commission based. Articles in the OC Register you can do a search on but my recall was the average pay for a month on loans they were raking up to 30k a month. This is one of the reasons why loans were always approved they got paid big to make any kind of loan along with the appraisers and the RE agents. Now not all made this kind of money but a lot did. This easy money is what fueled housing to escalate out of control–always follow the money you will get you answers.

      some quick sites I found-

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2009/02/banking-at-the-brink.html

      http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2007/12/11/home-sale-commissions-off-13-billion-from-05-peak/1694/

      http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2008/09/27/insider-qa-told-real-estate-fraud-is-on-the-rise/3898/
   2. Walter February 24, 2009 at 10:03 pm

      For some inside info on what was going on with the appraisers, check out:

      My experience at IndyMac as their chief commercial appraiser from October 2001 to the end of March 2002:
      http://appraisersforum.com/showthread.php?t=141764
      1. maliburenter February 24, 2009 at 11:55 pm

         To what extent do you think other banks which have been taken over were doing similar things?

         How about banks in apparently good health?
         1. tlc8386 February 25, 2009 at 1:27 am

            http://ml-implode.com/

            here is the list–go to middle of page
         2. newbie2008 February 25, 2009 at 8:41 am

            “How about banks in apparently good health?”
            Are there any? Possible some small regional banks that retained the standard lending practice of 20% down and no more than 30% for debt service.

            Back to this condo, $370 for HOA. Say rent at $1900 less HOA $370 = $1530 times 12/0.08= $229500
            There another condo on this street chasing down the falling market. If they discounted at the original time of listing, a knife catch would have likely gotten stabbed. .08 if for 1.5% MR/taxes plus 5.5% interest/insurance and misc. repairs. No factor for vacancies and major repairs or renovations or non-owner occupied interest rates.
      2. Bitter Renter February 27, 2009 at 10:54 am

         That was fascinating. What a stud to not cave in to all that pressure he was under to go with the flow of lies. Thanks very much for the link.
5. pianist February 24, 2009 at 7:58 pm

   Holy Cheez Whiz! $370 monthly HOA for that?!
   1. AZDavidPhx February 24, 2009 at 10:51 pm

      Come on now.

      They are breaking their backs to put chlorine in the community pool and hire illegal aliens to cut your grass. How dare you get so indignant? Sure – the association is making a KILLING, but so what, that’s the premium for living on sacred land.

      Bend over and say MOO or go live elsewhere.
6. tlc8386 February 24, 2009 at 8:06 pm

   http://www.ocregister.com/articles/soni-washington-mutual-2163800-sonis-family

   this is one story that really gives you an idea of what was going on—-fyi
   1. AZDavidPhx February 24, 2009 at 11:14 pm

      “We have extensive controls in place to protect the integrity of our portfolio and loan processes,” WaMu spokeswoman Sara Gaugl said. “We are continually enhancing our efforts to identify and prevent any potential illegal activity.”

      WHOOPS! Looks like one fell through the cracks there, Ms. Gag-Me!

      Of the 22 homes sold in that period, at least six have become problems for Washington Mutual

      WHOOPS! Make that six!

      But lending analysts said the Soni family’s transactions raise troubling questions about standards at the Seattle-based thrift

      GASP! No! Say it ain’t so, Joe!

      Banks don’t check criminal backgrounds of buyers or sellers, because it would be too expensive, Fulmer said. People with experience – in real estate sales, appraisals, finance and escrow – know how to game the system, she said. With a little creativity and an Internet search, they can obtain phony employment, tax and financial documents for loan applicants.

      Nah, you don’t want to discriminate against the lawfully challenged. That would not be cool!

      One example: Lohia bought the bank-owned house at 827 S. Flower for $249,500 on Jan. 4. She sold it 20 days later for $575,000 to her daughter, Suniti Shah, who financed the purchase with a $488,750 Washington Mutual mortgage.

      That was a 121 percent increase in less than three weeks.

      Nothing suspicious there! No way modern technology can be expected to catch something as subtle as that!

      Sushama Lohia also wrote to the judge about her daughter and son-in-law. “They have become prey of misunderstanding and jealousy of heartless people. If you watch them closely, you will find them gentle, harmless and giving.”

      These poor babies! Pooor babies!!! Wet daddy get you a wittle bail out. You promise now be goo boy! No more flipping fraud OK? Ah-guchi-guchi-goo!
      1. Chris in PA February 25, 2009 at 12:28 am

         YAWN.
         1. tlc8386 February 25, 2009 at 1:12 am

            I can’t understand the Yawn–this is all over the country not just in CA–fraud is everywhere in housing. From the selling inflating the price, the appraisal pushing the price, the bank lending the loan, the mortgage broker taking the % along with the RE agent–a huge ponzi scheme being paid with our tax money–ie: Bailouts—
            Yawn–this is the largest fraud set upon the American tax payer–and it was done to us from our own people—OUR OWN—so look around you and wake up—-
7. buster February 24, 2009 at 8:56 pm

   This place is a FRAUD. I used to live in this complex — it’s NOT a 3-bed, 3-bath. They bifurcated their LIVING ROOM and called it a 3rd bedroom. I remember this being a joke when they did it. And there is only 2-baths – full baths, but there are only two.

   The complex is very nice, and with a good sized patio it’s not a bad deal in the mid-200s. We paid $1750 in rent and I thought it was a steal. Pretty roomy at 1,000sf, plus about 500sf patio, so I would buy a downstairs unit for $250,000 – $260,000. Maybe it’s time to go shopping in that complex.

   Oh, it’s not in Northwood. It’s between IVC and Oak Creek Golf Course, not that it really matters.
   1. jwinston2 February 24, 2009 at 9:25 pm

      No offense but you overpaid in my opinion. I currently pay $1795 for a 2 bed 2 1/2 bath condo, 1400 sqft, in Dana Point. We live one block from the ocean. Call me crazy but $1750 seems like it is too much for a place like this.
      1. Walter February 24, 2009 at 10:06 pm

         You also need to factor in that Irvine is closer to many more jobs then Dana Point. If you have a job close to Dana Point, I agree you have a better deal.
      2. Orcian February 24, 2009 at 11:51 pm

         And they don’t even have garages. They have stinkin’ carports!
   2. ockurt February 24, 2009 at 10:19 pm

      I thought this was near IVC…wonder why the listing says Portola Springs.

      Must be an out of area r/e agent.
   3. Sam February 24, 2009 at 11:43 pm

      I think it’s in the “Orangetree” area which is probably the least expensive area of Irvine. It’s right next to IVC. The 2 bedrooms 2 baths were selling for $105,000 at the bottom in 1995/1996.
8. Jane February 24, 2009 at 9:30 pm

   **** breaking news *******

   Class action again Irvine company, if you bought home during 2003 to 2005 from Irvine company master plan, if may receive $200,000.

   (Sample claims, IMHO)
   1. During 2003 to 2005 and first half of 2006, Irvine company and builders it contracted use illegal, unfair and unconstitutional methods to prioritize home buyers to manipulate home prices to mislead home buyers. During this period, Irvine company release home by phase, and each phase price can go up to $25,000 to $50,000 with some additional mandatory upgrade, the total phases of each model are various, and each phase may include two sub-phases. The master plan communities include Entire Northwood II, Quail hills, most part of Turtor ridge and half of Woodbury.

   2. The method of claim 1, the home buyer priority number if not determine by first-come-first-serve policy or the buyer’s qualification, but rather the buyer’s financial strength. Even if a buyer can get a loan from a lending constitution but it will still be pushed to later phase because he does not make ‘more’ money than other buyers even if they are later.

   3. The method of claim 1, in order to further to manipulate the prices, in most case, it requires buyers to register in the web site first with very detailed buyer financial info and in a case the web site say this is first-come-first-service, so the buyer has incentive to fill in all the personal info that in additional enough to use to determine the qualification, and in most of the case, the priority policy change in the grand opening day from first-come-first-service to undisclosed method and therefore IAC use it to manipulate prices. In this intentionally first-come-first-service method, it able to gather much more people and therefore to create a illusion for demand and therefore the raise the price during each phase.

   4. the method of claim 1, in the grand open day, it may further announces a lottery system to determine phase one buyers, which may only include specific person can be in the draw, all the draw is per-defined to only include builder’s employee and IAC executive’s relative, and in some cases, the phase one split to 1A and 1B with different qualification buyers but release at same day where the prices may also jump up 5% of selling prices.
   1. IrvineRenter February 24, 2009 at 9:53 pm

      Unfortunately, I don’t see anything illegal in what they did. They were maximizing their revenue in the way they thought best. By selecting the most creditworthy, they assure themselves of closing the deal, and they open themselves up to the least amount of lawsuits brought by on behalf of unsophisticated buyers.

      Actually, their sales tactics were brilliant. They took advantage of rubes who thought they were geniuses. Some lawyer may be able to drain the pockets of some of these buyers further by bringing a frivolous lawsuit. I imagine this lawsuit will not be on a contingency basis and the plaintiffs will be paying the attorney.
   2. h February 24, 2009 at 9:59 pm

      Class action suits: the lawyers get a lot of money and the plaintiffs get a coupon.
      1. CityOfNoJustice February 24, 2009 at 10:15 pm

         We care justice more than just money. this makes our country the best in the world.
   3. CityOfNoJustice February 24, 2009 at 10:00 pm

      The city allows IAC do whatever to do, change zone, delay construction, 4 stories apartment, 18 floor high-rise etc. city has zone negotiation tactics with IAC.
      Just see how clouded the school and how many convertible classroom has been built.
   4. Jim February 24, 2009 at 10:07 pm

      “Even if you are being qualifying by landing institution, you can still be pushed back” is the key.
      This is the same as you have to sit in the back of bus because you are poor or you can’t go to Yankee stadium to watch ballgame if you are not wealth enough.
9. tlc8386 February 24, 2009 at 10:03 pm

   I can see the lawsuit–market manipulation of prices due to ability to pay–

   they charged the most because they knew what you could pay–

   something does not smell right with this to me???
   1. tlc8386 February 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm

      price fixing—is this illegal??
10. CityOfNoJustice February 24, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    Instead of driving by lawyer, IMHO, all home buyers can file a ‘master’ law suit and each community can have there own sub-law suit (IAC prefer term to use, master plan and slaver home buyers!) .
    I know a couple of communities at Northwood II apply all 4 claims above.
11. Sam February 24, 2009 at 11:01 pm

    You do not need to invest in real estate to lose your shirt. In this down-turn, I’ve lost about 60% of portfolio so far investing in stocks of companies I thought were jewels. Obviously I could have lost all had I traded on margin which is what real estate investing is – highly leveraged where you could easily lose or double/triple the “down-payment”. Stocks have lost a lot more value than all real estate losses.
    1. Perspective February 25, 2009 at 1:32 am

       Yes, but people here want to celebrate how smart they were not to buy real estate, so you’ll hear little about the growth/loss of their rent savings.
       1. tlc8386 February 25, 2009 at 1:54 am

          http://ml-implode.com/viewnews/2009-02-24_HousePricesDown27FromPeakincludescharts.html

          if this is true % for a typical one
          million dollar house here in Irvine back in 05′ I would be at a loss of 270k in equity value—factor my rent 3 years @ 36k per year and I am looking at throwing away rent of 108k minus the loss of owning 270k —renting saved me 162k–and guess what no taxes on top-even if you factor in the tax credit renting comes out ahead–not to mention the cost of buying and paying the RE for that 1 million buck house–(don’t forget insurance and maintanence)

          The only time owning is better is when housing is going up in price–
          1. Perspective February 25, 2009 at 2:26 am

             I don’t dispute that renting has been a better choice this decade. My comment was more directed at the delight people share in having not lost money buying a home, while pushing out of their thoughts the losses they’ve taken in other investments.

             It’s normal behavior: Ruminate in your wise/fortunate decisions while discounting or even ignoring your less wise/fortunate decisions.
             1. tlc8386 February 25, 2009 at 2:40 am

                We all have lost anyone who says they have gained is not telling the truth. If he has gained in the market he has lost on his house–if he rents he has lost on holding cash (interest rates so low) if he shops he has lost on selection with stores closing–with 4,000 inmates being threatened to be let out of jail (in LA) we have all lost our security. We have lost jobs which effect all of us–No one has won as our taxes will only go up–our national debt load is massive. The de-regulation has destroyed our safety net allowing fraud to run amuck and we will all pay for it.
             2. maliburenter February 25, 2009 at 7:58 am

                Um, hate to tell you this. I saved a ton of money by renting. Since 2004 I’ve saved around half of my aftertax income each year. I got out of the stock market in 2007 before the peak. I was in Cds for a while, now I am in corporate and municipal bonds. My annualized return on investments over the last 5 years is around 8%. It’s about 11% over the last year.
          2. nowwaat February 25, 2009 at 3:41 am

             to tic; I would never recommend buying at inflated prices just for the sake of buying. That’s why I have not bought since selling my condo in early 2002. I had owned that condo for 10 years and later when I calculated everything, I think I was better off buying it (and then selling it) than renting. There was a time in 1996 or so – I was upside down on it – when I felt I was stuck in it and limited my options for relocation or buying a bigger place unless I was willing to take a cash loss or risk ruining my credit. But I held and came out ahead. Had I held it and sold in 2006, then I would have been much better off to say the least, but no very few people are lucky enough in timing the market.
             1. tlc8386 February 25, 2009 at 4:15 am

                Markets are cyclical they go up and down according to supply and demand constrants. Catching these phases is indeed timing them correctly. No one really knows for sure but when you see unrealistic prices such as a home that flipped 121% above the last sold price only two months ago should of been the Trigger that something big was amiss—and indeed it is Fraud.

                If you missed the tech run and and sell off if really was no different than this bubble mentality except it’s effect is widespread. The tech crash and burn only hurt those involved but the trickle down effect did effect jobs related to this sector.

                We all have events in life we missed or wished it went our way–this is life. Many of us threw the dice and bet big and got caught. Problem is it hit everyone of us not just those in the game.

                If we had controls as I remembered on my first homes I really do not think this would have taken off to this extreme effect–you had to show real income, real credit and bankers were not making billions a year on income. This greed is what has taken down our financial sector.

                We have done this to ourselves–and if you missed it be grateful. Many have lost.
12. momopi February 24, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    OMG what idiot took these home photos?

    Portola Springs? Isn’t this condo in Orangetree?
    1. Sam February 24, 2009 at 11:51 pm

       Yes, I think it’s the “Orangetree” area. Perhaps, the area is the least expensive of all of Irvine, and properties in that area should be less expensive accordingly.
13. ockurt February 24, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    Foreclosures hit South County

    http://tinyurl.com/amzqvh
14. ockurt February 24, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    Prices drop ‘insanely’ for San Juan Capistrano homes

    http://tinyurl.com/bbhn8m
    1. NOT February 25, 2009 at 1:01 am

       “Smith said this has brought home values closer to the bottom, which is the unknown price at which most buyers are willing to buy a house.”

       Seems like someone knows it 🙂

       “By reducing housing prices, banks have created what Smith calls an “auction mentality,” with multiple offers placed on each bank-owned property. The market bids up the price even if the house is listed low.”

       But I guess everyone hasn’t learned yet.
15. Hizkel February 25, 2009 at 12:27 am

    Today, I read on CR about price-to-rent and price-to-income ratios for the nation and selected cities. IR, have you already graphed these ratios for Irvine (and may be one more for Irvine’s southern neighbors in OC just for comparison) ? What do you think of these ratios as a way to guage prices as supported by historical trends and fundamentals ?
    1. IrvineRenter February 25, 2009 at 2:04 am

       I analyzed all these ratios in the projection section of The Great Housing Bubble. Each of them is an incomplete part of the picture, but taken together, they provide a reasonable approximation for where prices will find support and put in a bottom.
16. Rocks February 26, 2009 at 11:21 am

    Really helpful post for the buyers .. thanks for sharing…:)

Comments are closed.