How's your housing market? (4 Viewers)

[BassNBrew]

maybe this is a bit off topic, but what do you guys think of vacant land as an investment? I've been thinking for a few years that good, pristine, clean vacant land is the only thing that we can never make more of (outside of the UAE). I'm not talking about vacant lots, I'm talking about multi-acre parcels in rural locations, especially in places that have a draw - mountains, river/lake front, etc. Thoughts?

Don't like it unless you have a tip that it's about to rapidly appreciate and you can move it quickly. The money flow on land goes one direction and that's outbound. Now if you've got money to burn and need a place to hunt or fish I can see the draw, but you'd see be better off leasing. Better to be invested in something that will generate some revenue.

yeah, I hear what you are saying, but I'm talking about long term investments - 20 year time line. I suppose the market probably outperforms land in the long run though, so the $$ is probably better put somewhere else.

Most definately. I really think you need some expertise and insight to do well in land. Too many variable beyond your control such as zoning can impact your investment.

 

[OC Zed]

maybe this is a bit off topic, but what do you guys think of vacant land as an investment? I've been thinking for a few years that good, pristine, clean vacant land is the only thing that we can never make more of (outside of the UAE). I'm not talking about vacant lots, I'm talking about multi-acre parcels in rural locations, especially in places that have a draw - mountains, river/lake front, etc. Thoughts?

Don't like it unless you have a tip that it's about to rapidly appreciate and you can move it quickly. The money flow on land goes one direction and that's outbound. Now if you've got money to burn and need a place to hunt or fish I can see the draw, but you'd see be better off leasing. Better to be invested in something that will generate some revenue.

yeah, I hear what you are saying, but I'm talking about long term investments - 20 year time line. I suppose the market probably outperforms land in the long run though, so the $$ is probably better put somewhere else.

Most definately. I really think you need some expertise and insight to do well in land. Too many variable beyond your control such as zoning can impact your investment.

These are good points stated above. You specifically need to think about how long your time horizon is and factor in property taxes at the very least. Not to mention your initial up front due diligence and closing costs. In terms of your payout, you might be able to profit from the increased value of the raw land over time, but in most instances the bigger payout is for the developer that entitles the land. What that entails depends on the intended use and what types of laws/restrictions are in your neck of the woods. In short, putting your money in the market would make for an easier, much more liquid and more likely profitable investment than investing in undeveloped land.

 

[OC Zed]

Ed McMahon's Beverly Hills home faces foreclosure...

Linkadee

The Wall Street Journal

June 4, 2008

Ed McMahon May Lose Beverly Hills Home

By JAMES R. HAGERTY and GLENN R. SIMPSON

June 4, 2008; Page A3

Ed McMahon, the longtime sidekick to television star Johnny Carson, faces the possible loss of his Beverly Hills home to a foreclosure action initiated by a unit of Countrywide Financial Corp.

Howard Bragman, a spokesman for Mr. McMahon, said late Tuesday that his client is having "very fruitful discussions" with the lender and hopes to find a resolution. It isn't clear whether that would allow the 85-year-old Mr. McMahon and his wife, Pamela, to remain in the six-bedroom home.

A Countrywide spokeswoman said the lender couldn't comment in such cases "due to privacy issues."

Mr. McMahon, a jovial fixture of American television for decades, is one of the most prominent people caught up in a wave of mortgage defaults that has devastated low-income areas, suburbia and even a few posh gated communities, such as the one where the McMahons live. U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson, a California Democrat, recently lost a home in Sacramento to a foreclosure. Rep. Richardson didn't respond to requests for comment.

ReconTrust, a unit of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, on Feb. 28 filed a notice of default on a $4.8 million Countrywide loan backed by Mr. McMahon's home. The notice was filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office but hasn't previously come to light. According to the filing, Mr. McMahon was then about $644,000 in arrears on the loan. It isn't clear whether Countrywide still owns the loan or is acting on behalf of investors who acquired it. Public records also show that Mr. McMahon had a separate home-equity line of credit from Countrywide of up to $300,000 secured by the same house.

Mr. McMahon's home has been on the market for about two years, his real-estate agent Alex Davis said. Mr. Davis said the price had been reduced, but he couldn't immediately provide details. The Christie's Great Estates Web site, which includes homes listed by Mr. Davis, lists the asking price at $5.75 million and says it has a canyon view and a master-bedroom suite with his and her bathrooms.

Mr. McMahon broke his neck in a fall about 18 months ago and hasn't been able to work, Mr. Bragman said. That health problem, along with the weak housing market and economy, has forced Mr. McMahon into foreclosure proceedings, Mr. Bragman said.

The McMahons "understand that they are in the same situation as hundreds of thousands of other hard-working Americans, and their hearts go out to them," Mr. Bragman said.

It isn't inevitable that the McMahons will lose their home to foreclosure. Lenders often ease terms on loans or provide more time for borrowers to catch up. Lenders also sometimes agree to accept less than the full amount due on the loan if the borrower can find a buyer for the home.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Equity in Americans’ homes falls to historic low

Drops to 46.2 percent in first quarter — level not seen since end of WWII

NEW YORK - The equity Americans have in their most important asset — their homes — has dropped to its lowest level since the end of World War II.

Homeowners’ portion of equity slipped to 46.2 percent in the first quarter from a revised 47.5 percent in the previous quarter. That was the fifth quarter in a row below the 50 percent mark, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

The total dollar value of equity also fell for the fourth straight quarter to $9.12 trillion from $9.52 trillion in the fourth quarter, while Americans’ total mortgage debt rose to $10.6 trillion from $10.53 trillion.

Story continues below ↓advertisement

A homeowner’s equity is the market value of a property minus the mortgage debt. And homeowners’ percentage of equity has declined steadily even as home values surged during the housing boom due to a jump in cash-out refinancing, home equity loans and an increase in 100 percent financing.

Experts expect equity to decline further as falling home prices erode the value of Americans’ largest asset, dragging more homeowners “upside down” on their mortgages.

At the end of March, nearly 8.5 million homeowners had negative or no equity in their homes, representing more than 16 percent of all homeowners with a mortgage, according to Moody’s Economy.com Chief Economist Mark Zandi. By June 2009, he estimates that will increase to 12.2 million, or almost one out of every four homeowners with a mortgage.

But to put that number in perspective, one out of every three homeowners own their properties free and clear, with no mortgage at all.

Still, Zandi said, “For most, their home is their key asset. If they have no equity in their home, likely their net worth is negative too. Their entire balance sheet will be underwater.”

The report also showed that Americans’ total net worth dropped to $55.97 trillion in the first quarter from $57.67 trillion.

Zandi expects prices to fall 24 percent from peak to trough. Last week, Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller said its national home price index fell about 14 percent in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, the lowest since its inception in 1988.

Prices nationwide are at levels not seen since the third quarter of 2004.

Homeowners with no or negative equity are more likely to fall behind on their mortgage payments or, in frustration, mail the keys to the lender and walk away from their mortgages, a phenomenon more lenders are seeing. This will only increase foreclosures, which have been surging the last two years, and further exacerbate the housing downturn.

The Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday the rate of new foreclosures and late payments in the first three months of this year were the highest on record going back to 1979.

Almost 1 percent of mortgages fell into foreclosure, surpassing the previous high of 0.83 percent in the last quarter of 2007. The percentage of Americans who have missed at least one mortgage payment jumped to 6.35 percent, up from 5.82 percent in the prior quarter.

Jay Brinkmann, the association’s vice president of research and economics, told The Associated Press he anticipates foreclosures and late payments to continue increasing in the months ahead as prices keep dropping as expected.

Stunning that after the greatest US housing boom in history, home equity is so low.

 

[stbugs]

Equity in Americans’ homes falls to historic low

Drops to 46.2 percent in first quarter — level not seen since end of WWII

NEW YORK - The equity Americans have in their most important asset — their homes — has dropped to its lowest level since the end of World War II.

Homeowners’ portion of equity slipped to 46.2 percent in the first quarter from a revised 47.5 percent in the previous quarter. That was the fifth quarter in a row below the 50 percent mark, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

The total dollar value of equity also fell for the fourth straight quarter to $9.12 trillion from $9.52 trillion in the fourth quarter, while Americans’ total mortgage debt rose to $10.6 trillion from $10.53 trillion.

Story continues below ↓advertisement

A homeowner’s equity is the market value of a property minus the mortgage debt. And homeowners’ percentage of equity has declined steadily even as home values surged during the housing boom due to a jump in cash-out refinancing, home equity loans and an increase in 100 percent financing.

Experts expect equity to decline further as falling home prices erode the value of Americans’ largest asset, dragging more homeowners “upside down” on their mortgages.

At the end of March, nearly 8.5 million homeowners had negative or no equity in their homes, representing more than 16 percent of all homeowners with a mortgage, according to Moody’s Economy.com Chief Economist Mark Zandi. By June 2009, he estimates that will increase to 12.2 million, or almost one out of every four homeowners with a mortgage.

But to put that number in perspective, one out of every three homeowners own their properties free and clear, with no mortgage at all.

Still, Zandi said, “For most, their home is their key asset. If they have no equity in their home, likely their net worth is negative too. Their entire balance sheet will be underwater.”

The report also showed that Americans’ total net worth dropped to $55.97 trillion in the first quarter from $57.67 trillion.

Zandi expects prices to fall 24 percent from peak to trough. Last week, Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller said its national home price index fell about 14 percent in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, the lowest since its inception in 1988.

Prices nationwide are at levels not seen since the third quarter of 2004.

Homeowners with no or negative equity are more likely to fall behind on their mortgage payments or, in frustration, mail the keys to the lender and walk away from their mortgages, a phenomenon more lenders are seeing. This will only increase foreclosures, which have been surging the last two years, and further exacerbate the housing downturn.

The Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday the rate of new foreclosures and late payments in the first three months of this year were the highest on record going back to 1979.

Almost 1 percent of mortgages fell into foreclosure, surpassing the previous high of 0.83 percent in the last quarter of 2007. The percentage of Americans who have missed at least one mortgage payment jumped to 6.35 percent, up from 5.82 percent in the prior quarter.

Jay Brinkmann, the association’s vice president of research and economics, told The Associated Press he anticipates foreclosures and late payments to continue increasing in the months ahead as prices keep dropping as expected.

Stunning that after the greatest US housing boom in history, home equity is so low.

Oh lordy. We talked about this before, just in a different article. First of all, during the housing boom, home ownership rose. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was from about 60% to 65% or 65% to 69%. So based on both numbers, that would mean that we added 6-8% new homebuyers with 0% equity (or even negative equity based on the recent slide). Remember that during the housing boom, people weren't putting down historical 20% down payments. Is it surprising to add that many homebuyers with that little equity that equity levels are at historical lows? Throw in the fact that people who got equity did tons of improvements or "moved up" in houses (like me - although thank god I moved from DC to Charlotte, woo hoo BassNBrew) and that number surprises me very little. What was the equity number before the boom, if $9.12 trillion > 1998 equity (that was when housing got "tight" in DC and started jumping), then isn't this misleading and more of a game of using the percentage because it looks worse than the overall number.Sorry no link on the numbers above. Damn Canadian articles. For some reason they published a news article about Canadian home ownership at record levels. Oh well.

I have to say that this regurgitation by the media is getting annoying. I just saw yesterday (dated 6/5) a Yahoo article about foreclosures being up again. I read it just to see if there was anything interesting and there wasn't. It reiterated already seen articles weeks ago about the 1st Quarter numbers. 1st Quarter reporting in June? How about the May numbers? It was just annoying because I like checking it all out, but man, to recycle the same information weeks later as new news is getting to be like Dateline shows where they say nothing about dates (on purpose) and you realize that it is a 4 year old murder case they are showing and you realize that you already saw it a long time ago.

For the 1st Quarter piece, here is a link to a 4/29 article on MSNBC: LINK Here is a 6/5 from Marketwatch: LINK Here is I think the link that Yahoo had up which is 6/5: LINK

Maybe a decimal point changed, but jeebus, reporting 1st Quarter numbers almost a month and a half later like it is new horrible news reeks of Kent Brockman's Death Watch ticker for the huge storm rolling through Springfield. Yes, we all know that the housing market is bad, we get it, we know it may take a while to get better, but please tell us new numbers not reshaped old ones.

 

[stbugs]

Check out this link I found, http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/03/grass5.htm, while trying to find the 1998 home equity numbers.

The title of the article is "Home Equity Lending Abuses in the Subprime Mortgage Industry" and it was provided to a Senate committee by the Federal Trade Commission.

Of note to me is the date on the report of March 16, 1998. Oh well, we tried.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Equity in Americans’ homes falls to historic low

Drops to 46.2 percent in first quarter — level not seen since end of WWII

NEW YORK - The equity Americans have in their most important asset — their homes — has dropped to its lowest level since the end of World War II.

Homeowners’ portion of equity slipped to 46.2 percent in the first quarter from a revised 47.5 percent in the previous quarter. That was the fifth quarter in a row below the 50 percent mark, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

The total dollar value of equity also fell for the fourth straight quarter to $9.12 trillion from $9.52 trillion in the fourth quarter, while Americans’ total mortgage debt rose to $10.6 trillion from $10.53 trillion.

Story continues below ↓advertisement

A homeowner’s equity is the market value of a property minus the mortgage debt. And homeowners’ percentage of equity has declined steadily even as home values surged during the housing boom due to a jump in cash-out refinancing, home equity loans and an increase in 100 percent financing.

Experts expect equity to decline further as falling home prices erode the value of Americans’ largest asset, dragging more homeowners “upside down” on their mortgages.

At the end of March, nearly 8.5 million homeowners had negative or no equity in their homes, representing more than 16 percent of all homeowners with a mortgage, according to Moody’s Economy.com Chief Economist Mark Zandi. By June 2009, he estimates that will increase to 12.2 million, or almost one out of every four homeowners with a mortgage.

But to put that number in perspective, one out of every three homeowners own their properties free and clear, with no mortgage at all.

Still, Zandi said, “For most, their home is their key asset. If they have no equity in their home, likely their net worth is negative too. Their entire balance sheet will be underwater.”

The report also showed that Americans’ total net worth dropped to $55.97 trillion in the first quarter from $57.67 trillion.

Zandi expects prices to fall 24 percent from peak to trough. Last week, Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller said its national home price index fell about 14 percent in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, the lowest since its inception in 1988.

Prices nationwide are at levels not seen since the third quarter of 2004.

Homeowners with no or negative equity are more likely to fall behind on their mortgage payments or, in frustration, mail the keys to the lender and walk away from their mortgages, a phenomenon more lenders are seeing. This will only increase foreclosures, which have been surging the last two years, and further exacerbate the housing downturn.

The Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday the rate of new foreclosures and late payments in the first three months of this year were the highest on record going back to 1979.

Almost 1 percent of mortgages fell into foreclosure, surpassing the previous high of 0.83 percent in the last quarter of 2007. The percentage of Americans who have missed at least one mortgage payment jumped to 6.35 percent, up from 5.82 percent in the prior quarter.

Jay Brinkmann, the association’s vice president of research and economics, told The Associated Press he anticipates foreclosures and late payments to continue increasing in the months ahead as prices keep dropping as expected.

Stunning that after the greatest US housing boom in history, home equity is so low.

Oh lordy. We talked about this before, just in a different article. First of all, during the housing boom, home ownership rose. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was from about 60% to 65% or 65% to 69%. So based on both numbers, that would mean that we added 6-8% new homebuyers with 0% equity (or even negative equity based on the recent slide). Remember that during the housing boom, people weren't putting down historical 20% down payments. Is it surprising to add that many homebuyers with that little equity that equity levels are at historical lows? Throw in the fact that people who got equity did tons of improvements or "moved up" in houses (like me - although thank god I moved from DC to Charlotte, woo hoo BassNBrew) and that number surprises me very little. What was the equity number before the boom, if $9.12 trillion > 1998 equity (that was when housing got "tight" in DC and started jumping), then isn't this misleading and more of a game of using the percentage because it looks worse than the overall number.

No doubt stbugs - but one of the arguments we've heard over the past couple of years from the bulls is the "everyone has so much equity b/c of the runup that a correction won't hurt many". That obviously isn't true.

 

[Worm]

Raleigh NC - sold our house for 98%+ of asking in 10 days.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Raleigh NC - sold our house for 98%+ of asking in 10 days.

Good for you Worm. Glad to see some areas aren't getting pummeled.

 

[tommyGunZ]

San Diego housing prices continue to get hammered - down 22.8% from May '07 to May '08.

Home sales hit 13-year low in Calif.

Prices plummet 30% from May 2007 peak

By Roger Showley

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

June 19, 2008

California housing sales were at their lowest level in 13 years last month, as prices slid 30 percent from year-ago levels, San Diego-based DataQuick Information Systems reported yesterday.

Graphic: California Housing Sales and Prices - May 2008

The 33,024 transactions statewide were down 6 percent from April and off 10.7 percent from May 2007. It was the worst May since 1995.

popup The statewide median price stood at $339,000, 4.2 percent below April's level and 30 percent down from the all-time peak of $484,000 in May 2007. It was the biggest year-over-year downturn for any month in 20 years of record keeping, said DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage.

In some inland counties, LePage said, lower prices boosted sales. Sacramento, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties saw as much as a 60.2 percent increase in sales, prompted by some of the steepest price drops statewide.

Statewide, sales have been dropping 10 percent or more on a year-over-year basis each month since November 2005.

As reported earlier, San Diego County's sales rate declined by 12 percent to 2,979 transactions in May. The median price decline for San Diego was not as severe as at the state level – off 22.8 percent from May 2007's $492,000 to $380,000 last month.

In the six-county Southern California region, the overall median was down 26.7 percent from a year ago to $370,000. San Diego prices dropped the least with San Bernardino County down the most, off 30.8 percent to $250,250.

This reflects San Diego's position as a regional bellwether – it was the first county to experience a boom and the first to decline. Economists are now waiting to see if San Diego is the first to show renewed price increases – something most do not expect until next year.

In the nine-county Northern California region, Contra Costa County was off the most, down 33.8 percent from May 2007 to $390,500 on 1,206 sales. Relatively small Marin was the only county in either region to register a price increase, up 5.8 percent to $899,000 on 226 sales.

Statewide, the price decline produced improved affordability, as measured by mortgage payments for the median-priced property.

At prevailing interest rates, DataQuick figured the typical mortgage payment last month for a newly purchased home was $1,569, down from $1,645 in April and $2,266 in May 2008.

“Adjusted for inflation, mortgage payments are back to where they were in mid-2003,” DataQuick said. “They are 23.3 percent below the spring 1989 peak of the prior real estate cycle. They are 38 percent below the current cycle's peak in June 2006.”

DataQuick is expected to release foreclosure and default totals shortly for San Diego and the rest of the state.

DataQuick found that 38.3 percent of all sales in California in May were for properties that completed the foreclosure process in the previous 12 months, compared with 37.6 percent in April and 5.4 percent in May 2007. San Diego's foreclosure sales represented 36 percent of the market in May.

“Indicators of market distress continue to move in different directions,” DataQuick said. “Foreclosure activity is at record levels; financing with adjustable-rate mortgages is at a six-year low. Down-payment sizes and flipping rates are stable and nonowner-occupied buying activity is increasing.”

In a statement, DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage said Southern California buying reflects bargain shopping, particularly among first-time buyers and investors in inland areas. By contrast, buying among higher-priced homes remains “especially slow.”

“That doesn't bode well for the high end, where so far, prices have come off their peaks but have generally held up best,” LePage said.

 

[Chadstroma]

Raleigh NC - sold our house for 98%+ of asking in 10 days.

Nice. How far is Charlotte from Raleigh? I have read that market is strong. Is all of NC doing well?

 

[Worm]

Raleigh NC - sold our house for 98%+ of asking in 10 days.

Nice. How far is Charlotte from Raleigh? I have read that market is strong. Is all of NC doing well?

Charlotte is about two and a half hours away. Raleigh and Charlotte are doing better than just about anywhere. I think our buyers agent in Charlotte said something about Raleigh being the #1 sellers market in the country right now. I'm really not too sure about the rest of the state, but it seems to be doing pretty well overall.

 

[tommyGunZ]

'07-'08 price changes for the 5 regions of San Diego County from the San Union Tribune today:

Central San Diego: -25.9%East County SD: -26.9%North County Inland: -28%North County Coast: -15%South County SD: -31%

This isn't from the Nov '05 peak, this is over the last calendar year.Anyone who recently bet on SD housing, uh-oh. Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

'07-'08 price changes for the 5 regions of San Diego County from the San Union Tribune today:

Central San Diego: -25.9%East County SD: -26.9%North County Inland: -28%North County Coast: -15%South County SD: -31%

This isn't from the Nov '05 peak, this is over the last calendar year.Anyone who recently bet on SD housing, uh-oh. Don't say I didn't warn you.

tommy - pretty sure you and I are the only ones who still look at this thread.

 

[Getinthemix]

I am with you as well.

 

[tommyGunZ]

'07-'08 price changes for the 5 regions of San Diego County from the San Union Tribune today:

Central San Diego: -25.9%East County SD: -26.9%North County Inland: -28%North County Coast: -15%South County SD: -31%

This isn't from the Nov '05 peak, this is over the last calendar year.Anyone who recently bet on SD housing, uh-oh. Don't say I didn't warn you.

tommy - pretty sure you and I are the only ones who still look at this thread.

It is interesting that many of the bulls who were regular posters in '06 and '07 have been silent. Anyway - point of this thread now is to continue to follow the market. I'm still holding out, but it is frustrating to know that while I'm prepared to buy, the prices still haven't fallen in line with historical fundamentals yet, and as such I feel my hard earned down payment would evaporate within 6-12 months.Looks like fall of '09 for me.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And in my neighborhood, #### is still way out of whack.

Exhibit A: You can either BUY this home for $550k, or you can RENT it for 2k per month.

Why in the world would any idiot buy this place? :X

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And in my neighborhood, #### is still way out of whack.

Exhibit A: You can either BUY this home for $550k, or you can RENT it for 2k per month.

Why in the world would any idiot buy this place?

Exactly the same here.

A 3100 square foot gorgeous home in a top neighborhood - 2k rent and 552k price tag.

 

[The Commish]

Raleigh NC - sold our house for 98%+ of asking in 10 days.

Nice. How far is Charlotte from Raleigh? I have read that market is strong. Is all of NC doing well?

Charlotte is about two and a half hours away. Raleigh and Charlotte are doing better than just about anywhere. I think our buyers agent in Charlotte said something about Raleigh being the #1 sellers market in the country right now. I'm really not too sure about the rest of the state, but it seems to be doing pretty well overall.

House right across the street from us just sold in two weeks. I was pretty shocked with all the new construction competition still in the neighborhood. Seems to be doing just fine here in the CLT/Fort Mill/Rock Hill area

 

[tommyGunZ]

Raleigh NC - sold our house for 98%+ of asking in 10 days. :X

Nice. How far is Charlotte from Raleigh? I have read that market is strong. Is all of NC doing well?

Charlotte is about two and a half hours away. Raleigh and Charlotte are doing better than just about anywhere. I think our buyers agent in Charlotte said something about Raleigh being the #1 sellers market in the country right now. I'm really not too sure about the rest of the state, but it seems to be doing pretty well overall.

House right across the street from us just sold in two weeks. I was pretty shocked with all the new construction competition still in the neighborhood. Seems to be doing just fine here in the CLT/Fort Mill/Rock Hill area

Good for you Commish. I wonder if your area is an anomaly, or if it's just one of the last dominoes that haven't fallen yet?If your area didn't participate in the huge run-up from 2001-2006, you're probably safe. But I would think the new lending guidelines would be squeezing out marginal buyers everywhere, regardless of recent appreciation.Who knows?

 

[Mr. Nasty]

And in my neighborhood, #### is still way out of whack.

Exhibit A: You can either BUY this home for $550k, or you can RENT it for 2k per month.

Why in the world would any idiot buy this place?

Exactly the same here.

A 3100 square foot gorgeous home in a top neighborhood - 2k rent and 552k price tag.

Seriously? 3100 square feet for 552k? Where at? Where I live, 3100 square feet is over a mil. Latest place over here at 3500 square feet went for 1.4.

 

[The Z Machine]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

 

[Foosball God]

Our house in Michigan finally sold. We bought it for 314k, it sold for 222k. A 30% drop in almost exactly 3 years.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

No one needs it. But more sf = more prestige = more perceived value = more resale value. In theory. Five years from now these 3000+ sf behemoths will be the equivalent of V8 gas guzzlers from the '70s. Everyone will want compact houses with high energy ratings.

 

[The Z Machine]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

No one needs it. But more sf = more prestige = more perceived value = more resale value. In theory. Five years from now these 3000+ sf behemoths will be the equivalent of V8 gas guzzlers from the '70s. Everyone will want compact houses with high energy ratings.

If you're looking for more prestige, move into a better neighborhood. Sure there are some neighborhoods where EVERY house is 3000+ sq. ft., but those are likely in the $1m+ category range.I totally agree with what you're saying. There's gonna be a whole lotta push for "green" remodeling to reduce energy footprint in the future.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

It only has 4 bedrooms. With it listed as a 3 full bedrooms and a 4th that can be a utility room.

 

[The Z Machine]

Our house in Michigan finally sold. We bought it for 314k, it sold for 222k. A 30% drop in almost exactly 3 years.

You were the one that was gonna get comped the difference by the company moving your wife right? :notebook:At least I hope so, otherwise that sucks big time.

 

[BassNBrew]

And in my neighborhood, #### is still way out of whack.

Exhibit A: You can either BUY this home for $550k, or you can RENT it for 2k per month.

Why in the world would any idiot buy this place?

Exactly the same here.

A 3100 square foot gorgeous home in a top neighborhood - 2k rent and 552k price tag.

Seriously? 3100 square feet for 552k? Where at? Where I live, 3100 square feet is over a mil. Latest place over here at 3500 square feet went for 1.4.

Around here (Charlotte) 250-300k would get you into a 3100 sf home less than five years old.

 

[The Z Machine]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

It only has 4 bedrooms. With it listed as a 3 full bedrooms and a 4th that can be a utility room.

3 BR and 3000+ sq. ft.? What the hell?I grew up in a 3BR/2BR house with like 1700 sq. ft. The place wasn't even that crowded! I suppose they weren't including the servant's quarters, right?

 

[Judge Smails]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

No one needs it. But more sf = more prestige = more perceived value = more resale value. In theory. Five years from now these 3000+ sf behemoths will be the equivalent of V8 gas guzzlers from the '70s. Everyone will want compact houses with high energy ratings.

This makes no sense. Will people try to get more energy efficient? Yes. Will solar likely take off? Yes (matter of fact saw a guy selling solar in a booth at Costco for the first time this week). Will construction get more green? Absolutely. But comparing a complete depreciatiating asset like a car to a long term appreciating asset like real estate is apples and oranges. Everyone will want compact houses? Really? I don't think so.

 

[The Z Machine]

And in my neighborhood, #### is still way out of whack.

Exhibit A: You can either BUY this home for $550k, or you can RENT it for 2k per month.

Why in the world would any idiot buy this place?

Exactly the same here.

A 3100 square foot gorgeous home in a top neighborhood - 2k rent and 552k price tag.

Seriously? 3100 square feet for 552k? Where at? Where I live, 3100 square feet is over a mil. Latest place over here at 3500 square feet went for 1.4.

Around here (Charlotte) 250-300k would get you into a 3100 sf home less than five years old.

Are you saying that real estate prices and trends vary depending on location???

 

[Statcruncher]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

No one needs it. But more sf = more prestige = more perceived value = more resale value. In theory. Five years from now these 3000+ sf behemoths will be the equivalent of V8 gas guzzlers from the '70s. Everyone will want compact houses with high energy ratings.

This makes no sense. Will people try to get more energy efficient? Yes. Will solar likely take off? Yes (matter of fact saw a guy selling solar in a booth at Costco for the first time this week). Will construction get more green? Absolutely. But comparing a complete depreciatiating asset like a car to a long term appreciating asset like real estate is apples and oranges. Everyone will want compact houses? Really? I don't think so.

This guy knows stuff. Last week 3 of us at work compared our electric bills and when we factored in the square footage the results were surprising:1800 sq/ft - $315 - .175 cents per sq/ft

2460 sq/ft - $330 - .134 cents per sq/ft (newest house)

3200 sq/ft - $285 - .085 cents per sq/ft (oldest house of the bunch)

I was shocked to see that the largest house and oldest house of the bunch was actually the cheapest to cool. All told, in Texas energy efficiency basically boils down to energy efficient windows (or lack of windows) and shade from mature trees.

 

[Dry H]

Our house in Michigan finally sold. We bought it for 314k, it sold for 222k. A 30% drop in almost exactly 3 years.

 

[The Z Machine]

Last week 3 of us at work compared our electric bills and when we factored in the square footage the results were surprising:1800 sq/ft - $315 - .175 cents per sq/ft2460 sq/ft - $330 - .134 cents per sq/ft (newest house)3200 sq/ft - $285 - .085 cents per sq/ft (oldest house of the bunch)I was shocked to see that the largest house and oldest house of the bunch was actually the cheapest to cool. All told, in Texas energy efficiency basically boils down to energy efficient windows (or lack of windows) and shade from mature trees.

Just because the house is new doesn't mean it was constructed with energy efficiency in mind. My father's house was built in 1917, and it's pretty energy efficient due it's design. It's got a Spanish tile roof, is one floor, not built on a slab, and has some mature trees to provide shade. It's got good ventilation from windows and ceiling fans, plus an attic fan on a thermo-switch to kick on and exhaust the hot air that can get trapped in the attic.Some of the older homes were built before the advent of air conditioning, and they were probably custom built to take into account the landscape and solar direction.

 

[Spiderman]

How is the Chicago housing market doing ? Looking for some detailed analysis, if it's available.

 

[John Mamula]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

 

[John Mamula]

Our house in Michigan finally sold. We bought it for 314k, it sold for 222k. A 30% drop in almost exactly 3 years.

michigan has been and will continue to be a horrible housing market. fundamentally population-->employment-->housinglook at michigan demographics and its not hard to figure out that is a dead market.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

 

[Your Mom]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

How is that going to be too small with 4 people living there? Am I missing something here?

 

[RoarinSonoran]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

How is that going to be too small with 4 people living there? Am I missing something here?

They all weigh 800lbs each.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How's the market in Phx bagger?

 

[John Mamula]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

its not really the sf that makes it too small, but the bedroom design.you see some homes that are 2500 sf with 5 bedroooms, but very small and small common areas.if we want a guest bedroom, once we have our 2nd kid and they both get older, they'll each get their own room, which means no guest bedroom.do we need a guest bedroom...no. but having a casita as a guest house and man cave is always a good option...plus building one for $150 / sf and having it be valued at $300 / sf is instant equity.i guess its all relative...my former boss' house is 14k sf.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

its not really the sf that makes it too small, but the bedroom design.you see some homes that are 2500 sf with 5 bedroooms, but very small and small common areas.if we want a guest bedroom, once we have our 2nd kid and they both get older, they'll each get their own room, which means no guest bedroom.do we need a guest bedroom...no. but having a casita as a guest house and man cave is always a good option...plus building one for $150 / sf and having it be valued at $300 / sf is instant equity.i guess its all relative...my former boss' house is 14k sf.

big fan of the casita. I'm hoping for 1500 sf when i buy. really goes to show you how location means everything.

 

[The Z Machine]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

casita? 700 sq. ft.?WTF?My apartment is about 850 sq. ft., 2BR. I lived in a 1BR (not studio) apartment that was under 40 sq. meters (like 400 sq. ft.). Are you using the extra room to store wheatback pennies or something?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

casita? 700 sq. ft.?WTF?My apartment is about 850 sq. ft., 2BR. I lived in a 1BR (not studio) apartment that was under 40 sq. meters (like 400 sq. ft.). Are you using the extra room to store wheatback pennies or something?

two things you need to know:1) bagger has moolah. boatloads.2) bagger is bullish on RE. That should explain it. YWIA

 

[John Mamula]

How's the market in Phx bagger?

blarg.resale inventory is slowly coming down which is a good sign given the amount of foreclosures coming on the market. sales velocity is dramatically up...mainly due to foreclosures being purchased as soon as they come on the market. with that said PHX still has about 2x as much inventory as it should...currently about a 10.5 month supply as i calculated it today.like LA or SD, submarkets on the periphery are getting slaughtered, core areas are muddling along. still see some zip codes in PHX with YOY increases in the low single digits, but those are few and far between.we still haven't seen all of the homebuilders or banks collapse, and will likely see that throughout the end of 2008. this will continue to put downward pressure on pricing although land has already bottomed as publics are starting to run out of lots and are for the first time in a couple years buying dirt...the last two years all sales have virtually been from investors buying and holding lots.we're likely going to start making investments back into the market in late Q1 09 or Q2 09 more likely. it's ugly, and is going to be ugly for a few more months at least. but we also see some huge opportunities here. we're looking to line up institutional investors over the next 6 months to jump back in by the timeline mentioned above.with that said, with the losses we've taken this year, our parent may just decide to spin us off or sell us.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How's the market in Phx bagger?

blarg.resale inventory is slowly coming down which is a good sign given the amount of foreclosures coming on the market. sales velocity is dramatically up...mainly due to foreclosures being purchased as soon as they come on the market. with that said PHX still has about 2x as much inventory as it should...currently about a 10.5 month supply as i calculated it today.like LA or SD, submarkets on the periphery are getting slaughtered, core areas are muddling along. still see some zip codes in PHX with YOY increases in the low single digits, but those are few and far between.we still haven't seen all of the homebuilders or banks collapse, and will likely see that throughout the end of 2008. this will continue to put downward pressure on pricing although land has already bottomed as publics are starting to run out of lots and are for the first time in a couple years buying dirt...the last two years all sales have virtually been from investors buying and holding lots.we're likely going to start making investments back into the market in late Q1 09 or Q2 09 more likely. it's ugly, and is going to be ugly for a few more months at least. but we also see some huge opportunities here. we're looking to line up institutional investors over the next 6 months to jump back in by the timeline mentioned above.with that said, with the losses we've taken this year, our parent may just decide to spin us off or sell us.

hang in there bro. as you know very well, times will get better. but it was a helluva party, and the hangover is and will continue to be brutal in both of our areas.

 

[John Mamula]

Who needs 3000+ sq ft? Unless they have 8 children, I don't see the point.

my 3300 sf house will be too small if/when we have 2 kids.will likely add a 700 sf casita out back if/when that happens.

casita? 700 sq. ft.?WTF?My apartment is about 850 sq. ft., 2BR. I lived in a 1BR (not studio) apartment that was under 40 sq. meters (like 400 sq. ft.). Are you using the extra room to store wheatback pennies or something?

two things you need to know:1) bagger has moolah. boatloads.2) bagger is bullish on RE. That should explain it. YWIA

1. all relative i guess...i wouldn't say boatloads and its not something i'd be doing in the next 5 years so it will be an entirely different picture then. it's definitley not something i'd be doing today, or in 2-3 years.2. long term, in AZ? of course.look, i've lived in small studios. i get it. but when you get married and look to have a house that you'll live in for 10 years all of a sudden you realize how much space you eventually will want (notice i didn't say need).could you take my footprint of my house and put in 5 bed / 3 bath and be fine? sure. i was just responding to the point of there are 3300 sf homes that only have 3 bedrooms...so your point of 8 kids is way off.personally i think our office and master is a little too big and would prefer a 3rd bedroom...but whatever.

 

[Foosball God]

Our house in Michigan finally sold. We bought it for 314k, it sold for 222k. A 30% drop in almost exactly 3 years.

You were the one that was gonna get comped the difference by the company moving your wife right? :notebook:At least I hope so, otherwise that sucks big time.

Yes. Our loss on the house was only 30k, but with the incentive bonus we ended up ahead.

 

[The Z Machine]

Can we get a :mcmansion: smiley up in here?