Seattle Bubble

• Seattle Townhouse Market Tanking?
• A Few Properties Still Seeing Multiple Bids
• Number Of Realtors Surges
• Commission Negotiable—Shh, Don’t Tell!
• Follow The Money

Jump to the bottom to add your comment. ↓

50 responses so far ↓

• 1 softwarengineer // Nov 21, 2007 at 10:46 am

  I COULD DO WELL SELLING REAL ESTATE I IMAGINE

  I already know I could make a wonderful used car salesman and even an defense attorney, but ya know, I like putting my head on the pillow and going right to sleep.

  Doing a great job that likely conflicted with my morals is not my type of career choice, albeit I’m sure I’d make more money laxing up on my morals.

  One things for sure, if you are good at selling real estate in Seattle and you closed a lot of subprime loans in the last few years; aren’t you responsible for the current Seattle subprime mess too?

• 2 happy renter // Nov 21, 2007 at 11:11 am

  Nothing annoys me more than when listings are not located in the neighborhood they claim to be. Listings for Capitol Hill are the absolute worst for this. Sorry REALTORS (R), 25th and Jefferson is NOT Capitol Hill.

• 3 Ira Sacharoff // Nov 21, 2007 at 11:42 am

  happy renter,
  That’s the first thing I mentioned to the reporter and it didn’t make it into print, that as far as agents were concerned, there is no place called the Central District, and there is no place called Skyway. CD is always Capitol Hill, Madrona, or Leschi.
  Skyway is Renton, Lake Ridge or Earlington.
  But if a violent crime happens anywhere in the Seattle area, it’s almost always reported to have happened in Skyway or the CD.

• 4 Jon // Nov 21, 2007 at 11:46 am

  My favorite craig’s list sales job is “Amazingly Close **10 minutes from Downtown** Refreshingly far away **NoMa Ballard**”

  It’s BOTH amazingly close AND refreshingly far away.

  Reminds me of “humanitarian bombings.”

• 5 Faster // Nov 21, 2007 at 11:56 am

  It’s a fact that not a single house on the Eastside is more than 20 minutes from Microsoft.

• 6 redmondjp // Nov 21, 2007 at 12:03 pm

  My favorite was the house for sale in the middle of Mercer Island labeled “WATERFRONT” — yeah, a one-foot deep man-made lake in the (open) back yard (which several houses were set around) that looked like a plugged-up drainage area!

• 7 A // Nov 21, 2007 at 12:14 pm

  My favourite thing is when ordinary tile countertops are mentioned in the listing. Do they really expect you to be excited about that? You can really see it in the photo, so why highlight it?

• 8 Grape Ape // Nov 21, 2007 at 12:50 pm

  Hey Ira,
  Not only is Skyway now Renton, half of Renton is now New Castle.

• 9 rose-colored-turkaid // Nov 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm

  The actual quote is :

  You can put granite countertops in a dump, but you can’t make it smile.

  To make a house smile, you need to design it in such a way that it looks kind of like a face from the front.

           /  \
        /        \
     /              \
  /                   \
   |    _      _    |
   |   |_|  |_|   |
   |        _        |
   |       | |      |
   |       | |      |

• 10 explorer // Nov 21, 2007 at 2:02 pm

  Sooner or later, I hope there is some serious enforcement of truth-in-advertising for both buyers and renters. Part of the problem with describing rooms is the building code definitiions, at least for what constitutes a bedroom. It does not even need to have a floor to ceiling wall, in fact what is actually a loft, is allowed to be called a bedroom in King County. Next thing you know, waterfront property will be the kidde pool…

  Sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar.

• 11 BubbleBuyer // Nov 21, 2007 at 2:45 pm

  After looking at 20 or so homes prior to buying I learned pretty quickly that a picture is worth a 1,000 words. If the pictures look photoshopped, there is a reason for that.

  I learned to discount anything a seller or buyer agent tells you. No picture, no lookee irrespective of the gushing realtor write-up. Still, it’s amusing to snigger at the bold faced lies and spin inherent in most descriptions as is decoding the hidden keywords / phrasing.

• 12 laxtosnoco // Nov 21, 2007 at 2:46 pm

  What’s the deal with bedrooms in Washington? In Cali, I know that a room needed to have a closet and be a certain size (80 or 90 sq feet) to be called a bedroom. There must not be a similar requirement here, because I see a lot of dens/bonus rooms being called bedrooms.

  Does anything go in WA, or are there rules for bedrooms?

• 13 disbelief // Nov 21, 2007 at 2:50 pm

  I expect we’ll see this language get even more unrealistic as many agents and sellers continue to get desperate. This is kind of interesting too, as there seems to be a kind of untruth-inflation at work. Once blatant exaggerations become accepted as merely “putting something in the best light” the bar is raised, and even greater distortions and lies are offered-up. I guess the psychology is: “as long as were all lying, I don’t feel accountable”.

• 14 jdog // Nov 21, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  Re-Softwarengineer- I have made good money over my last 16 years as a real estate agent and I sleep just fine at night. None of my buyers are in a subprime product and all of them could sell their homes at a good profit. I work by referral and there are many buyers/sellers that I just do not want to work for, and I sure they did not care for me either. I had a buyer lose money once, it was on a condo, go figgure. I told him he would be better off in a house, he bought anyway.

• 15 EconE // Nov 21, 2007 at 3:37 pm

  All condo’s are spacious…unless they are cozy.

  All kitchens are gourmet.

  Everywhere is a “convenient location” if not the “penultimate” location

  Every marginal neighborhood is “gentrifying”

  There is a “spectacular view” of everything (when standing in the freezing cold on your rooftop deck that you’ll probably rarely if ever use)

  If there isn’t a Starbucks near you then you’ll NEVER be able to partake in a cup-o-joe.

  “park like yard” = yup…there’s grass.

• 16 DrShort // Nov 21, 2007 at 3:45 pm

  And the biggest lie always told: “I’m worth the 6% commission!”

• 17 WestSideBilly // Nov 21, 2007 at 5:31 pm

  My favorite recent spotting was “Up and coming eastside West Seattle location!”. Address was in the worst area of Delridge.

  Probably not as bad as the all the “short walk to Green Lake!” houses which are in Northgate.

• 18 rose-colored-turkaid // Nov 21, 2007 at 7:24 pm

  EconE, I like two of your exaggerations a lot.

  What is a gourmet kitchen? I’ve heard of gourmet food, but unless this gourmet kitchen is made from ginger bread, I want no part in it.

  Second, have you actually seen something labeled as the ‘penultimate’ location? Convenient is not the opposite of penultimate. penultimate means the ‘last but one’ or ‘next to last’. Here’s Monty Python’s take on Christ’s Penultimate Supper.

  Which makes me wonder…what would a penultimate location? Is it the second to last home which will ever be built? Or is it the next to last home you will ever live in? If you attempt to buy another home, and then another will the seller (or his agent) kill you to prevent breach of contract? If you die prior to moving out, will your will specify that you reside for some time in another home before burial/cremation due to the penultimate clause?

• 19 EconE // Nov 21, 2007 at 8:05 pm

  Rose…hehe…I actually used “penultimate” as a joke as I’m afraid that nobody actually wants to boast the
  “ultimate” location. Unless it’s Ballard.

  Vulcan did however claim that Rollins Lofts were the “best location” in Novembers airline rag…I mean mag.

  They implicitly compared themselves to all of the other downtown condos stating that their condos were in THE BEST location as there is a “whole foods across the street and a streetcar stop at your door”…or something like that.

  But really…wouldn’t the 4 Seasons really be in the “ultimate” location? It is next to the Lusty Lady after all!

  Has anything been sold in the last two years where “location” wasn’t trumpeted as being a plus? I even saw Puyallup condos that bragged about their proximity to the fairgrounds.

  Special.

  :o)

• 20 deejayoh // Nov 21, 2007 at 8:15 pm

  In my experience, misleading real estate descriptions are pretty much the norm - no matter the state of the market

• 21 Gary // Nov 21, 2007 at 9:20 pm

  So, is this blog about the Seattle housing bubble, or just anti-real estate in general? I’ve got to admit I’m confused about the mission.

• 22 Peckhammer // Nov 21, 2007 at 10:19 pm

  There is nothing misleading about pink ponies!

• 23 Peckhammer // Nov 21, 2007 at 10:20 pm

  http://www.desteenation.com/images/products//3269.jpg

• 24 rose-colored-ghoulaid // Nov 21, 2007 at 11:36 pm

  Too bad! I was really looking forward to reading that listing. I’ll just have to amuse myself with that Monty Python sketch instead.

• 25 Joel // Nov 22, 2007 at 2:23 am

  Completely remodeled or beautiful new hardwood floors/granite countertops/stainless steel appliances = “We invested $10k in renovations and jacked the listing price up by $50k.”

• 26 Angie // Nov 22, 2007 at 9:28 am

  Does anything go in WA, or are there rules for bedrooms?

  As far as I know, in Seattle there is a minimum square footage, and the room must have a closet and a window large enough to provide an exit in case of fire. Pulling up the code isn’t hard on the city of Seattle web site, but I will leave that as an exercise to the reader. Don’t know about the rest of the state.

  On to something completely different: I just looked at the Zillow blog for the first time ever, and saw an entry that the readership might enjoy:

  http://www.zillowblog.com/when-it-rains-it-pours/2007/11/

  It does still count Seattle on the positive side (though “slowing”), but there’s enough bad news in there for all you pessimists to get your RDA of schadenfreude out of the way before Thanksgiving dinner…

  Y’all have a good holiday.

• 27 Kime // Nov 22, 2007 at 10:58 am

  In Snohomish county “waterfront” more often than not means a creek crosses the property, often with poor drainage. You have to check for building restrictions and it is a liability, not an asset.

• 28 Kime // Nov 22, 2007 at 11:03 am

  I guess it actually isn’t as often as I thought. Maybe they changed it, but in the past when we looked for homes, I can’t say how many homes said waterfront and when we were there I said,” Where is the water?” to be told that there was a creek somewhere.

• 29 rose-colored-ghoulaid // Nov 22, 2007 at 12:39 pm

  Angie, I think I would like to see a slightly different term than schadenfreude (though I agree that gets the point across). I for one don’t want misfortune to shine on others. At least not indiscriminately. But I do think a return to rationality will mean some particularly vocal cheerleaders will receive their comeupance. But in my mind, this is more akin to hoping the heads of Enron become felons, or that history books correctly cite Greenspan as the source of more economic problems than he ’solved’.

  When a single mother is foreclosed out of a house (she had no business buying), I still feel sorry for her. But when a serial flipper loses his home due to gambling on the market, I feel no pity. Nor am I happy he lost the house, it is just how markets work, and that person played a game they didn’t understand. At that point I remember I’m in the catbird seat, and I might derive some joy out of that.

• 30 Joel // Nov 22, 2007 at 12:54 pm

  …I think I would like to see a slightly different term than schadenfreude…

  How about “vindication”?

  When a single mother is foreclosed out of a house (she had no business buying), I still feel sorry for her.

  What if she goes from a $2000/month PITHIM (principal, interest, taxes, HOA, insurance, maintenance) payment to an equivalent $1000 month rental?

• 31 Alan // Nov 22, 2007 at 1:45 pm

  Falling prices would invoke in me a feeling different from schadenfreude. I call that feeling “joy of ownership.”

• 32 Jonny // Nov 22, 2007 at 3:13 pm

  “It does still count Seattle on the positive side (though “slowing”), but there’s enough bad news in there for all you pessimists to get your RDA of schadenfreude out of the way before Thanksgiving dinner…”

  I don’t personally see it this way. My main feeling about hoping for a market decline is simply that I will be happy to see affordable housing again. In the unlikely event that a decline doesn’t happen, it is extremely remote that I will ever own a home in this lifetime. I am, BTW, over 40 and well-employed. Think about that.

  However, if you must insist on seeing things this way, it seems to me that the logic works in reverse: people who currently own overpriced homes have been enjoying a feeling of schadenfreude with respect to those without them for years. So, when we return to a normal market and those with overpriced assets are forced to sell them, just don’t forget all those years that these unfortunate sellers enjoyed those assets while the rest of us have been forced to rent and endure this idiotic bubble. There will be casualties on all sides of this before it is over. Just don’t forget that the real villain is Greenspan.

• 33 disbelief // Nov 22, 2007 at 4:37 pm

  I want to chime in and say that “schadenfreude” is not a fair term based on what I feel, and what the majority here have written. This seems to also be the main accusation of the RE cheerleaders who visit this blog. The only motive I have is to be able to own a house again without sacrificing virtually everything else. Apart from that, I realize that this kind of a run-up in real estate value was made possible in large part by what is, as far as I’m concerned, fraud (highly questionable financing which was of course unsustainable given fluctuations that exist in all markets), and I really don’t think it can be sustained any longer now that the repercussions are being felt by the banks involved. I’m also not very receptive to the possibility that the industry will find some other way to allow people to indebt themselves for ever-increasing amounts- such as 50 year mortgages, or making retirement savings even more unobtainable for the majority of people. Bottom line is, this kind of a run-up is bad for most people in the end, and I don’t think you have to be a socialist to believe that. I’m all for maintaining a higher standard of living for all, rather than letting the greed of banks and an industry whittle that away. I not so concerned with the fortunes of a few and believe that’s insignificant compared to the overall outcome. What has happened was in part the result of cheating, and you can be sure that there are victims among recent home buyers, as there where victors earlier on. Two sides of the same coin.

• 34 Angie // Nov 23, 2007 at 6:43 pm

  Schadenfreude is enjoyment of the misery of others. Despite the protestations today, there is a wide streak of that running through this blog.

  Jonny wrote: My main feeling about hoping for a market decline is simply that I will be happy to see affordable housing again. In the unlikely event that a decline doesn’t happen, it is extremely remote that I will ever own a home in this lifetime. I am, BTW, over 40 and well-employed. Think about that.

  I have been thinking about this—all day.

  About the idea of “affordable”: I think that if housing prices in this area get to the point that they’d be affordable by traditional standards, the economy in general will be in the toilet. So, be careful what you wish for.

  About being 40, well-employed, and never able to buy a house—there’s a lot more there to think about. My first thought is, unless there’s more going on in the background ($100K in law school debt, four kids and a disabled wife, whatever), there is no reason why you couldn’t sock away a big down payment and buy a modest place.

  I’m going to presume that you’re single and without those major encumbrances, and that “well-employed” means “over median income”, which is ~$54K for a single head of household in Seattle. (If it’s not true for you, Jonny, I gather that it applies to not a few other people who frequent this site.) People in this situation should easily be able to put together a substantial down payment (say $30-40K) in two to three years, even while shoveling away 10-15% for retirement. Just grow a backbone, show a little restraint, and start being fiscally responsible.

  Then, get a modest place. Say you’ve got $35K down, you want to borrow the old-fashioned 3X income for a 30 year mortgage, that’d be say a $175K mortgage, so you could buy a $200K place. Even today you can find smallish condos for that. Knock yourself out and enjoy your new place.

  If this scenario endangers your sense of entitlement (”I’m 40 and well-employed! I deserve better than a "chocolatey" little condo!”), well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles. America is more of a meritocracy than it’s ever been in the past, but that doesn’t mean that the playing field is anything close to level. Sometimes people get ahead of you just by being around before you were. Sometimes people are lucky enough to have financial advantages from their families. America is “class-less” enough that this is not always obvious—you can’t necessarily tell if the Joneses you’re competing with got their down payment through wedding/graduation gifts or inheritance, or if they got through college on their parents’ dime when you’re up to your ass in school debt. Shoot, there’s a very nice lady who works a few hours a week at the after-school program at my kid’s elementary; I’m thinking she’s got maybe a high-school education, and certainly not enough medical benefits to get some serious dental problems fixed, but you know what? She inherited her house and owns it free and clear. Big load off her back. That’s the way it goes.

  If the only place you can afford to buy a house is in the poor part of town, guess what that makes you, even if you are “well-employed”. You could work on getting over the sense that you’re better than other poor people. You could move to a crappy place and do what you can to make it better, rather than feeling like everyone else should have already made your world perfect for you. Drop that sense of entitlement and you’re already well on your way.

• 35 EconE // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:13 pm

  angie said…

  “Just grow a backbone, show a little restraint, and start being fiscally responsible.”

  Most on this blog seem to be pretty fiscally responsible from what I have read.

  The people that “funny moneyed” their way into a house using an adjustable rate mortgage weren’t. Period. most people on this blog aren’t stupid enough to become some FB’s personal ‘bailout’ plan.

  If you like your house and your status of “homeowner”…more power to ya! Somehow though I think that the presence of homeowners on this blog shows that they are more worried about their financial imprudence more-so than we “doom and gloomers”

  We are no more “entitled” to a house than you are are “entitled” to keep your equity.

  That’s just the way it is.

  When the "chocolate" loans are crapped out of the system…then we might buy.

  Deal with it.

• 36 tj // Nov 23, 2007 at 9:02 pm

  Angie, there are many people, ,myself included who are in the 40s with families and with good jobs comfortably in the six figures, ample savings for a downpayment that would not dream of putting their families in a little crapbox ( small condo or rotten 1500 sqft 70s rambler. )

  Renting or moving are better options if affordability do not improve.

• 37 Olaf // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:05 am

  Wow… what’s with all the defensive home-owners suddenly showing up on the blog? You’re right, EconE — this is another sign of the growing nervousness. Or maybe it’s just the predictable noise you hear from the lemmings who’ve already gone over the edge.

  It’s weird how they all repeat the same refrain: “Grow a backbone and buy a house,” or “Be responsible and take out a mortgage!” It’s such a strange reaction. As if those of us who have made the financial judgment that Seattle houses are a bad deal have somehow broken a sacred social pact.

  It’s as if refusing to buy an overpriced house is somehow tantamount to beating up our mothers and don’t like apple pie.

  (In a similar vein: Don’t forget to spend several thousand dollars on Christmas this year! It’s expected of you. If you don’t go on a credit card binge on “Black Friday,” well then, heck, you must hate America.)

• 38 Roger // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:07 am

  What I find most annoying is the assertion by people with huge incomes, who largely got said incomes by connections/being the right skin color/born to the right families, that anyone else who didn’t come back from their paid-for college education to immediately land a job and spouse both sporting large incomes–well, if you didn’t, you’re not trying hard enough.

  I was lectured once about saving and working hard, etc., by a woman whose college had been paid for, whose expensive car was a gift from her mother, and whose first house was given to her from her grandparents. Pretty easy to save when the choice is to spend money on haute couture or beluga caviar. She didn’t see the irony at all.

  Angie, there is enough self-satisfaction and entitlement in your post above to last me for the rest of the holiday weekend. Thanks!

• 39 Angie // Nov 24, 2007 at 1:01 am

  No prob, Rog. For the record, I was a welfare kid and I didn’t earn more than $20K/year until I was in my 30s. My husband and I both work; our combined incomes didn’t exceed the city median til a couple of years ago (and we still don’t beat it by much). Still, we’re on house #2 and will probably own a third within 5-7 years. Here’s hoping that Forbes prediction is right, it’d be perfect for us.

  I like this blog because it’s like the front-row seat for watching the housing stuff resolve, and the mortgage mess implode. Fascinating and impossible to look away. Also, it’s so fun to see you boys get hot under the collar.

  Jonny invited me to “think about [his situation]“, and I did. He thinks buying a place is entirely out of the question. Unless there are massive mitigating circumstances, I differ. It’s absolutely possible for someone with a decent income with some discipline (disbelief says, The only motive I have is to be able to own a house again without sacrificing virtually everything else, but I’ll bet he’s got a car payment, cable package, fancy cell phone, spiffy electronic toys…), particularly if they get over this idea that they are so speshul that they deserve no less than a quarter-acre on a cul-de-sac in the burbs (would not dream of putting their families in a little crapbox).

  If you are making a different choice, party on with your bad self, and I wish you the best of luck. But it seems to be bugging Jonny, and I think if he wants to buy a place, it’s not a totally unachievable goal.

• 40 bitterowner // Nov 24, 2007 at 2:05 am

  Angie,
  I don’t get it. Why is buying an overpriced asset a good idea at any time? Why should one soldier on and discipline themselves to lose money? I bought a house in 1999 b/c it seemed like a reasonable value (seems true now but time will tell). I am therefore certainly not against the purchase of a house under any circumstance. In the current environment, though, the purchase of a house in Seattle seems unwise, no matter how much you can “afford” it, how long you plan to live in it, or what miniscule percentage of PITI you plan on renting it for.
  “Grow a spine and throw away a hundred thousand bucks or more?” I’m just not tracking.

• 41 Mack McCoy // Nov 24, 2007 at 3:45 am

  And everybody - be they bubble-blogger or real estate agent - is a thoroughly honest person who has never ever once in their life tried to mislead anybody about anything.

  - - - - - - - - - - -

  There are more foolish things you can do then to avoid houses with retouched photos - or with none at all. But the practice isn’t anything to boast about.

  If you’re serious about buying a home, photos should be used only for exclusionary purposes - you know you don’t want a Tudor, for example, or that you want a corner kitchen, not a galley. Frankly, the first house I’d rush out to see is one where there isn’t a photo - because it may be the perfect house for my client, and I know that there’s many people who would rather wait for the photo, which like Halley’s waitress, may never come around.

• 42 The Bruce // Nov 24, 2007 at 9:06 am

  “(would not dream of putting their families in a little crapbox). ”

  You hit the nail on the head here, Angie. Why put your kids in a crapbox w/ poor schools when you can rent in a great school district and have a nicer home for 50-100% less a month? Excuse all of us dirty renters for preferring to give our three kids the best home and life we can afford them. Ballet, soccer, tennis etc would be unaffordable on the ~2x median income I make if I was spending $3600 on PITI. But, obviously, its all about priorities.

• 43 whats my name // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:55 pm

  Got a major revelation while sitting ’round the holiday ouija board with my old friend (your landlord). Turns out the crash is going to be spectacular, but it may be a little delayed. Message is:

  “Just sit tight a few more years and all our dreams will come true.”

  Oops, did I drop the “y”? I mean all your dreams will come true.

• 44 explorer // Nov 24, 2007 at 2:09 pm

  Yes, wmn (your landlord), My “dream” is to see things return to normal fundumentals, not artificially inflated, and to not be forced to accept a poor value or shoddy quality in exchange for someone else’s unearned profits and greed.

  Sorry that thinking of RE like the stock market no longer has legs for you.

• 45 Mark DeCoursey // Nov 24, 2007 at 5:57 pm

  We fear Mr. Cohen has trivialized the real estate industry’s deceptive practices, giving amusing and benign examples of realtor hype.

  If prospective buyers drive out to see the home listed as “convenient to shopping” and find it located next to a strip mall, no real harm will come to them. The only harm will be a waste of time and gas. But why did Mr. Cohen confine himself to trivial examples of realtor deception?

  There are plenty of stories of realtor deception that cause grievous harm. We tell our own story at http://www.RenovationTrap.com

  By trivializing realtor deception, Mr. Cohen gives the impression that anyone who trusts a real estate agent is foolish. Yet the law takes a different view. Consider, for example, the Law of Real Estate Agency, RCW 18.86 and the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86. The law is clear. The public must be able to trust real estate agents, and real estate agents must not use unfair or deceptive practices.

  If the Seattle P-I wants other local stories of non-trivial real estate deception, we suggest Mr. Cohen go to the King County Court House and see who is suing real estate agencies for deceptive practices. Or contact the Department of Licensing and survey the complaints they receive that they don’t have to resources to prosecute.

  Our newspapers may have a conflict of interest, of course. They may not really want to blow the whistle on the real estate industry – it may be bad for business.

  On October 24, 2007, MSNBC broadcast a national program on deceptive and illegal contractors, a one-hour show of which about twenty minutes was devoted to our case. The show was called “Homewreckers.” MSNBC proved that our case is of broad public interest, and press-worthy.

  Yet prior to that, Seattle PI and Seattle Times had both rejected the story. The Times sent a reporter and cameraman, but then killed the story by editorial decision. We note one difference, here:

  MSNBC does not derive its income from a local real estate firm — Windermere. On the other hand, next weekend, open the Sunday Times/P-I and see how much Windermere advertising the paper carries.

  Here is the letter-to-the-editor we sent about Mr. Cohen’s Nov. 21 story. http://renovationtrap.com/pubinfo/pi-editor.pdf

  Carol & Mark DeCoursey
  8209 172nd Ave., NE
  Redmond, WA 98052

• 46 Ubersalad // Nov 24, 2007 at 11:48 pm

  Angie is just different than most of us college grads with understanding to simple logic. You can’t argue or force her to understand what is going on.

• 47 Ubersalad // Nov 24, 2007 at 11:55 pm

  I pity you Angie, accepting the world as it is because you do not have the power to fight it. In fact, I also pity your children for inheriting such mindset that will result in misery for the rest of their lives. I mean this from the bottom of my heart, I strongly suggest you to somehow break through the way you think…your children deserves better than that.

• 48 notabull // Nov 25, 2007 at 9:27 am

  Angie said:

  “Just grow a backbone, show a little restraint, and start being fiscally responsible.”

  Sigh. Angie shows the classic issue that most in her shoes seem to show: the inability to see beyond their own decisions. After all, that might show a crack in their plan, an issue with their future. A mistake!

  Angie, there are not just two choices:

  a) Buy a house immediately.
  b) Never buy a house, and continue to rent forever

  You seem to think that most on this board are choosing (b), hence your stupid comment about being fiscally responsible. Ultimately, it *would* be fiscally irresponsible for most people to never buy a house.

  However, and please try to understand, there is a THIRD choice:

  c) Save a down-payment, wait for prices to return to fundamental levels (whatever you deem them to be), and then buy a house.

  Sure, I could go out and buy a house right NOW. I have a ton of money in the bank earning decent interest, but I’m not going to. Why? Because I’m being fiscally responsible, am saving $6000 in CASH a month (after tax) by TEMPORARILY renting, and then I will buy once the market softens some more, which I fully expect it to.

  If it doesn’t soften more, I’ll just shrug my shoulders and buy a house anyway. But I’m not about to do so when all indications are that prices are heading down and about to head down some more. I didn’t get my big bank balance by being stupid.

• 49 disbelief // Nov 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm

  Angie says:
  “I like this blog because it’s like the front-row seat for watching the housing stuff resolve, and the mortgage mess implode. Fascinating and impossible to look away”
  Yet, at the same time, she is encouraging people to buy a home if there is any way they can afford it. How is this not a complete contradiction?
  So, Angie, which do you not really believe: that housing is “resolving” and the “mortgage mess” is “imploding”, or that people should step-up, take “responsibility” and do what’s necessary to buy a house? I have a feeling you don’t really believe the first, and are obligated to believe the second. Please explain how, given your first statement, we should not wait this out and see what happens before making such a major financial decision.

• 50 Seattle Bubble » Blog Archive » Housing Market Schadenfreude // Nov 26, 2007 at 1:52 pm

  [...] was a good discussion of housing market schadenfreude (or lack thereof) over the holiday weekend in the comments to a recent post. I thought would be worth posting the highlights of the conversation, and chiming in with a few [...]

Jump to the top of the comments. ↑

Leave a Comment