Let’s check out the three price tiers for the Seattle area, as measured by Case-Shiller. Remember, Case-Shiller’s “Seattle” data is based on single-family home repeat sales in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
First up is the straight graph of the index from January 2000 through December 2008.
December was downright rough in all three tiers, with the low tier again taking the largest hit—4.2% in a month. The low tier has rewound to August 2005, the middle tier to September 2005, and the high tier to October 2005.
Here’s a chart of the year-over-year change in the index from January 2003 through December 2008.
The low tier also holds the title for largest YOY declines (still). Meanwhile, the high tier moved into second place with a nearly 3-point increase in the YOY drop. Here’s where the tiers sit YOY as of December – Low: -15.3%, Med: -12.4%, Hi: -13.0%.
Lastly, here’s a decline-from-peak graph like the one posted yesterday, but looking only at the Seattle tiers.
The high tier deviated noticeably from its recent pattern of following the tracks laid by the low and middle tiers, which continued to track each other fairly closely.
It is somewhat unusual that the high tier would be experiencing a larger correction than the low and middle tiers, since it did not see as much of an increase during the bubble. I imagine this might have something to do with the conforming loan limits, but there is really no way to be sure.
(Home Price Indices, Standard & Poor’s, 02.24.2009)
PublicEnemy#1 » Feb 25, 2009 at 6:32 am
Umm…
Could it be because the truly wealthy aren’t buying anymore and the people who thought they were wealthy are finding out they really aren’t?
This doesn’t surprise me at all. There are no move up buyers and monstrous overpriced homes are becoming quite gauche.
DavidB » Feb 25, 2009 at 6:52 am
I agree with publicenemy’s comment at post 1. I also think people have lost money in the stock market so they’re not as wealthy as they were and they certainly aren’t in a mood to overspend on anything.
I expect we’re seeing a domino effect. People are having a difficult time selling their lower end homes so they can move up to the higher priced ones. With little demand for the high end homes their prices are starting to drop. I expect we’ll see the biggest drops eventually on the high end homes since there are fewer buyers who can afford them.
Mike2 » Feb 25, 2009 at 7:02 am
I’m sure some of the high end drop is attributable to things like this…
02/06/2009 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE [Most Influential Real Estate Blogger] E NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES LLC TRUSTEE R
20090218000271 000 – 000 02/18/2009 FEDERAL TAX LIEN-NOTICE OF [Most Influential Real Estate Blogger] R INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 7:06 am
For the low tier, I say part of that is the virtual elimination of the flipper from the picture. Case-Shiller does try to factor out their effect on sales (e.g. excluding 6 month sales and sales where the price change is too dramatic even if 5 years), but they can’t (and wouldn’t want to) factor out that element of the demand just completely disappearing.
As to the high end, I’d agree it’s financing. Freddie, Fannie, FHA and VA are manufacturing financing that the banking system wouldn’t otherwise produce due to bank problems. Once you get above their limits, after accounting for down payment, it’s tougher. I suspect if Case Shiller tracked 10+ unit apartment house values they would show incredible declines, far in excess of what any change in income would dictate should be the change in value.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 7:13 am
RE: Mike2 @ 3 -Is this really necessary? I’m not a fan of people who make predictions, and I agree the fact that someone bought when they did (and didn’t try to sell until when they did) is relevant to disproving their ability to predict. But just how far do you have to go with that?
Andy » Feb 25, 2009 at 8:11 am
Mike2 -Good job at exposing these douchebag real estate looter degenerates
My wife and I; looking in Gig harbor, have been getting absolutely steamrolled by our agent – he keeps telling us that it is time to buy!!!
I’m seeing dozens of former $1.5 million dollar properties listed at $799,999; NO BIDDERS. A 10 YEAR SUPPLY OF HOMES!
Only people buying (currently) on the high end are doctors who have absolutely no clue in financial matters – and are easily sold by worm Windermere, JLS brokers
Im waiting for the collapse, I mean, how many people can come up with $200K or more in cash, without “artificial” appreciation in home prices? You need to convince a greater fool to buy you depreciating asset; give you the ability to upgrade!
There are very few normal folks down in Pierce County; the entire place is full of trashy people with missing teeth (especially Puyallup); Gig Harbor appears to be an oasis, but Tacoma jobs are falling faster and faster (Russell, manufacturing base)
No one can afford these luxuries; Im keeping my $200K on the sidelines – once that $1.5MM home is selling for $400K, I might be inticed….
Until then, BURN!!!!! FORECLOSE!!!!!!!!!
PRICES TO 1990!
Mike2 » Feb 25, 2009 at 8:25 am
Not far, Kary. Do you find te anecdote totally irrelevant?
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:14 am
It’s the additional details I find objectionable. The time of purchase, the time of putting it on the market, that it was a short sale, the inability to find a buyer, all relevant. Beyond that just seems to be taking enjoyment from someone else’s bad situation.
BTW, in addition to being relevant as to the prediction, it’s also relevant as to a number of other opinions expressed, and calls them into question, including:
1. Whether a short sale needs to be disclosed.
2. Liability on a second after the first forecloses.
3. Their ability to give advice to buyers to help them select a house that will not be difficult to sell if and when the time comes.
So I’m not saying it’s irrelevant, just that some of the continuing details are going too far.
PublicEnemy#1 » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:14 am
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I was waiting for this….
Too bad this “most influential real estate blogger” just made the front page in the PI a couple of weeks ago for predicting that “we’re at bottom”.
So much for being a soothsayer.
She claimed to be able to predict that we’re at bottom in certain key zip codes but she sure as heck couldn’t see her own residential market decline coming?
I don’t buy it.
She’s a realtor hack who drank the kool aid and we are all now going to be paying the price for her STUPID FINANCIAL DECISIONS!
She should work for the NAR, she’s about as useful a tool as Lereah and Yun.
Tim, she is a public figure through her own efforts at publicity, I am not sure why her financial mishaps are any more sacrosanct than some of the other public people we discuss.
David McManus » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:21 am
I know other realtors in foreclosure and about to go into foreclosure, but I won’t give their names here. It does make you wonder, though, how many people they pushed to buy buy buy when they couldn’t even keep their side of the street clean. I think if I was involved in a real estate transaction, I would want full disclosure from them that they knew what the hell they were talking about with one of the biggest financial decisions of my life and that they weren’t screwed up financially as well.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:26 am
By David McManus @ 10:
There is a concern that they might try to push you into a transaction to meet their own cash flow concerns. There’s that concern with a lot of other professionals (doctors, vets, lawyers, etc.) too, but I don’t think that means you can routinely ask them for that information. That said, perhaps a search of public records would be in order before any major transactions.
PublicEnemy#1 » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:33 am
I think the difference here for me is that she touts herself as such an expert on the internet.
If this was some anonymous RE agent who just got themselves into a bad situation, I would totally agree with David and Kary, but this is no different, IMHO, then if Appleton-Young in California, J. Lennox Scott in Seattle or David Lereah in DC went into foreclosure.
They want to talk themselves up online, get on the radio and in the paper, to proclaim their viewpoints, they should expect a higher level of public scrutiny and public disclosure along with all the free publicity. When Dave Ross called or Aubrey Cohen called, she could have just said, “No thank you, I don’t want to discuss my viewpoint in public.”
Or should we only allow the positive aspects to be presented?
She wanted her name out there getting press, she should get it, both good and bad, so people can make informed decisions, not just one sided ones.
Magnolia44 » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:39 am
Mike2
If that is what I think it is why take pleasure in that? Not cool and not funny, regardless of her views etc. No one should take plessure in others misfortunes, good luck with that.
Let’s hope nothing ever happens to you, are you perfect?
Scotsman » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:45 am
I think the shape of those curves is referred to as a “waterfall”, as in after rolling over the top it falls straight down. Ouch. How deep is the pool at the bottom?
As for Mike2 @ 3 and the responses- it’s always fair to call out hypocrisy. And as I’ve posted before, in the words of Robert Louis Stevenson:
“Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
Amen.
David Losh » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:52 am
RE: Andy @ 6 – RE: Mike2 @ 3 –
In the Real Estate business we win and we lose. It’s all a part of what we do.
Real Estate is a high risk, complicateed business. You don’t see that because it’s not your business.
It is always a great time to buy. It depends on the deal you make. I have never written a full price offer. As a matter of fact it surprises me when some offers that are way low get accepted.
Most Real Estate agents are looking for the easy deal. That works in your favor.
Let me share a story about a buyer of mine who is an auto mechanic. He needed a place with a large yard to store cars. His neighbors in Greenwood had complained about him over the course of years and the City tagged him.
I found a place in Lynnwood that fit his request. There was a large garage with an engine hoist. In the living room was a Harley in perfect condition. I called the listing agent to arrange for my buyer to see.
When we got there a guy with long hair was on the couch. a two year old was tearing around the place, and the stay at home wife was doing the dishes. The Harley was still in the living room.
I called the agent to tell him we had an offer and he asked for how much. I said it was low. He said his client had turned down several low offers. I said he had to present and that maybe I would be better making the presentation.
He called me back to ask if I was the guy who had been to the house I said yes and he told me we had an appointment.
I met with the owners who were the mother and father of the wife who was doing the dishes. We met at the house and the Harley was in the garage for the day.
We were about 35% low and the seller didn’t say anything. He asked how the earnst money was presented. I said it was in cash and that my buyer didn’t trust banks. it was seller financing with 10% down. The earnst money was the 10%.
I showed him copies of the cash, and the guy and his wife said OK, on the spot. We all just kind of ignored the listing agent.
The seller was a mechanic who didn’t like banks. He had worked for Metro Transit for thirty years and this was his garage. I asked the weight limit on the hoist and he was happy to tell me all about the garage.
His daughter and son in law were moving out of state and he just wanted to sell to some one who would appreciate the property.
Real Estate is between two people. Many times the agent gets in the way, or has an agenda. Just keep looking until you find an agent who can work for you rahter than against your best interests.
Rational Man » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:54 am
I’m sorry Kary, but I have to agree with the schadenfreude that is permeating most RE blogs. The relator community contributed to the mess/crisis/debacle/[insert preferred adjective here]. They profited from it as much as anyone, they gained at the expense of so many and they enjoyed the ride on the way up.
I’m sorry if you find it unbeconing. Not everyone is above it. Given how much pain many are feeling, seeing the RE community take their long awaited lumps (especially this shill) provides a sense that maybe there is some cosmic justice after all.
DaveyDave » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:21 am
It looks like there’s a divide on this one. If the public information about someone’s troubles is revealed, we’ve got basically 2 choices. Delight in their misfortune or empathy. Empathy is the only reasonable reaction, really. So what if we disagree with the person’s views. Really. Everyone deserves compassion. I haven’t heard one good argument against that — ever. Basically, we’re all trying our best. OK. Back to Real Estate…
PublicEnemy#1 » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:33 am
DaveyDave,
So, do you extend your compassion to the Khmer Rouge guy (Kaing Guek Eav) on trial right now for the Killing Fields in Cambodia?
Just checking…
After all, he was just trying to do his “best” for Angka at the time.
If you answer, “Yes”, is your answer based upon his public statement of regret for his part in the killings?
Would you feel differently if he expressed no regret for the killings?
Perhaps if some public contrition was shown by this blogger, more compassion might be felt for her.
She could have used her radio spot to come clean about how even she, as an self acknowledged RE expert, was WRONG and is in the same predicament as many others, some of whom she may have helped purchased more home than they should have or paid more than she felt the market would bear.
I have nothing against compassion for people, but I think a little self reflection and public acknowledgment would go a long way towards gaining compassion from people like me.
Hugh Dominic » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:36 am
These numbers are stark – and only point in one direction.
I am looking to buy a house – have my 20% and good credit, but have been waiting (thanks Tim).
While I am waiting for prices go down I have been gone to a few open houses – really just looking at houses of interest.
Most of these have been 10-20% above my price range on the assumption that the properties will “move down†into my price range.
Looking at the recent CS stats I am going to start looking perusing places that are 20-30% above my target numbers.
Look out below…
Ira sacharoff » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 am
“There is a concern that they might try to push you into a transaction to meet their own cash flow concerns. There’s that concern with a lot of other professionals (doctors, vets, lawyers, etc.) too, but I don’t think that means you can routinely ask them for that information”
I have that concern with doctors. I swear when they’ve ordered unnecessary tests they had a yacht payment coming up.
Mike2 » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:41 am
By Magnolia44 @ 13:
Yeah, god forbid should something bad happen to me, like getting ‘priced out forever’!
I do feel some sympathy for [Most Influential Real Estate Blogger], and I’m not getting gratification from any emotional distress they may be going through.
Business is business. I have little doubt that this home was purchased for the ‘investment’ value – nor do I believe the foreclosure exit strategy wasn’t part of the plan all along if the ‘investment’ didn’t work out. [Most Influential Real Estate Blogger] is smarter than that.
The Tim » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:46 am
Let’s try to keep the comments on the topic of the post, please. The comment threads have gotten somewhat out of hand recently, making it difficult for people to join the conversation if they actually want to discuss the post. I don’t mind these types of conversations, I just request that you take them over to the forums.
Thank you.
DaveyDave » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:00 am
You know, it’s a tough topic to get into with any depth on a blog, but yes, I do feel compassion for Kaing Guek Eav. He might even deserve more than most of us considering the horror of his actions. And it has nothing to do with confessions of regret. His attitude of regret doesn’t influence this although I’m glad it’s there.
There are many people that are getting scuh-rewed in this economy and I consider myself one of them. I do not feel alone there. And there are many causes for this — more than actually can be counted. I focus more on the banks’ lending practices than I do on agents’ behavior at this point…
Like I said, it’s not an easy topic to reach any resolution about on a blog. I do know there’s no benefit to schadenfreude for anyone, mostly the person experiencing it.
joe the plummer » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:21 am
RE: Mike2 @ 3 –
Cant believe that…so i looked it up…wow…50K in late payments on a 670K loan…
patient » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:24 am
Agents had glory days for a couple of years. They could have saved for the inevitable bust. After fat years comes lean years, it’s a universal truth that is tought to all children in stories as the one about the squirrel that work hard and save nuts for the winter while his brother parties all day and eat all he can and then starve during the winter. To now come and whine about the economy and without any concious try to get others in trouble by lying about the market is repulsive. Have anyone seen any agent showing any remorse for having attributed to putting poeple in homes that not only bring them to bancrupcy but also causes massive problems and tragedies for millions of families who did not particiapte in the bubble?
Now Bernanke says that we should bailout the irresponsible as well since it’s for the greater good of the public. wtf, isn’t there responsible people and companies that could make good use of the money as venture capital to support new viable businesses and even new banks instead of continue to feed the crocks, thieves ,irresponsible and incompetent that caused this mess? No, I do not feel emptahy today for these people.
Magnolia44 » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:30 am
I will say this Mike I agree it was an investment move, I had a feeling this was going to happen when I would read her blog from time to time.
No doubt the RE agents were living high on the hog and many let us know about it with their cars homes etc. I just didn’t know if it was cool to call it out like you did.
The brokers and RE agents have seen their incomes go bust, and I am sure many did not save or plan for these times which we should not feel sorry for them, I agree.
Anyway hope she gets 12 months free so she can save up some cash but It looks like its already going to post for sale, good luck.
The Tim » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:31 am
Guys, seriously. Come on. Take it to the forums, please.
PublicEnemy#1 » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:53 am
Tim,
If I am reading the S&P data correctly, Seattle’s High Tier starts at $406K.
If that’s the case, then it is no wonder the High Tier is crumbling just as fast or faster.
Correct me on the methodology here, but how many $500K+ homes did we see during the bubble rise in Seattle in places like West Seattle and Ballard?
These are homes that, under normal valuation, would be worth around $200K.
If they went from Middle Tier to High Tier during the bubble, wouldn’t it seem likely that they would crash back down, bringing the High Tier numbers down with them?
I am seeing million dollar homes taking a massive hit, so what stops a West Seattle home that is overpriced by $300K from getting mauled in the process?
Or is the $406K number based upon 2000 prices?
Bernie » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:55 am
Hello everyone,
I’m a novice at the whole real estate thing, and am learning a lot reading this, and other blogs, but I was wondering if someone could explain to me exactly what the Case-Schiller Index is and what i tells us. I hear this term used a lot and would really like to understand it better.
Thanks a lot.
patient » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I mentioned this in the last months tiered report as well, I think the $ amount could have acted acted as a buffer for a while. High tier, more $$$ per percent. It might be that buyers thought they got a good deal with $100k off asking on a $1m home while the $200k home buyer thought $20k off was not enough, asked for $25k off and got it.
Boyflux » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:05 pm
RE: The Tim @ 27 –
Indeed.
Back to the topic at hand. It seems that the low tier HPI went up the most from 2000, so I suppose it’s not surprising to see it coming back down to earth without a parachute. this is simply my perspective, but it was the low tier and middle tier homes that were most over-inflated by speculation and construction (which makes sense to me). I think that most of these properties are still grossly over-valued, so the downward trend is likely to continue. I’m not really sure why anyone that’s looked at the history of real estate market downturns would disagree…
On a side note, as I’m new at the C-S thing, is there a way to go from the C-S number to the median home value (perhaps by tier?) I’m sure there is based on the post from the 24th, I’m just not sure. Me = index noob.
TheHulk » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Seriously, back on topic.
We have all heard about the “minimum wage” person earning 30Kish getting approved for the 400K mortgage. Out here in King county I wonder how many 80Kish earning professionals obtained loans for 700-800K mortgages thanks to greed, misinformation and easy credit. If you were earning that kind of money I suppose it was possible to put up with the 5-8% losses. When that became 15% I suspect we have reached tipping point.
I also suspect that most of these 800k ish loans are very “prime” because a person earning that much should not really have any reason to have a bad credit history. But this bubble was unprecedented and now these very people are willing to let go at a loss. I suspect that is the reason for the huge decline in the high tier and I suspect this will only increase as the onerous burden of carrying such a huge mortgage grows larger and larger.
In short, get out now or be priced in forever!!
patient » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Case Shiller tracks changes in home values by things like repeated sales.
Median tracks the sales mix. What is the price point where half of the homes that are sold is above the reported price and half of the homes are below it. It’s a pretty useless measure for home values.
Hugh Dominic » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:23 pm
By PublicEnemy#1 @ 28:
Good question PE#1.
One thing that will determine how low the Ballard and West Seattle $500K box will go is rents.
If rents hold steady there is a floor for most house prices in those areas – I would guess in the $300-350K range.
But if rents are tanking as well (and I see some slippage) there is no telling how low home prices could go then.
We are entering Sniglet territory then.
Cris » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:33 pm
By TheHulk @ 32:
Scotsman » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:34 pm
RE: TheHulk @ 32 –
A friend lives in Trossachs (East Sammamish), an area of what were $800K homes, now all $600K or less homes, where most of the buyers probably were earning in the $100-$200k range, but got low down teaser rate loans. The reset has been pretty brutal, with short sales all over the place. Most of the development finished building out just at the peak in 2007. As you say, good people, but an unprecedented situation. And in my opinion, the homes were oversold to begin with, and values won’t be coming back any time soon. These were bought only because of the financing and builder incentives at the end. Lots of dream homes that turned into nightmares.
Hugh Dominic » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Good analysis of the most recent CS numbers from Dirk van Dijk at Seeking Alpha.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/122528-december-case-shiller-was-no-surprise?source=feed
Key quote:
“Efforts to prop up a huge market like housing are futile, although efforts to allow people to refinance are worthwhile. The Obama housing plan will help a little bit in that regard, but anyone who thinks that housing prices are about to stop falling is deluding themselves. Anyone who thinks that there will be a big bounce back after the declines stop is just plain being silly.
On the bright side though, renters and young people will eventually be able to have affordable housing.â€
Its great to see somone point out the bright side of the bursting of the housing bubble – affordability.
Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish
The Tim » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:54 pm
By Hugh Dominic @ 37:
Seriously, government mouthpieces are so two-faced on this issue it’s almost unbelievable. During the bubble they proclaim there’s an “affordable housing crisis,” then once the bubble bursts and the cost of housing drops without / in spite of government intervention, it’s “we need to prop up housing!”
PublicEnemy#1 » Feb 25, 2009 at 12:57 pm
By Hugh Dominic @ 34:
Well, based upon what I am seeing in California metro areas over the last two years, rents are going to drop a lot more in Seattle in the next two years, driving home prices further.
Should be interesting to watch!
obelus » Feb 25, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Rents are dropping fast in Seattle. First hand knowledge of place in nice, close in neighborhood, late last year approaching $1000 for 1 bed. Now same ones going for just under $800.
The Tim: Love the pink pony in the address bar.
Ubersalad » Feb 25, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Tim, here’s another crap article you can put in your 2 cent: http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/24/housing-cities-ten-lifestyle-real-estate_home_prices.html
I mean this in a very positive way, btw.
vermillionsky » Feb 25, 2009 at 1:51 pm
By Cris @ 35:
Is it just me, or does anybody else think a household earning $80k would need closer to 50%-75% down to afford an $800k house? I think a mortgage in the $200k-$350k range would be more appropriate.
Ubersalad » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Only thing I really care about is, what is the next bubble and I want to help mixing the soap!
Joel » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:08 pm
RE: vermillionsky @ 42 –
Yup.
The Tim » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:35 pm
RE: vermillionsky @ 42 – Definitely not just you. Here’s a simple affordability calculator I whipped up in Excel.
According to my calculations, someone earning $80k that put 20% down on an $800k home @ 5.0% interest would be spending 66% of their gross income on their monthly home payment.
In order to get the payment down to 30% of their gross income, they would have to put down just over $600,000. In other words, a $200,000 loan is the largest that is affordable at 5.0% interest for a family making $80k using traditional measures of affordability.
Ubersalad » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Wait, you are telling me $80k could only afford ~250k range house?
That’s outrageous, 80k professionals can’t be living in the ghetto!
Boyflux » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm
By vermillionsky @ 42:
Those are pretty realistic numbers, I think. I tend to use the old 3x gross annual income rule. I know it’s antiquated, but that would put the mortgage for an 80k earner at 240k. Being conservative I’d say a 300k home would be just right.
These rules all used to make sense until the housing prices went insane and banks/brokers decided that overlending was okay. I know, homeowners and consumers are to blame, too, for not knowing their budgets. But which is the worse sin: Greed or Ignorance?
Hopefully these prices will come down to reality for good – but I won’t hold my breath.
The Tim » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm
RE: Ubersalad @ 46 – Property taxes actually change the formula quite a bit. I should have said that a $200k loan on an $800k house is the largest an $80k income can afford, which is due to a nearly $800 monthly property tax bill.
Assuming 20% down, 5% interest on a 30-year fixed, and a 1.15% property tax rate, the upper limit for affordability on an $80k income would be a $345k house.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm
RE: PublicEnemy#1 @ 18 – I think it was you who outed the short sale issues in the soundoff on the P-I column. Note I didn’t have a problem with that. As I said above, the events leading to that are relevant to the ability to predict.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:55 pm
By patient @ 33:
As opposed to 160.19. That tells you a whole lot! ;-)
0.8324153 0.8388773 0.8283226
Those numbers happen to be the percentage that the C-S, NWMLS Median and NWMSL Mean (King county) are off their respective peaks. It is a bit unusual that they’re so close, but I think it’s pretty hard to argue that any of them are meaningless. Each has their problems.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm
By vermillionsky @ 42:
Most people buying an 800k house would have put more than 20% down. I’ve done random samples at various times and only about 10-20% of buyers in that range put down 20% or less.
Ubersalad » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:04 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 51 –
Not sure how you justify your response with those unscientific data.
Ubersalad » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:05 pm
RE: The Tim @ 48 –
The number was more compelling with $250k…you ruined it!
98115_Renter » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:12 pm
RE: The Tim @ 38 –
Volatility is the real enemy, but the US markets (housing, stocks, etc) are always more volatile because that’s the way some people make huge profits (gaming the system).
If the government was actually able to lower volatility through increased regulation of housing and finance, we wouldn’t be going through all of this (both extreme upside and severe downside).
softwarengineer » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm
MY DAD HAD THREE TIMES MY INCOME IN PER CAPITA BUYING POWER
Then in 1978 the housing price bubbled so that it took two incomes to buy what one income used to purchase. The only families that could qualify to buy Seattle SFHs through the 80s were “double incomes no kids” (DINKS).
If the bubble in the 2000s hadn’t popped a year or two ago, we were heading for a RE market where the only families that could qualify to buy Seattle SFHs are “four incomes no kids” (FINKS).
LOL
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:19 pm
By Ubersalad @ 52:
Well three of four times I’ve taken samples of recent purchases at some price point between $500k and just over 1 million. And each time it’s come up with people in that price range putting a lot of money done, as indicated. It’s not really unscientific, but unless my sample is at least 24 units the margin of error might be significant.
The thing is, wealthy people don’t really like high house payments.
Ubersalad » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:23 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 56 –
Well, how do you respond to my random search showing the exact opposite of your data? Anyhow, your 2 cent has dropped to 1/100 of a cent.
AMS » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:37 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 56 –
How large is your Margin of Error? Please include the fact that you did not start with a random sample.
And the wealthy are those who are generally in the highest tax bracket, and they can take the most advantage of the mortgage interest tax deduction.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:44 pm
By AMS @ 58:
I don’t remember my statistics that well, nor do I remember my sample sizes.
I do remember one thing. I think it was DavidB I asked to pick a date and a price point, and I pulled the first X transactions over that price starting on that date to get the data. I would guess I pulled 20, but I really don’t remember.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:48 pm
By AMS @ 58:
The wealthy are not generally stupid. They don’t flush $1 down the toilet to get $0.35 cents back.
Also, doesn’t the mortgage interest deduction get curtailed at some income point? I seem to recall something like that.
TheHulk » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:56 pm
By Kary L. Krismer @ 60
Have you read the list of the clients of a certain Madoff guy? These were very wealthy doctors/lawyers/you-name-it family-was-wealthy people who put ALL their money into Madoff. Many of them were quoted saying they always thought it was too good to be true.
Ha! To quote Gregory House M.D. “People Lie” and I add ” Many Wealthy People are also stupid.” Wealth has no correlation to intelligence. Don’t take that as a blanket statement, but I have observed numerous cases where wealth brings with it a lot of hubris leading to horrible decisions.
Ubersalad » Feb 25, 2009 at 3:57 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 59 –
Base on your method, one could assume if 50% of houses on his block is in foreclosure, the state must be suffering the same fate.
Gosh, stick with selling…although I realize this is one of the venues you choose to do that.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 4:02 pm
By Ubersalad @ 62:
My system is far more random than your suggestion. It’s limited to a day or three in time, but other than that the data could be from any part of King county and the sellers, buyers and agents are in no way related (other than being members of the NWMLS).
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I knew there would be an advantage to low sales volumes. I could run every sale reported by the NWMLS over $1,000,000 in King County in January. There were 19 reported, but one really closed in December, one was really $998,000 and one was a double listing. That left 16 sales over $1,000,000.
Total purchase price of 25.01 million. Total debt 9.813 million.
Smallest down payment in percentage–20%–one transaction.
Smallest down payment in dollars–$229,000.
Number of cash transactions–3–verified by searching the King County Recorder.
Number of transactions with loan limited to $417,000–3–apparently trying to get a conventional loan.
Largest loan–1.2 million.
Number of loans over $750,000–5.
patient » Feb 25, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Kary, with your mls access have you checked the closed sales volume for Feb?Any rough estimate on where you think the number will be for Feb?
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 4:52 pm
So many sales close at the end it’s impossible to tell, but my guess is under 700.
Also, it looks like the median will be only slightly below January, but again that’s hard to tell (although it jumps around a lot less this time of month). At the end of December I was thinking it would be worse.
The big number I’m going to be looking at is the official number for the list price of pendings. I suspect that’s going to be a very low number, which does not make March and April look good as far as the median is concerned.
Finally, the number of pendings has been increasing slightly, but given the low sales numbers, that doesn’t mean much. To be healthy they’d have to be increasing a lot given the low sales volumes.
This is all King County, SFR, and not guaranteed by the NWMLS, etc. (typical disclaimer language).
TheHulk » Feb 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 64 –
I wonder what those statistics look like for loans between 600K and say 1,000K at the height of the credit bubble.
Also notice how all the loans stand up surprisingly well to “traditional” standards. All are at least 20% down. Many are even putting additional money down to not hit the Jumbo limit. These are the kinds of loans that should have always been made in the past few years (regardless of house value) and of course ensuring that the borrower actually has the income to pay the mortgage.
No doubt, it was 0% down and “pick-your-payments” loans that have gotten us in this mess.
Gary you can scream all you want for volume, but things aint moving until prices come down. Also, prices will continue their slide downwards and the recent case schiller numbers seem to indicate that we have reached tipping point in the Puget Sound where stickiness is no longer an option.
patient » Feb 25, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Thanks Kary, I understand it’s very hard to know more precisely and that it’s not official numbers, I was just looking for a ballpark number like you provided. Thanks again.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 4:59 pm
By TheHulk @ 67:
Pick a date and I’ll run 10 or 15 or so over 600k. I’m not going to run every sale over $600k even for one day, unless it happens to be a number in that range.
cheepseats » Feb 25, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Can, anyone explain the seasonally adjusted version?
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_csmahp/2,3,4,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0.html
My brain is fried tonight…
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 5:02 pm
By TheHulk @ 67:
Prices would certainly help, but I think you also need people not being scared to death. I don’t think it’s even that they’re scared about real estate prices falling as much as they’re scared about the entire economy, or their jobs. That though is just an impression. Obviously I don’t have enough contact with enough buyers (and little contact with non-buyers) to know for certain.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 5:13 pm
RE: cheepseats @ 70 – I couldn’t find anything explaining how they try to adjust their price index for seasonal effects.
But I did find that they publish the number of price pairs. December 2008 was about 1/3rd of the price peak of July 2007. That at least is some indication of volume, but you don’t know total volume because you don’t know how many they threw out. As typical this is not reported by the press–the press really doesn’t seem to understand the importance of volume.
EconE » Feb 25, 2009 at 5:27 pm
By PublicEnemy#1 @ 28:
Tim? You there?
I’m curious about this also. I also think that you should have a separate focus on the 750k and over segment. Did the S&P “tiers” inflate with the bubble? Or was it always 406k+ for the top tier?
Yeah yeah….I know…I’ll get a response that “most people aren’t looking for $750k+ houses so why cover them?”
Because 750k turned into 300k all around Los Angeles. Why can’t it turn into 400k here?
Looking at the inventory sidebar, I see that there are currently 8856 SFR’s for sale in King County.
I did a search for listings (and past 3 months sales) for the 750k and up group.
There are currently 2753 homes for sale in that bracket
That is almost 1/3 of total inventory, yet there were only 265 sales over the last 3 months in that price range.
I’m not including condos BTW….or pocket listings for that matter.
Peoples perceptions have been skewed as to what they should be living in compared to what their income is. I suspect that there are quite a few people (certainly not me) in the top 5%+/- bracket (250k+ household) here on the blog. Shouldn’t these people be able to purchase/afford a home in the top 10% at least?
Top 10% of homes are about $1,500,000 and up.
Should this Ballard house be considered “high tier”?
http://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/834-NW-53rd-St-98107/home/303832
Know what I mean?
Or how about this prize for the $250k households?
http://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/2433-NW-61st-St-98107/home/162564/nwmls-28195220
I’d also bet that most people that are in the top 5% of wage earners in Seattle already own a house.
Who’s gonna buy all the empty 750k+ homes?
Oh…yeah…the bank is.
cheepseats » Feb 25, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Kary,
That is funny, I was actually sifting through that site trying to find some numbers for you. But I started going cross-eyed, good job on finding something at least.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 5:58 pm
RE: EconE @ 73 – I seem to recall that the ranges do vary over time.
EconE » Feb 25, 2009 at 6:41 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 75 –
Do you have any figures for that range?
I don’t notice it quite as much in Seattle vs. Los Angeles….but the problem that I see is that many people bought a $500-600k house around 1995-1997 and now are asking from $2-4Million for the same homes. The incomes haven’t gone up but people have decided upon themselves to “appreciate” their asking prices into the realm of executive (CEO/CFO) and celebrity (T.V./Film/Sports/Music) incomes.
I guess that might work in a celebrity/executive pocket neighborhood, but really…how many of those neighborhoods are there really? And if a seller happens to be in one of those neighborhoods…what do you think the chances of selling to a celeb/exec are?
I just think that there are far more Uber-priced houses than there are Uber-rich buyers. Those prices are going to have to come down quite a bit, and when they do (they do), it definitely puts downward pressure on the homes in the lower to mid “upper tier”.
It’s a “pull down from the bottom, push down from the top” kind of thing.
shawn » Feb 25, 2009 at 8:48 pm
RE: DaveyDave @ 17 – Davey I do feel sorry for the ones that believed the hype. It’s the ones that knew better and still chose to misled, but maybe that group is smaller than I had thought.
shawn » Feb 25, 2009 at 8:52 pm
RE: PublicEnemy#1 @ 18 – Contrition before forgiveness is not an uncommon religious belief.
Internet guy » Feb 25, 2009 at 8:54 pm
By EconE @ 73:
GoodnGodless » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Your crazy if you don’t put all your $$$ in dining out and fine single malt scotch.
Ira sacharoff » Feb 25, 2009 at 9:45 pm
By GoodnGodless @ 80:
I’ve squandered all kinds of money dining out, but single malt scotch? Now that’s a good investment.
AMS » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:16 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 60 –
The “wealthy” don’t spend $1 to get $0.35 back.
It’s the other way around. The cost of capital is only 65% of the published rate. Thus the “wealthy” only pay $0.65 while everyone else pays more.
EconE » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Who are the “wealthy”?
We hear about “cash” on the sidelines.
How much cash is there really? Is it the 7T in bank deposits?
Who’s got how much?
I’m thinking that the majority is concentrated into the hands of a very very few people and most of the “wealthy” are “wealthy” on paper. I doubt they’d be selling their stocks now to buy RE. So how much cash is there?
Why did they raise the FDIC limits to $250k?
Is it because there won’t be enough banks for the wealthy to have their cash in FDIC insured accounts if it were left at $100k?
I’m sure someone will come out and claim “small businesses”…but wait…wasn’t that the issue with the credit crunch? Didn’t they claim that the majority of small businesses depended on credit just to be able to meet weekly payrolls?
I’d really love to see a breakdown of the distribution of that $7Trillion in deposits.
It’s interesting…in a pathetic sort of way. The super wealthy bankers (Thain, Mozilo, Perry etc.) not only make money off lending to people, they also collect the most interest income in absolute terms from their CD’s.
Why should banks pay us to keep our money there anyways? Isn’t the purpose of keeping your money in the bank…say a checking account with near 0% interest….to keep your money safe? Do the paltry fees for the basic (non credit card using person) even pay for the services provided such as free checks etc.?
Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn’t pay 0.1% to the bank annually to keep our money safe and manage our transactions. Then the people who use credit are able to do so at lesser rates. I’m definitely not saying my idea is the right one nor what the unintended consequences would be but paying 1/10th of one percent to not have to keep a safe at home or stuff your mattress makes sense to me.
Then again. Much of our world really doesn’t make sense to me anyways.
Ray Pepper » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Is it just me or does that picture of Kary Krismer over and over drive you nutts? I like the Pig and Lusty Lady . Those dang face piks though. I have a good mind to change my avatar.
If Steve Tytler or Ira begin blogging as much as Krismer, I’m inserting this pik of my wife and I with her xmas gifts.
http://thesportsculture.com/wp-content/gallery/tebow/tebow-and-girlfriend.jpg
EconE » Feb 25, 2009 at 10:59 pm
for once I actually needed more time to edit. When I speak of the “non credit card using person” (eight lines from the bottom)… I’m referring to the “deadbeats” that may use a credit card, but pay it off in full every month.
EconE » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:08 pm
RE: Ray Pepper @ 84 –
If you could enlarge my picture so that the sign behind the inflatable “Dr. Simi” was visible…and then translated it…you’d probably be driven nuts by mine also!
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:15 pm
By AMS @ 82:
Interest is not a capital investment.
Ray Pepper » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Dr. Simi? I don’t even know who he is. Honestly I just always glanced at that and thought it was the Stay Puft Marshmallow man with a moustache, face, and tie. But, seriously its the face over and over and over. Losh is also problematic. Its probably just me though. Wife went to work, kids asleep, caught up on all my deals, and now going to the kitchen for a Costco muffin!
Ray Pepper » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I must confess though I utilize two 32 inch Vizio screens on my PC’s so what I see gets enlarged. Sometimes its quite joyous other times….ughhhhhhhhhh
Mkkby » Feb 25, 2009 at 11:24 pm
“It’s interesting to look at the month-to-month changes over the last three months of 2008:
October: -1.4%
November: -2.5%
December: -3.6%”
I’m having trouble believing the high rates of decline in November and December aren’t just outliers. During those months, my favorite restaurants were empty. So were the stores. Now the crowds are back again. I think people were scared by the news, and now they are settling down again.
Therefore, I predict in a month or two Seattle C-S will be back to roughly 1% declines per month. Thoughts anyone?
EconE » Feb 26, 2009 at 12:01 am
Ray….It’s a picture I took on an itty bitty Caribbean island outside of a generic pharmacy. I guess he was their mascot blow up doll.
I’d tell you which Island but then you’d want me to tell you who can hook you up with $200-300/month apartments and which of my “amigos” sell the real Cuban cigars in addition to the fake ones. And I don’t even smoke cigars.
;^)
patient » Feb 26, 2009 at 12:02 am
By Mkkby @ 90:
I agree that Decembers number is so extreme that it’s hard to believe that rate of decline can continue, on the other hand data from the other markets that have reached that level of decline tells us otherwise. A quick glance at the graphs in The Tim’s prior post seem to indicate that once this steep decline is reached it’s more common than not that it keeps up for about 6 months and that was in better economic times. It will be interresting for sure.
Demersus » Feb 26, 2009 at 5:56 am
Ray, you seem just like the type that would want and like fake boobs. Emphasis fake.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 26, 2009 at 7:23 am
RE: Mkkby @ 90 – You can’t predict the future from the past. Judging though by what appears to be the current pricing on pendings, it appears you’re wrong (that the declines will be more than 1%). Although perhaps that’s something that would just show up on NWMLS and not C-S if it’s size of property related.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 26, 2009 at 7:26 am
RE: patient @ 92 – You also can’t tell what will happen here by what happened in other places. For one thing, in those other places they didn’t at the time have a national economy as bad as what it is right now, and more importantly, as much concern about the economy among the general population.
Tim » Feb 26, 2009 at 8:15 am
Jamie Dimon publicly saying that his bank is prepared for 40% peak to trough declines.
Grelker » Feb 26, 2009 at 9:14 am
RE: Bernie @ 29 –
Bernie, take a look here for some background: http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_csmahp/0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,2,1,0,0,0,0,0.html
Ray Pepper » Feb 26, 2009 at 11:41 am
RE: Demersus @ 93 –
Yes, I do fake, real, it doesn’t matter. But, she wanted them more then me.
Hugh Dominic » Feb 26, 2009 at 11:50 am
RE: EconE @ 73 –
This is a very interesting post EconE – thanks – very useful food for thought.
The recent poor performance of the high tier home may be a symptom of what you have spotted.
The Tim » Feb 26, 2009 at 11:57 am
RE: PublicEnemy#1 @ 28 & EconE @ 73 – The tiers are simply determined by splitting the total number of sale pairs into thirds by volume. Therefore, the tiers do shift (or “inflate”) over time.
I touched on this at the end of December’s post. In the two months since then, the price point of the high tier has continued to decline rapidly, falling from $433,549 to $407,934.
Ray Pepper » Feb 26, 2009 at 12:29 pm
RE: Demersus @ 93 –
BTW whats with the rude comment Demersus? Fake? Care to explain? Or are you just here to suck up oxygen.
Civil Servant » Feb 26, 2009 at 2:04 pm
With respect to the nice point EconE and others have raised, does anyone have any data on townhouse sales?
This one — http://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/1922-N-46th-St-98103/home/8190429 — lists at $599K, down from an original $740K.
But do most people really want to live in townhouses when for the same price in the same neighborhood they can get a nice sturdy house with a yard? For example: http://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/4210-Thackeray-Pl-NE-98105/home/117389 (maybe this isn’t your taste; work with me here).
The people I know who bought townhouses during the runup would have preferred houses but couldn’t afford it and thought appreciation could never stop, figured they’d live in the townhouse for a few years then flip it and upgrade. The people I know who haven’t bought yet are either older (and wiser? Yes, when it comes to economics) or have/want to have kids, two groups to whom a townhouse that costs the same as a house is off the table. Ira, Ray, anyone, do you have insight into what’s going on in this market?
As a point of reference, at the same price in Wallingford here is one for the Keep Trying file: http://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/3333-Wallingford-Ave-N-98103/unit-305/home/12093078
Demersus » Feb 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Well Ray, I didn’t see any packages wrapped like Christmas presents in the picture, so one could only assume to what you were referring as “presents” (plural). Perhaps don’t make them an issue and no one will comment, hmm??
David Losh » Feb 26, 2009 at 5:48 pm
RE: Civil Servant @ 102 –
Town Houses are my favorite subject.
Real Estate refers to the dirt. The Estate is the land. Real Estate is the most tangible asset. It can be the land, improvements, mineral rights, water rights, air space above, or anything below the surface.
Condos share the land on a percentage basis. They are usually an Association whose largest asset is the land the project sits on. They collectively maintain the property.
The biggest concern when municipalities began rubber stamping these town house projects was who would maintain the units. Second concern is for the safety of the units. A fire truck doesn’t get into the drive way, no does an ambulance. Police were concerned about the “alley way” feel of the drive ways.
As multiple projects were hobbled together there is a maze of driveways that a criminal can nevigate to elude a police chase. At one meeting a person brought up the idea a criminal element could take up residence in a unit and control the driveways by parking a van at the entrance.
So in addition to having a very small percentage of ownership in the land you have multiple personalities living in very close proximatity.
In my opinion, within the next ten years, as the granite counter tops go out of fashion we’ll see these units selling for cheap. The entire idea of these town houses was to offer “affordable” housing units. They were meant to be sold for cheap.
David Losh » Feb 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm
RE: Ray Pepper @ 84 –
Wait a minute, I don’t remember you being that tall.
Come to think of it the girl looks awfully young to be Ms. Pepper.
Do you have any photos that are more convincing, or is it just the one?
Ray Pepper » Feb 26, 2009 at 6:39 pm
RE: David Losh @ 105 –
Too young to be Ms. Pepper? I’m only 42. Shes 35. I think its the shampoo that keeps us looking young.
See Dermersus thats your problem. You assumed incorrectly. In fact I’m a bit insulted by your assumption. Her new contacts gave her the color she always wanted.
Kary L. Krismer » Feb 26, 2009 at 7:01 pm
RE: David Losh @ 104 – There are clearly some very badly run associations out there. There are also some very good ones. It’s going to be tough times going forward for the bad ones–very tough.
David Losh » Feb 26, 2009 at 7:44 pm
RE: Ray Pepper @ 106 –
You said us, and the shampoo? Hmmmm.
Like I said, do you have more pictures, or just the one.
David Losh » Feb 26, 2009 at 7:45 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 107 –
Town Houses don’t have Associations. Condos are a step ahead in that regard.
Jonness » Feb 26, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“Therefore, I predict in a month or two Seattle C-S will be back to roughly 1% declines per month. Thoughts anyone?”
I would like to agree due to the Spring bounce slowing down the rate of decline. However, I notice when housing bubbles burst, they tend to do so in a fairly symmetrical manner. I predicted we would see these larger declines at this point for that very reason. I also factored in what happens when a certain point of underwater is reached. Foreclosures start driving down prices as more and more people go underwater, and the momentum is difficult to arrest. I suspect Seattle will see a continued symmetrical correction despite Obama’s attempt to stop foreclosures, as the downward momentum will overpower his plan.
WA typically lags the national unemployment rate before passing it up and correcting later. I expect the bubble collapse is lagging for similar reasons. IOW, like the unemployment pattern, we’ll see the full correction in the housing market, despite starting later.
The following chart shows the typical shape of housing bubble tops. Notice when they start down, they pick up momentum. IMO, that has to do with the underwater factor kicking in to the point where people are more helpless and run out of options.
http://www.housingcorrection.com/markettops.gif
Jonness » Feb 26, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Ray:
That’s not your wife. I met her at a sports club and dated her twice. She’s definitely single. BTW, I don’t think that’s you either.
Ray Pepper » Feb 26, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Met her at a sports club???? Shes supposed to be working nights at Franciscan. I didn’t know shes working Franciscan.
Shes getting ready right now. I’m gonna follow her to work. Thanks Jonness.
Ira Sacharoff » Feb 26, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Ray never said anything about her being his only wife….
shawn » Feb 26, 2009 at 9:45 pm
RE: Ray Pepper @ 84 – if you are talking about me, it is lechon, my favorite vegetarian meal.
Jonness » Feb 27, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Ray:
Don’t worry. Nothing happened. I took her to my house, and we just hung out and chatted for a while. I took some pictures of the completely innocent occasion.
http://thesportsculture.com/wp-content/gallery/tebow/nice-lucy-pinder.jpg
Jonness » Feb 27, 2009 at 8:47 pm
In case your wondering what I look like, I’ve linked a photo of myself. She said she likes men who work on computers. Getting that CS degree at UW is the best thing that ever happened to me.
http://www.kyle-brady.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/nerd.gif
Ray Pepper » Feb 27, 2009 at 11:03 pm
RE: Jonness @ 116 -
too funnY!