Comments on: New York Times: Seattle Sellers Simply Surrendering

By: Seattle Bubble • Top 10 Most-Viewed Posts of 2011

Seattle Bubble • Top 10 Most-Viewed Posts of 2011 — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:44:32 +0000

[...] 2,851 pageviews, 02/14: New York Times: Seattle Sellers Simply Surrendering [...]

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Jonness

Jonness — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:32:09 +0000

RE: The Tim @ 70 – But Tim. What’s going to happen to house prices this June when Bernanke quits funding the $1.6 trillion fiscal deficit?

Just kidding. Take it with a grain of salt. You’re doing a great job. :)

Reply – The Tim @ 70<\/a> - But Tim. What\'s going to happen to house prices this June when Bernanke quits funding the $1.6 trillion fiscal deficit?\n\nJust kidding. Take it with a grain of salt. You\'re doing a great job. :)',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:47:45 +0000

By The Tim @ 67:

By Daniel @ 66:

Which is the best way to kill discussion: move them somewhere no one ever looks or posts…

Yeah nobody ever looks or posts there. That’s why this month’s thread is up to 248 comments already.

It would be nice if you would have quoted the full sentence:
“Which is the best way to kill discussion: move them somewhere no one ever looks or posts, where any real discussion would quickly be unmanageable.”

I listed two different possibilities and should have separated them by “or” to make this clear. (I actually avoided it as I had used the word or and even this would have had two possible meaning.) 248 posts are merely a fraction of the economy posts found also elsewhere (often in the open threads). If everyone adhered to the rules browsing them would be unmanageable.

Just to make sure: I do not intent to buy a house in the near future and I have absolutely no interest in real estate. I still like most of your blog posts for many other reasons.

Reply – The Tim @ 67<\/a>:

By Daniel @ 66<\/a>:
Which is the best way to kill discussion: move them somewhere no one ever looks or posts...<\/blockquote>\r\nYeah nobody ever<\/em> looks or posts there. That\'s why this month\'s thread<\/a> is up to 248 comments already.<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\nIt would be nice if you would have quoted the full sentence:\r\n\"Which is the best way to kill discussion: move them somewhere no one ever looks or posts, where any real discussion would quickly be unmanageable.\"\r\n\r\nI listed two different possibilities and should have separated them by \"or\" to make this clear. (I actually avoided it as I had used the word or and even this would have had two possible meaning.) 248 posts are merely a fraction of the economy posts found also elsewhere (often in the open threads). If everyone adhered to the rules browsing them would be unmanageable.\r\n\r\nJust to make sure: I do not intent to buy a house in the near future and I have absolutely no interest in real estate. I still like most of your blog posts for many other reasons.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Scotsman

Scotsman — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:25:52 +0000

RE: noob @ 71 –

” are you actually being serious?”

No. Well, I am about the Pfft part. ;-)
Reply – noob @ 71<\/a> - \r\n\r\n\" are you actually being serious?\"\r\n\r\nNo. Well, I am about the Pfft part. ;-)',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Pegasus

Pegasus — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:21:42 +0000

RE: The Tim @ 70 – I understand that by separating the discussions that deviate from what your blog was intended to be about but since you do allow off topic discussions of things other than real estate in separate threads I wish you would allow those posts to be seen in your recent comments section. Since you stopped doing it, it has become most difficult in following any off topic discussion. I think I understand why you did it(to focus on your own blog items and get more attention paid to your blog agenda) but it really does distract from other items of interest that drive viewers here that make a good blog. I generally post relevant real estate stories under the weekly threads. For example I was first to post the recent NYT article about Seattle real estate. It received no responders. A day or two later you decided to feature the story with your own twist that has seen many responses many of them not relevant to the discussion. My point is that by censoring recent posts from your recent post list that are on off-topic lists you are stifling many other discussions that would occur here at SB. Just a thought….
Reply – The Tim @ 70<\/a> - I understand that by separating the discussions that deviate from what your blog was intended to be about but since you do allow off topic discussions of things other than real estate in separate threads I wish you would allow those posts to be seen in your recent comments section. Since you stopped doing it, it has become most difficult in following any off topic discussion. I think I understand why you did it(to focus on your own blog items and get more attention paid to your blog agenda) but it really does distract from other items of interest that drive viewers here that make a good blog. I generally post relevant real estate stories under the weekly threads. For example I was first to post the recent NYT article about Seattle real estate. It received no responders. A day or two later you decided to feature the story with your own twist that has seen many responses many of them not relevant to the discussion. My point is that by censoring recent posts from your recent post list that are on off-topic lists you are stifling many other discussions that would occur here at SB. Just a thought....',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: noob

noob — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:02:49 +0000

RE: Scotsman @ 69 –

Good stuff. My sarcasm detector is broken though, are you actually being serious?
Reply – Scotsman @ 69<\/a> - \r\n\r\nGood stuff. My sarcasm detector is broken though, are you actually being serious?',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Tim

The Tim — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:29:55 +0000

RE: Jonness @ 68 & Scotsman @ 69 – You guys crack me up. I don’t really understand what is so heavy-handed about requesting that comments on posts be on-topic for the specific subject matter discussed in the post, but whatever.

And once more, for the record: I am not against having the macro economic discussion. The on-topic rule isn’t about “killing discussion” or “dumbing down discussion.” It’s about letting people discuss the specific topic at hand without every single discussion turning into a conversation about the so-called recovery or the continued massive debt binge.
Reply – Jonness @ 68<\/a> & Scotsman @ 69<\/a> - You guys crack me up. I don\'t really understand what is so heavy-handed about requesting that comments on posts be on-topic for the specific subject matter discussed in the post, but whatever.\r\n\r\nAnd once more, for the record: I am not against having the macro economic discussion. The on-topic rule isn\'t about \"killing discussion\" or \"dumbing down discussion.\" It\'s about letting people discuss the specific topic at hand without every single discussion turning into a conversation about the so-called recovery or the continued massive debt binge.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Scotsman

Scotsman — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:30:00 +0000

RE: Jonness @ 68 –

Nah, he hates it, all that negativity is hard on what sales remain. Now that The Tim works for The Man (i.e. Redfin) and has a paycheck that is directly dependent upon the sales of homes he has to walk a fine line between his corporate masters and the hard truth. I can see him, wide awake, staring at the ceiling at three in the morning wondering about his conscience and the ultimate fate of his soul. Or something like that.

In fact, there’s a rumor going around that Pfft is actually The Tim trying hard to give what few buyers remain a few good arguments to use with their spouses, co-workers, and others intent on dissuading them from buying. It’s part of the compromise he worked out with Redfin’s management. It’s all about balance, kind of a FOX/MSNBC type of thing, or something. Or so I heard, from my sister’s cousin. . . …
Reply – Jonness @ 68<\/a> - \r\n\r\nNah, he hates it, all that negativity is hard on what sales remain. Now that The Tim works for The Man (i.e. Redfin) and has a paycheck that is directly dependent upon the sales of homes he has to walk a fine line between his corporate masters and the hard truth. I can see him, wide awake, staring at the ceiling at three in the morning wondering about his conscience and the ultimate fate of his soul. Or something like that.\r\n\r\nIn fact, there\'s a rumor going around that Pfft is actually The Tim trying hard to give what few buyers remain a few good arguments to use with their spouses, co-workers, and others intent on dissuading them from buying. It\'s part of the compromise he worked out with Redfin\'s management. It\'s all about balance, kind of a FOX\/MSNBC type of thing, or something. Or so I heard, from my sister\'s cousin. . . ...',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Jonness

Jonness — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 06:48:17 +0000

By The Tim @ 67:

Yeah nobody ever looks or posts there. That’s why this month’s thread is up to 248 comments already.

Apparently, macro economics is not a “tired discussion.”

I think some people tend to get ticked off because they believe you don’t understand the integral relationship between macro economics and local house prices. In any serious conversation about house prices you cannot separate the two.

I believe you fully understand this, and you are simply trying to target a popular and manageable scope of discussion and stick to it. I’m guessing this is due to time and energy constraints in your life and your understanding that most people aren’t intellectually set up to understand the big picture (or they just don’t have the time, patience, and or interest to take it on). Therefore, you need to dumb down the discussion in order to not lose the more mainstream portion of your reader base. (i.e. less effort = more readers, which is a good blogging strategy for a guy with a day job and is fully understandable)

I could be wrong though. But I would recommend that the macro-inclined readers not interpret your perceived censorship as a lack of intelligence on your part or a direct attack against their mindset.
Reply – The Tim @ 67<\/a>:
\nYeah nobody ever<\/em> looks or posts there. That\'s why this month\'s thread<\/a> is up to 248 comments already.<\/blockquote>\nApparently, macro economics is not a \"tired discussion.\" \n\nI think some people tend to get ticked off because they believe you don\'t understand the integral relationship between macro economics and local house prices. In any serious conversation about house prices you cannot separate the two. \n\nI believe you fully understand this, and you are simply trying to target a popular and manageable scope of discussion and stick to it. I\'m guessing this is due to time and energy constraints in your life and your understanding that most people aren\'t intellectually set up to understand the big picture (or they just don\'t have the time, patience, and or interest to take it on). Therefore, you need to dumb down the discussion in order to not lose the more mainstream portion of your reader base. (i.e. less effort = more readers, which is a good blogging strategy for a guy with a day job and is fully understandable)\n\nI could be wrong though. But I would recommend that the macro-inclined readers not interpret your perceived censorship as a lack of intelligence on your part or a direct attack against their mindset.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Tim

The Tim — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 06:14:29 +0000

By Daniel @ 66:

Which is the best way to kill discussion: move them somewhere no one ever looks or posts…

Yeah nobody ever looks or posts there. That’s why this month’s thread is up to 248 comments already.
Reply – Daniel @ 66<\/a>:
Which is the best way to kill discussion: move them somewhere no one ever looks or posts...<\/blockquote>\r\nYeah nobody ever<\/em> looks or posts there. That\'s why this month\'s thread<\/a> is up to 248 comments already.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:58:51 +0000

By The Tim @ 59:

If I wanted to “kill discussion” about that stuff I would just be deleting comments and banning users. Instead, I created a place for those discussions and have asked people to have those discussions there. When people ignore my requests, I’ll enforce the rules that I set up.

Which is the best way to kill discussion: move them somewhere no one ever looks or posts, where any real discussion would quickly be unmanageable.

Of course you are free to ban those not caring about the rules but I surely will not waste my time actually reading them =)
Reply – The Tim @ 59<\/a>:
\r\nIf I wanted to \"kill discussion\" about that stuff I would just be deleting comments and banning users. Instead, I created a place for those discussions and have asked people to have those discussions there. When people ignore my requests, I\'ll enforce the rules that I set up.<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\nWhich is the best way to kill discussion: move them somewhere no one ever looks or posts, where any real discussion would quickly be unmanageable.\r\n\r\nOf course you are free to ban those not caring about the rules but I surely will not waste my time actually reading them =)',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Jonness

Jonness — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:33:29 +0000

By betamax @ 41:

whatever happened to that female realtor who used to come here and rail against the ‘silly bubble heads’ who didn’t understand the new paradigm. LOL. Is she still in business?

LOL! I’m hoping you are referring to Ardell, because the stuff coming out of her mouth back in the day was simply astonishing. I can’t imagine anybody putting their foot in their mouth worse than that. :)
Reply – betamax @ 41<\/a>:
whatever happened to that female realtor who used to come here and rail against the \'silly bubble heads\' who didn\'t understand the new paradigm. LOL. Is she still in business?<\/blockquote>\r\nLOL! I\'m hoping you are referring to Ardell, because the stuff coming out of her mouth back in the day was simply astonishing. I can\'t imagine anybody putting their foot in their mouth worse than that. :)',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Jonness

Jonness — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:47:23 +0000

By The Tim @ 18:

A Conversation With Steve Tytler

OMG! Did you have to remind us of the famous, “house prices can’t considerably decline because Seattle is forever locked in an upwards stairstep pattern” argument.

The only argument I despise more than that one is “house prices can only go up because Seattle is surrounded by water, and there are no more empty building lots in King County.”
Reply – The Tim @ 18<\/a>:
A Conversation With Steve Tytler<\/blockquote>\r\nOMG! Did you have to remind us of the famous, \"house prices can\'t considerably decline because Seattle is forever locked in an upwards stairstep pattern\" argument.\r\n\r\nThe only argument I despise more than that one is \"house prices can only go up because Seattle is surrounded by water, and there are no more empty building lots in King County.\"',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Jonness

Jonness — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:34:36 +0000

By Scotsman @ 13:

RE: Drshort @ 12 –

“renting vs buying are pretty close”

Shouldn’t we include the $20,000 capital loss (5% of $400K) in that calculation? I bet it would make a difference. And just think what a 10% number would do.

And let’s not forget to tack on maintenance fees and mortgage insurance.
Reply – Scotsman @ 13<\/a>:
RE:<\/b> Drshort @ 12<\/a> - \r\n\r\n\"renting vs buying are pretty close\"\r\n\r\nShouldn\'t we include the $20,000 capital loss (5% of $400K) in that calculation? I bet it would make a difference. And just think what a 10% number would do.<\/blockquote>\r\nAnd let\'s not forget to tack on maintenance fees and mortgage insurance.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: sleepwalker

sleepwalker — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:19:35 +0000

My property taxes(Seattle proper) in 2011 are 50% what they were in 2006. Not exactly appreciating at 8% a year.

50% down sounds about right though. That’s what I did on a 400k house in 2005. Mortgage + tax/insurance was around $1300, comparable rent would be $1700 or so.

There’s the opportunity cost on the 200k downpayment, but my other investments are only now making up for the bloodbath of the last few years.

By softwarengineer @ 28:

RE: Drshort @ 12 –

I’d Make It a Lot Simpler

Your numbers work with a 50% down payment on a $400K loan IMO….for every $100K you borrow figure on about $1000/mo approx costs buying vs renting. Now you have a lid on lost equity [prices are still going down], maintenance [pay me now or pay me later], escalating property taxes at 8% a year while homes go down in value that much, insurance, water/sewer [it’s usually free if you rent] and add in extra heat and air conditioning costs because you bought an energy pig McMansion when you moved out of your smaller apartment/condo.

If you use my numbers Dr Short, you won’t come up short.

Reply – softwarengineer @ 28<\/a>:
RE:<\/b> Drshort @ 12<\/a> - \r\n\r\nI\'d Make It a Lot Simpler\r\n\r\nYour numbers work with a 50% down payment on a $400K loan IMO....for every $100K you borrow figure on about $1000\/mo approx costs buying vs renting. Now you have a lid on lost equity [prices are still going down], maintenance [pay me now or pay me later], escalating property taxes at 8% a year while homes go down in value that much, insurance, water\/sewer [it\'s usually free if you rent] and add in extra heat and air conditioning costs because you bought an energy pig McMansion when you moved out of your smaller apartment\/condo.\r\n\r\nIf you use my numbers Dr Short, you won\'t come up short.<\/blockquote>',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: boomer

boomer — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:03:02 +0000

So I read an article the other day from a local “independent” housing expert (cannot find the link if anyone else remembers reading that please post) said it is likely that locally mortgage payments are not going to get any lower, because of the amount that house prices would have to drop to keep up with the expectation of higher interest rates probably would not happen. I also think that if you can find the right house at the right price it is not a terrible price to buy; for example if you buy a foreclosure at 10% to 20% less than market value, a future drop in local homes values is “covered”. I am not sure I agree with the statement that Ive heard about built-in equity when you purchase a forclosure, but I do believe that there is a little bit of wiggle room if house prices continue to drop.
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: David S

David S — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:55:22 +0000

RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 57 – I just hope that when this developer Pulte is allowed to punch in as many hundreds of homes as is being reported that they also put in the “golly” roads that need to go with them.
Reply – Kary L. Krismer @ 57<\/a> - I just hope that when this developer Pulte is allowed to punch in as many hundreds of homes as is being reported that they also put in the \"golly\" roads that need to go with them.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Tim

The Tim — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:46:02 +0000

RE: Daniel @ 58 – Give me a break. The comment rules (you know, the ones linked in bold text just between the comment box and the “Submit” button) clearly state the following:

Please keep comments on-topic relative to the post that you are commenting on. For off-topic comments, please use the provided open threads and the forums. Off-topic comments may be deleted or moved to the current open thread.
…
Comments relating to the global or national economy and not directly related to Seattle-area real estate may be posted only in the Global Economic Open Thread.

Comments that rehash the same tired discussion about the recession and recovery do not belong in posts about other topics. It’s as simple as that.

If I wanted to “kill discussion” about that stuff I would just be deleting comments and banning users. Instead, I created a place for those discussions and have asked people to have those discussions there. When people ignore my requests, I’ll enforce the rules that I set up.
Reply – Daniel @ 58<\/a> - Give me a break. The comment rules<\/a> (you know, the ones linked in bold text just between the comment box and the \"Submit\" button) clearly state the following:\r\n
Please keep comments on-topic relative to the post that you are commenting on. For off-topic comments, please use the provided open threads and the forums. Off-topic comments may be deleted or moved to the current open thread.\r\n...\r\nComments relating to the global or national economy and not directly<\/span> related to Seattle-area real estate may be posted only in the Global Economic Open Thread.<\/blockquote>\r\nComments that rehash the same tired discussion about the recession and recovery do not belong in posts about other topics. It\'s as simple as that.\r\n\r\nIf I wanted to \"kill discussion\" about that stuff I would just be deleting comments and banning users. Instead, I created a place for those discussions and have asked people to have those discussions there. When people ignore my requests, I\'ll enforce the rules that I set up.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:26:02 +0000

By The Tim @ 53:

RE: The Tim @ 50 – Okay I warned you guys and you didn’t listen, so I have moved all the comments to the Global Economic Open Thread, starting with the first one that veered off the topic of this post.

This is not Global Economics: It is US economics, so it is kind of the wrong thread. I guess you just want to kill discussion cause that is all moving it achieves. A little thin-skinned today, eh?
Reply – The Tim @ 53<\/a>:
RE:<\/b> The Tim @ 50<\/a> - Okay I warned you guys and you didn\'t listen, so I have moved all the comments to the Global Economic Open Thread<\/a>, starting with the first one that veered off the topic of this post<\/a>.<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\nThis is not Global Economics: It is US economics, so it is kind of the wrong thread. I guess you just want to kill discussion cause that is all moving it achieves. A little thin-skinned today, eh?',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Kary L. Krismer

Kary L. Krismer — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:21:48 +0000

I think it was Losh that commented on this story about a big developer moving into the area.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2014178499_realpulte13.html

I don’t view that as a good sign for future prices in the area–at least if you think good is up or even stable.
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: ray pepper

ray pepper — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:55:34 +0000

RE: Scotsman @ 55 –

Scotsman…Great Post.
Reply – Scotsman @ 55<\/a> - \r\n\r\nScotsman...Great Post.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Scotsman

Scotsman — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:59:51 +0000

http://www.oftwominds.com/blog-photos/bubble-decline2.gif

http://www.oftwominds.com/photos07/mtg-resets-IMF.jpg

Hat tip to CHW:

“Prices are determined by supply and demand. The current illusion of “recovery” has been fueled by two massive manipulations of the market: the supply has been artificially limited by the withholding of distressed homes in the “shadow inventory,” and the demand has been artificially juiced by stupendous “socialist” government pumping via subsidies, guarantees, backstops and purchases/ownership of “private” markets.

The next phase shift down will be triggered by market forces responding to the asymmetry between supply (high and rising) and demand (low and falling). It doesn’t take any more houses coming on the market to trigger the next leg down; it will only take a decline in demand as the pool of bottom fishers is exhausted and potential buyers realize the “recovery” was purely government-orchestrated illusion.
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Renter

Renter — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:40:47 +0000

RE: Drshort @ 12 –

I’m not seeing any $1700 rentals on $400k houses that would be worth renting and I’ve been looking around for 3-4 months. Most of those homes are north of that for monthly rent.
Reply – Drshort @ 12<\/a> - \r\n\r\nI\'m not seeing any $1700 rentals on $400k houses that would be worth renting and I\'ve been looking around for 3-4 months. Most of those homes are north of that for monthly rent.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Tim

The Tim — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:28:41 +0000

RE: The Tim @ 50 – Okay I warned you guys and you didn’t listen, so I have moved all the comments to the Global Economic Open Thread, starting with the first one that veered off the topic of this post.
Reply – The Tim @ 50<\/a> - Okay I warned you guys and you didn\'t listen, so I have moved all the comments to the Global Economic Open Thread<\/a>, starting with the first one that veered off the topic of this post<\/a>.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: David Losh

David Losh — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 04:38:43 +0000

RE: The Tim @ 50 – RE: Jonathan Miller @ 6 –

This kind of post only attracts people like Jonathon Miller. These guys are all dependent on, have spent money, time, effort, and energy on promoting the idea that people should buy housing units.

No rhyme, or reason, just buy, buy, buy. Buy my product, my graphs, my book. Pay me to consult, because I have charts, graphs, and the inside track on Bloomberg, Inman, or Case/Schiller. More people, more products, more reasons to pay attention, so when you buy, you buy with confidence.
Reply – The Tim @ 50<\/a> - RE:<\/b> Jonathan Miller @ 6<\/a> - \r\n\r\nThis kind of post only attracts people like Jonathon Miller. These guys are all dependent on, have spent money, time, effort, and energy on promoting the idea that people should buy housing units. \r\n\r\nNo rhyme, or reason, just buy, buy, buy. Buy my product, my graphs, my book. Pay me to consult, because I have charts, graphs, and the inside track on Bloomberg, Inman, or Case\/Schiller. More people, more products, more reasons to pay attention, so when you buy, you buy with confidence.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: pfft

pfft — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 04:30:47 +0000

By Blurtman @ 49:

RE: pfft @ 45 – Dare I say that I agree with you. And his union bashing is tedious.

it’s funny you say that because I haven’t read him i months. still up to his same old tricks.
Reply – Blurtman @ 49<\/a>:
RE:<\/b> pfft @ 45<\/a> - Dare I say that I agree with you. And his union bashing is tedious.<\/blockquote>it\'s funny you say that because I haven\'t read him i months. still up to his same old tricks.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Tim

The Tim — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 04:21:58 +0000

RE: TheHulk @ 51 – RE: pfft @ 52 – Guys, take it to the Global Economic Open Thread please.
Reply – TheHulk @ 51<\/a> - RE:<\/b> pfft @ 52<\/a> - Guys, take it to the Global Economic Open Thread<\/a> please.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Blurtman

Blurtman — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 04:03:30 +0000

RE: pfft @ 45 – Dare I say that I agree with you. And his union bashing is tedious.
Reply – pfft @ 45<\/a> - Dare I say that I agree with you. And his union bashing is tedious.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Feedback

Feedback — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 03:36:50 +0000

Tim, thank you. Every time a man tells me that I should buy a house, I say, “no.” When he says that I should, I invoke your name. The man stops.

Thank you, Tim, for giving me the courage not to buy a house.
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Jugajoosh

Jugajoosh — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 03:06:37 +0000

1st the Egypt Revolution, now this? This is one of the best weeks I’ve had in a very long time!
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Jugajoosh

Jugajoosh — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:57:57 +0000

RE: Ross @ 8 –
Ross,
One good turn deserves another. The time between 1st bull article and peak = the time between 1st bear article and trough. No?
Reply – Ross @ 8<\/a> - \r\nRoss,\r\nOne good turn deserves another. The time between 1st bull article and peak = the time between 1st bear article and trough. No?',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: pfft

pfft — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:45:55 +0000

Prices in Seattle are back to 2003 levels and falling much faster than other bubble areas that may have bottomed.

hey mish, the cycle in seattle just started later that’s all. I give him credit though, he stopped bashing unions long enough to write about something else!
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: pfft

pfft — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:43:07 +0000

By Yaj @ 42:

Mish weighs in:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/housing-crash-bites-deeper-economic.html

“Few believed the housing market here would ever collapse. Now they wonder if it will ever stop slumping”

dare we say that sounds like a bottom? maximum pessimism and seller surrendering? all the makings of a bottom.
Reply – Yaj @ 42<\/a>:
Mish weighs in:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com\/2011\/02\/housing-crash-bites-deeper-economic.html<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n\"Few believed the housing market here would ever collapse. Now they wonder if it will ever stop slumping\"\r\n\r\ndare we say that sounds like a bottom? maximum pessimism and seller surrendering? all the makings of a bottom.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Scotsman

Scotsman — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:31:25 +0000

RE: betamax @ 41 –

Which one? ;-)
Reply – betamax @ 41<\/a> - \r\n\r\nWhich one? ;-)',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Yaj

Yaj — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:26:25 +0000

Mish weighs in:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/housing-crash-bites-deeper-economic.html
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: betamax

betamax — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:55:49 +0000

whatever happened to that female realtor who used to come here and rail against the ‘silly bubble heads’ who didn’t understand the new paradigm. LOL. Is she still in business?
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Dawn Glover

Dawn Glover — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:51:44 +0000

RE: Scotsman @ 27 – Sadly, I agree, every time I hear someone say “now that the recession is over” or we are in recovery” I know it can’t possible be true. It’s the same common sense that told me the housing madness was unsustainable. I feel like I must not be the only one who is holding their breath and wondering what’s next.
Reply – Scotsman @ 27<\/a> - Sadly, I agree, every time I hear someone say \"now that the recession is over\" or we are in recovery\" I know it can\'t possible be true. It\'s the same common sense that told me the housing madness was unsustainable. I feel like I must not be the only one who is holding their breath and wondering what\'s next.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Kary L. Krismer

Kary L. Krismer — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:12:26 +0000

By Dave0 @ 32:

Ever since the tax credit expired, closed sales have been decreasing year over year, and inventory has been increasing year over year in King County’s single family home market.

Not quite. December 2010 was off of 2009 by only 4 units out of over 1,400. January 2011 was more than January 2010 by 61 units.

I don’t track inventory, but I’m not sure there’s been that significant of a change there either. In any case, to really compare them I’d want to back out the short sales, which can’t be done at this point in time.
Reply – Dave0 @ 32<\/a>:
Ever since the tax credit expired, closed sales have been decreasing year over year, and inventory has been increasing year over year in King County\'s single family home market. <\/blockquote>\r\n\r\nNot quite. December 2010 was off of 2009 by only 4 units out of over 1,400. January 2011 was more than January 2010 by 61 units.\r\n\r\nI don\'t track inventory, but I\'m not sure there\'s been that significant of a change there either. In any case, to really compare them I\'d want to back out the short sales, which can\'t be done at this point in time.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: BillE

BillE — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:03:21 +0000

I looked at a bank owned house this morning. It’s next door to a house that sold as an REO in October. Just a few doors down there’s notices taped to the front door on another house. Pent up demand and increased open house traffic don’t seem to be stopping the dominoes from falling up here in Snohomish County.
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Kary L. Krismer

Kary L. Krismer — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:03:04 +0000

By Ross @ 8:

Bonus question: If the local and national media is now bearish on seattle housing, does that mean we’ve hit bottom?

Cramer being positive on Seattle, and that being picked up nationally, was the top! So the bottom will be when Cramer says something negative about Seattle.
Reply – Ross @ 8<\/a>:
Bonus question: If the local and national media is now bearish on seattle housing, does that mean we\'ve hit bottom?<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\nCramer being positive on Seattle, and that being picked up nationally, was the top! So the bottom will be when Cramer says something negative about Seattle.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: BillE

BillE — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:57:02 +0000

I used to have a coworker who was roughly my age, made about the same income, and we were both looking at houses a few years back. He pulled the trigger in the spring of 2007 and thought I was a fool for not jumping in. I remember him confidently saying, “The time to buy is NOW.” He had to be one of the biggest chocolate talkers about my choice not to buy. Haven’t heard from him for a couple of years now.
Reply – chocolate talkers about my choice not to buy. Haven\'t heard from him for a couple of years now.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:22:35 +0000

By Absinthe @ 33:

I really wish you’d share your bust with Vancouver, BC. Still blowing teflon bubbles up here in the land of the “Canadians are SO PRUDENT” delusion. How this is believed in a city where you pay a million bucks for a SFH teardown, where the median family income is $70K, our savings rate is negative, and credit card debt is skyrocketing, I don’t know. Plus – our industries are leaving, head offices relocating, people moving…

(I live in vancouver.)

This house of cards will fall as well.

I remember a funky conversation with an American a few years back. I tried to describe differences in mentality between Germany (where I am born) and Austria (where I lived at the time). I joked that Austria would be a quite good place to live if they did not imitate German mistakes with a 5 year delay. He smiled and claimed Canada did the same with relation to the US, and he named some examples. While these examples were not convincing, looking at the RE situation and the debt load in Canada it will take a miracle for that bubble not to burst.

Don’t get me wrong: I love Vancouver. At the same time I am sick of most things being 1.5 times the price compared to Seattle. My wife rented a beautiful 4 bedroom house in Brier for 1350$ during the bubble years (who said a 400k house costs 1700$ to rent? OK we are aware this was under market price.). We now rent a 2 bedroom basement apartment less than half the size and without a dishwasher for 1250$. On our street everyone rents out their basement, otherwise they could not afford their mortgage payment. Just a few months ago, two old houses in our neighborhood were bought for unbelievable prices and instantly torn down. they are now replaced with construction that I better not talk about in detail: Mike Holmes would fall over dead instantly.
Reply – Absinthe @ 33<\/a>:
I really wish you\'d share your bust with Vancouver, BC. Still blowing teflon bubbles up here in the land of the \"Canadians are SO PRUDENT\" delusion. How this is believed in a city where you pay a million bucks for a SFH teardown, where the median family income is $70K, our savings rate is negative, and credit card debt is skyrocketing, I don\'t know. Plus - our industries are leaving, head offices relocating, people moving...<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n(I live in vancouver.)\r\n\r\nThis house of cards will fall as well.\r\n\r\nI remember a funky conversation with an American a few years back. I tried to describe differences in mentality between Germany (where I am born) and Austria (where I lived at the time). I joked that Austria would be a quite good place to live if they did not imitate German mistakes with a 5 year delay. He smiled and claimed Canada did the same with relation to the US, and he named some examples. While these examples were not convincing, looking at the RE situation and the debt load in Canada it will take a miracle for that bubble not to burst.\r\n\r\nDon\'t get me wrong: I love Vancouver. At the same time I am sick of most things being 1.5 times the price compared to Seattle. My wife rented a beautiful 4 bedroom house in Brier for 1350$ during the bubble years (who said a 400k house costs 1700$ to rent? OK we are aware this was under market price.). We now rent a 2 bedroom basement apartment less than half the size and without a dishwasher for 1250$. On our street everyone rents out their basement, otherwise they could not afford their mortgage payment. Just a few months ago, two old houses in our neighborhood were bought for unbelievable prices and instantly torn down. they are now replaced with construction that I better not talk about in detail: Mike Holmes would fall over dead instantly.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Mr. Peckhammer

Mr. Peckhammer — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:34:01 +0000

RE: LA Relo @ 26 –

Add to the interest wild card all the bank owned property in the pipeline. I’d like to sell my condo at $170K, which I think is a fair price in this market. However, a bank owned unit in the same building was just listed at $130K. That will put enormous downward pressure on my price.
Reply – LA Relo @ 26<\/a> - \r\n\r\nAdd to the interest wild card all the bank owned property in the pipeline. I\'d like to sell my condo at $170K, which I think is a fair price in this market. However, a bank owned unit in the same building was just listed at $130K. That will put enormous downward pressure on my price.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Absinthe

Absinthe — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:05:34 +0000

I really wish you’d share your bust with Vancouver, BC. Still blowing teflon bubbles up here in the land of the “Canadians are SO PRUDENT” delusion. How this is believed in a city where you pay a million bucks for a SFH teardown, where the median family income is $70K, our savings rate is negative, and credit card debt is skyrocketing, I don’t know. Plus – our industries are leaving, head offices relocating, people moving…
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Dave0

Dave0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:01:44 +0000

RE: Jonathan Miller @ 6 – Yes, the Case Shiller index is telling us ancient information from last summer, but the trend has not changed since then. The most forward looking information available around here are the trends showing up in closed sales and inventory of homes for sale. Ever since the tax credit expired, closed sales have been decreasing year over year, and inventory has been increasing year over year in King County’s single family home market. This suggests that prices will continue to decrease for the forseeable future. We will need to see sales increasing and inventory decreasing year over year for a while before stable price appreciation returns.

If you feel like taking the time to read more into it, this post is full of the latest data: http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2011/02/04/nwmls-prices-inventory-fall-sales-slowly-climb/
Reply – Jonathan Miller @ 6<\/a> - Yes, the Case Shiller index is telling us ancient information from last summer, but the trend has not changed since then. The most forward looking information available around here are the trends showing up in closed sales and inventory of homes for sale. Ever since the tax credit expired, closed sales have been decreasing year over year, and inventory has been increasing year over year in King County\'s single family home market. This suggests that prices will continue to decrease for the forseeable future. We will need to see sales increasing and inventory decreasing year over year for a while before stable price appreciation returns.\r\n\r\nIf you feel like taking the time to read more into it, this post is full of the latest data: http:\/\/seattlebubble.com\/blog\/2011\/02\/04\/nwmls-prices-inventory-fall-sales-slowly-climb\/',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:59:09 +0000

RE: Scotsman @ 27 – Right on, Brother. Life is too short to worry too much about things beyond your control. Take care care of yourself, family, and closest friends. And have fun.
Reply – Scotsman @ 27<\/a> - Right on, Brother. Life is too short to worry too much about things beyond your control. Take care care of yourself, family, and closest friends. And have fun.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: softwarengineer

softwarengineer — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:54:21 +0000

RE: Scotsman @ 27 –

I Agree Scotsman

It took many administrations since 1990 to get us in this uncontrolled growth mess, so Obama and Bush too, aren’t the only two to blame.

What quick magic wand trick could fix the over growth debt mess with mitigated household incomes we’re in right now? Denial won’t work anymore, we’re all mostly on to the lies. How about more interest rates decreases? We’re pegged as low she goes, 0% short term federal treasuries, we’d have to use the federal deficit to lower interest rates more than they’ve bottomed out to today…..that isn’t going to happen.

Have you ever seen the movie, The Matrix? There’s the answer, put us all in cannisters and make reality a computer generated dream….then we’d all have imaginary money to pay for our imaginary McMansions….LOL
Reply – Scotsman @ 27<\/a> - \r\n\r\nI Agree Scotsman\r\n\r\nIt took many administrations since 1990 to get us in this uncontrolled growth mess, so Obama and Bush too, aren\'t the only two to blame. \r\n\r\nWhat quick magic wand trick could fix the over growth debt mess with mitigated household incomes we\'re in right now? Denial won\'t work anymore, we\'re all mostly on to the lies. How about more interest rates decreases? We\'re pegged as low she goes, 0% short term federal treasuries, we\'d have to use the federal deficit to lower interest rates more than they\'ve bottomed out to today.....that isn\'t going to happen. \r\n\r\nHave you ever seen the movie, The Matrix? There\'s the answer, put us all in cannisters and make reality a computer generated dream....then we\'d all have imaginary money to pay for our imaginary McMansions....LOL',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:43:40 +0000

RE: luke @ 20 –

The calculations get worse when you add in the cost of selling. As soon as you buy you are 9% in the hole after commissions and taxes. So if prices stay flat you have to actually be saving money by owning vs renting in order to dig out from that hole. If prices drop then you’ve got a bigger hole to dig out from. Only after prices rise ~9% are you breaking even to where raw monthy figures are comparable.

As to the tax break, I look at that as the cost the government has to pay me in order to give up my ability to move, whether for a better job or to a house that just better suits my needs, whenever I feel like it. The interest deduction is a proxy for the “price” of agreeing to potentially be stuck in a place where you may not want to be later on. If there wasn’t such a cost associated with owning then the government wouldn’t have to bribe people into owning. Maybe for some people the government’s price is right, but it shouldn’t be viewed as “free” or “bonus” money in the rent vs own equation since you have to earn it by giving up flexability.
Reply – luke @ 20<\/a> - \r\n\r\nThe calculations get worse when you add in the cost of selling. As soon as you buy you are 9% in the hole after commissions and taxes. So if prices stay flat you have to actually be saving money by owning vs renting in order to dig out from that hole. If prices drop then you\'ve got a bigger hole to dig out from. Only after prices rise ~9% are you breaking even to where raw monthy figures are comparable.\r\n\r\nAs to the tax break, I look at that as the cost the government has to pay me in order to give up my ability to move, whether for a better job or to a house that just better suits my needs, whenever I feel like it. The interest deduction is a proxy for the \"price\" of agreeing to potentially be stuck in a place where you may not want to be later on. If there wasn\'t such a cost associated with owning then the government wouldn\'t have to bribe people into owning. Maybe for some people the government\'s price is right, but it shouldn\'t be viewed as \"free\" or \"bonus\" money in the rent vs own equation since you have to earn it by giving up flexability.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: softwarengineer

softwarengineer — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:40:41 +0000

RE: Drshort @ 12 –

I’d Make It a Lot Simpler

Your numbers work with a 50% down payment on a $400K loan IMO….for every $100K you borrow figure on about $1000/mo approx costs buying vs renting. Now you have a lid on lost equity [prices are still going down], maintenance [pay me now or pay me later], escalating property taxes at 8% a year while homes go down in value that much, insurance, water/sewer [it's usually free if you rent] and add in extra heat and air conditioning costs because you bought an energy pig McMansion when you moved out of your smaller apartment/condo.

If you use my numbers Dr Short, you won’t come up short.
Reply – Drshort @ 12<\/a> - \r\n\r\nI\'d Make It a Lot Simpler\r\n\r\nYour numbers work with a 50% down payment on a $400K loan IMO....for every $100K you borrow figure on about $1000\/mo approx costs buying vs renting. Now you have a lid on lost equity [prices are still going down], maintenance [pay me now or pay me later], escalating property taxes at 8% a year while homes go down in value that much, insurance, water\/sewer [it\'s usually free if you rent] and add in extra heat and air conditioning costs because you bought an energy pig McMansion when you moved out of your smaller apartment\/condo.\r\n\r\nIf you use my numbers Dr Short, you won\'t come up short.',''); return false;">Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Scotsman

Scotsman — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:34:36 +0000

I can’t remember when I first started posting here- perhaps The Tim can find it. Best guess it was sometime in late 2006. What I do remember is that bears were very few and far between, and openly ridiculed. While the general public probably lags the group here in terms of understanding and attitudes there has none the less been a pretty dramatic shift in expectations. Very few expect home prices to rise any time soon, but a similar minority also believe they can’t continue to fall. It’s been interesting to watch the transition in attitudes.

Now we’re faced with a similar situation on the national stage as the federal budget crisis plays out. A majority just can’t accept that the country is broke and needs major fiscal reconstruction to get back on track. Too many think a little tinkering here and there will fix huge problems that took decades to develop. I’m amused by those who claim it was impossible to see either the housing or budget crises coming. Neither was hard to see if you were willing to look and accept what you saw.

Still bearish- but enjoying life.
Reply – Quote

Rate this comment: 0 0