'Sitting on the fence... and have paid dearly for it.'

edited September 2007 in Seattle Real Estate
I thought this comment deserved its own thread:
Looks like, of all of you, only Angie has some sense. I have been sitting on the fence for the last 3 years in Seattle, waiting for the prices to fall, and have paid dearly for it. The house which I did not buy in 2004 for $350K is today worth $650K - way above what I can afford. In 2004 I made the fatal mistake of reading bullshit mags like the Economist etc which were perenially predicting a RE bust. Wish I had done what others had done.

Comments

  • Sounds like he is lying to me. Even if he were telling the truth, with the way the market is, (many areas in Seattle with negative appreciation in August), he wouldn't be making that statement.

    Besides that, all those "houses" that have doubled in "value"... You have to realize that the supposed profit, with no buyers that can actually afford these prices, its just invisible money. You haven't actually gained anything other than 350,000 of debt on a property that isn't selling. God forbid, 1 year ago, when you realized how much your homes value had increased, and decided to take out a large equity loan for your new hummer...

    You even stated that you can no longer afford that house. Who can? Certainly not a Microsoft tech making 90k a year, or a Boeing field engineer making 120k. Where are the actual buyers that can afford these homes? I don't see any.
  • The poster is right. He should have bought the house in 2003 - and sold it in 2006. While I don't know of any part of Seattle that has seen the 85% increase in values implied in the example, no one should try to deny there was a TON of money to be made in the boom. If you missed it, too bad.

    But by the same token - no one should try to claim that when the boom is over, the same arguments still apply. And it is over, everything except the crying.
  • Sure, with 20-20 hindsight, it's EASY to say that he should have bought in '03 and sold in '06. But seriously, how easy is it to see the top? I would argue that somebody who bought in '03 is NOT going to magically wake up one morning in '06 with a light bulb over their head and decide to sell their house--after all, the appreciation had been fantastic for the last three years, so they decide to keep riding the gravy train (right off the cliff)!

    And losing money--come on. You didn't LOSE anything--sure, you missed out on some incredible gains, but I could say the same about not buying the stock of the company that laid me off 5 years ago--their stock has increased 9-fold in that time--darn I LOST thousands!!!
  • Realistically, if you bought early in the bubble, it's still not a bad time to cash out. Sure maybe your house has lost $100K in value since the top of the curve, but if you bought 2003 or earlier, you're still looking at 40%-50% appreciation over 3-4 years. Any house that was $350K in 2003, and $650K in 2006, I bet you could easily sell for $500K today.

    While the market may be cooling (or crashing) quickly, there are still a lot of people who are in the mindset that they're in the mood to get a great deal. It's certainly a gamble, but if you're in the belief that the market has a long way to fall, it's still a good time to pull the eject handle.
  • Personally, I moved here after prices were already out of my reach (a little over a year ago). I haven't missed out on much. Sure there are areas where prices went up 24% over the last year (according to the August MLS report), but there is no way I would have been able to identify that.

    Prior to moving here I had owned my own residence for nine years. Those markets were sane and I did not see very much appreciation.
  • jld wrote:
    Realistically, if you bought early in the bubble, it's still not a bad time to cash out. Sure maybe your house has lost $100K in value since the top of the curve, but if you bought 2003 or earlier, you're still looking at 40%-50% appreciation over 3-4 years. Any house that was $350K in 2003, and $650K in 2006, I bet you could easily sell for $500K today.

    Do you really think prices have come down that far already? We'll have to wait for August Case-Schiller numbers to be sure, but I think >20% depreciation from the peak is a bit optimistic. I doubt it's more than a few percent as of now, but would like to hear why you think it's that low already.
  • jld wrote:
    Realistically, if you bought early in the bubble, it's still not a bad time to cash out. Sure maybe your house has lost $100K in value since the top of the curve, but if you bought 2003 or earlier, you're still looking at 40%-50% appreciation over 3-4 years. Any house that was $350K in 2003, and $650K in 2006, I bet you could easily sell for $500K today.

    Do you really think prices have come down that far already? We'll have to wait for August Case-Schiller numbers to be sure, but I think >20% depreciation from the peak is a bit optimistic. I doubt it's more than a few percent as of now, but would like to hear why you think it's that low already.

    No, I don't really think prices have fallen that far. The $500K number was picked in more of a sense of how there's still a lot of inflated equity to be cashed out if you got in at the right time and you really want out right now. I don't follow the listings closely, so I can't pinpoint how far we've fallen so far, but I just know there are people buying at the right prices and there will be for some time.
  • I should have bought a house with a zero down loan, and then bought Google with the 20% I was going to use for a down payment. Then I should have bought more Google on Margin, and bought even more Google by taking equity out of my house which I then should have sold last year after putting in $20K of cosmetic improvements.

    Then after biding my time in a really nice rental house for the last year, I should have taken every last penny out of Google a couple weeks ago and bet it all on Appalachian State over Michigan, and then the following week on South Florida over Auburn.

    If only...
  • faster wrote:
    I should have bought a house with a zero down loan, and then bought Google with the 20% I was going to use for a down payment. Then I should have bought more Google on Margin, and bought even more Google by taking equity out of my house which I then should have sold last year after putting in $20K of cosmetic improvements.

    Then after biding my time in a really nice rental house for the last year, I should have taken every last penny out of Google a couple weeks ago and bet it all on Appalachian State over Michigan, and then the following week on South Florida over Auburn.

    If only...

    Damn. I wish I woulda thought of that too! LOL
  • Goldeneye wrote:
    In 2004 I made the fatal mistake of reading bullshit mags like the Economist etc which were perenially predicting a RE bust. Wish I had done what others had done.

    On the other hand, Economist was right with the predictions for almost the entire country (housing peaked during 2005 in most other cities). But, since "Seattle is special", the prediction never turned out to be true here :-(
  • If the poster's crying so much about not getting a house for $350k in 2004, he should really check out Austin, TX. $280-$320k gets you a freaking palace there right now:

    http://www.kbhome.com/Community.aspx?CommID=00868100

    Moreover, salaries are about 90% of what the Seattle area pays, and the economy is pretty strong with a lot of technology. They have Whole Foods' world headquarters, too :)
  • I moved here from Austin.

    The super expensive areas (i.e. central Austin just N of UT campus) was selling for $300 sqft when I left.

    Rents are in line with sales prices -- heck, it might even be possible to find rentals that flow cash.

    There is no state income tax. Travis county (where Austin is) has 2% property tax. Some of the surrounding counties have 3% property tax.

    I don't know how WA gets by with 1% property tax.
Sign In or Register to comment.