Case-Shiller: Seattle Home Prices Start Summer Strong

Let’s have a look at the latest data from the Case-Shiller Home Price Index. According to June data that was released this morning, Seattle-area home prices were:

Up 1.4 percent May to June
Up 11.0 percent YOY.
Up 5.3 percent from the July 2007 peak

Over the same period last year prices were up 1.0 percent month-over-month and year-over-year prices were up 7.3 percent.

The Seattle area’s Case-Shiller home price index hit yet another new all-time high in June, and turned in stronger numbers than a year ago across the board. This is no surprise really, given the June data we’ve already seen from public records and NWMLS.

Here’s a Tableau Public interactive graph of the year-over-year change for all twenty Case-Shiller-tracked cities. Check and un-check the boxes on the right to modify which cities are showing:

Seattle’s rank for month-over-month changes was at #1 in March and April, dropped to #4 in May, and moved up to #2 in June.

Case-Shiller HPI: Month-to-Month

Hit the jump for the rest of our monthly Case-Shiller charts, including the interactive chart of raw index data for all 20 metro areas.

In June, just one of the twenty Case-Shiller-tracked metro areas gained more year-over-year than Seattle (the same as February through May):

  • Portland at +12.6%

The Northwest continues its reign on top as literally the envy of other states.

The same seven cities that hit new all-time highs in April and May did so yet again in June: Boston, Seattle, Charlotte, San Francisco, Denver, Portland, and Dallas.

Eighteen metro areas gained less than Seattle as of June: Detroit, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Chicago, Denver, New York, Dallas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Washington, Phoenix, Miami, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Boston, Tampa, San Francisco, and San Diego.

Here’s the interactive chart of the raw HPI for all twenty metro areas through June.

Here’s an update to the peak-decline graph, inspired by a graph created by reader CrystalBall. This chart takes the twelve metro areas whose peak index was greater than 175, and tracks how far they have fallen so far from their peak. The horizontal axis shows the total number of months since each individual city peaked.

Case-Shiller HPI: Decline From Peak

In the 107 months since the price peak in Seattle prices are up 5.3 percent.

Lastly, let’s see how Seattle’s current prices compare to the previous bubble inflation and subsequent burst. Note that this chart does not adjust for inflation.

Case-Shiller: Seattle Home Price Index

Check back tomorrow for our monthly look at Case-Shiller data for Seattle’s price tiers.

(Home Price Indices, Standard & Poor’s, 2016-08-30)

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market. Tim also hosts the weekly improv comedy sci-fi podcast Dispatches from the Multiverse.

57 comments:

  1. 1
    Doug says:

    Justme, I might be joining your camp soon…

  2. 2
    Justme says:

    Whoa, there, Doug. I’m going to get a big fat head from this :-). If I don’t already have one.

  3. 3
    AJT says:

    I want to be a housing bear, I really do, but I just don’t see a major slow down unless job growth in the area starts to decline. That doesn’t appear to be happening anytime soon :(. Guess I’m just gonna have to wade into the fray.

  4. 4
  5. 5
    jon says:

    Technology that improves the productivity of non-developers drives salaries up, not down. The non-developers are more productive, and thus more valuable, and the developers are freed up to more challenging tasks, and thus are also more valuable. This is because there is not a fixed pie of programming that is being divided up. Instead, technological progress makes technological progress go faster. That’s the essence of Moore’s law, if you disassociate it from silicon.

  6. 6
    ronp says:

    I am happy my brother’s house in Vegas is bouncing back. They bought exactly when they should not have (job caused a move from Wisconsin). They seem to like it there, thank goodness.

  7. 7
    Sam Zell says:

    Probably keeps going up for another 1-2 years then we go flat for a few years especially when the inevitable recession hits. Tech companies will need to layoff employees to keep Wall Street happy.

  8. 8
    GregoryB says:

    holy crap, has the market softened or do prices keep getting crazier? which one is it?

    ‘Cause you’re hot then you’re cold
    You’re yes then you’re no
    You’re in then you’re out
    You’re up then you’re down
    You’re wrong when it’s right
    It’s black and it’s white
    We fight, we break up
    We kiss, we make up
    (You) You don’t really want to stay, no
    (You) But you don’t really want to go-o
    You’re hot then you’re cold
    You’re yes then you’re no
    You’re in then you’re out
    You’re up then you’re down

  9. 9
    BellevueTheLivable says:

    RE: Sam Zell @ 7 – That’s literally the same thing people said before the last burst. Seattle doesn’t follow macro tends because we have special jobs, topography, water/coffee, 20 something’s retirement homes, etc. Yet, somehow prices still dropped 30-50% from 2008 to 2011.

    The answer is in the psychology of asset bubbles, which are as old as trade and barter.

    It’s just human nature to get excited and overconfident and fall into a herd mentality assuming a bigger fool will come along. Humans in Seattle aren’t very different than humans elsewhere.

  10. 10
    redmondjp says:

    By jon @ 5:

    Technology that improves the productivity of non-developers drives salaries up, not down. The non-developers are more productive, and thus more valuable, and the developers are freed up to more challenging tasks, and thus are also more valuable. This is because there is not a fixed pie of programming that is being divided up. Instead, technological progress makes technological progress go faster. That’s the essence of Moore’s law, if you disassociate it from silicon.

    Put the bong down and step back, Jon! You don’t seem to have a firm grasp on economic reality. Show me one, just one, case in any other industry where this has been the case.

    In software, with increasing competition for fewer jobs especially if those jobs are lower-tier, it will most certainly drive wages even lower, thanks in large part to globally-sourced human capital. The future of software is automation, resulting in far less workers, just as has happened in every other area that technology has touched over the course of history. Give it time. Plus, once the VC/Yellenbucks dry up, we’re in for Dot Bomb 2.0 (but that’s for another post).

  11. 11
    StupidLifeDecisions says:

    Posts 8 and 9 are spot on. You are so right about the psychology of asset bubbles. On a side note, I really can’t wait until Yellen is no longer chairman, but of course she might be replaced by someone much worse, so maybe I shouldn’t look forward to that so much. I am also looking forward to the day the job market is oversaturated with IT related majors.

    A lot of people who think this market will last or just go flat might not be thinking critically enough about the bigger economic picture.

  12. 12

    By BellevueTheLivable @ 8:

    RE: Sam Zell @ 7 – That’s literally the same thing people said before the last burst. Seattle doesn’t follow macro tends because we have special jobs, topography, water/coffee, 20 something’s retirement homes, etc. Yet, somehow prices still dropped 30-50% from 2008 to 2011.

    Except they didn’t. The median was skewed by the fact that the banks are bad, sometimes horrible, at selling property and processing short sales. Absent a particular area being awash in such sales the other houses were not so dramatically affected.

    Some of them still are horrible. If you go find an REO by Ocwen you will almost certainly find that not only is that property listed for much less than other properties in the neighborhood, but also lower than other similar REO sales. HUD also used to be difficult, but smartened up, but was still impacted by prior policies for a considerable time (perhaps still is).

    If you just looked at the non-distressed median, it was much more stable, and hovered around $400,000, give or take, for quite some time before shooting up. [Edit: BTW, there’s a limit to how far back you can do that because the NWMLS didn’t separately categorize REOs and short sales until 2009 or maybe 2010.]

  13. 13

    By redmondjp @ 9:

    By jon @ 5:

    Technology that improves the productivity of non-developers drives salaries up, not down. The non-developers are more productive, and thus more valuable, and the developers are freed up to more challenging tasks, and thus are also more valuable. This is because there is not a fixed pie of programming that is being divided up. Instead, technological progress makes technological progress go faster. That’s the essence of Moore’s law, if you disassociate it from silicon.

    Put the bong down and step back, Jon! You don’t seem to have a firm grasp on economic reality. Show me one, just one, case in any other industry where this has been the case.

    In software, with increasing competition for fewer jobs especially if those jobs are lower-tier, it will most certainly drive wages even lower, thanks in large part to globally-sourced human capital. The future of software is automation, resulting in far less workers, just as has happened in every other area that technology has touched over the course of history. Give it time. Plus, once the VC/Yellenbucks dry up, we’re in for Dot Bomb 2.0 (but that’s for another post).

    I would side more with RedmondJP on this, but what might be confusing jon is that rising wages tend to bring investments in technology/machinery. jon has the cart before the horse. Wages go up, driving technology. Technology doesn’t drive wages up.

  14. 14
    GoHawks says:

    Demand still exceeds supply, simple as that.

  15. 15
    Erik says:

    RE: GoHawks @ 13
    Yes, it’s very simple. But if we were all that smart we’d have nothing to discuss on this website.

  16. 16
    Doug says:

    RE: StupidLifeDecisions @ 10 – What do you think someone else could do better than Yellen?

  17. 17
    js says:

    RE: GoHawks @ 13 – Right now demand exceeds supply. But that can change quickly. We appear to be on the brink of a large recession and once negative economic news starts hitting the presses, the herd will shift direction and run from the wolf. Listings may go up sharply and people might not be as willing to plunk down $650K for that 1000sf Ballard bungalow with hoards of junkies as neighbors.

  18. 18
    Doug says:

    RE: js @ 16 – Explain “brink of a large recession”, please.

    The yield curve never lies and it is not currently inverted. In fact it still has about 75 bps to go before becoming negative. If it does invert, there’s historically been about a 9-12 month lag from inversion to recession.

  19. 19

    RE: Doug @ 17 – And when Hillary is elected President, the Clinton Foundation will change its focus to preventing recession. Billions of dollars in contributions to the Foundation to gain access to the President will become a stimulus fund not paid for by the Treasury or Fed. And no more pesky meddling by Congress, infrastructure will be built! ;-)

  20. 20
    js says:

    By Doug @ 17:

    RE: js @ 16 – Explain “brink of a large recession”, please.

    Please take a look at the history of recessions (post Great Depression):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

    Pay attention to the “Time since previous recession” column. You will notice that there are only two cases in the last 85 years where the “Time since previous recession” has been longer than 8 years. We are currently at 7 years, 2 months.

    The fed can definitely kick the can another year or two with some more major QE, but we’re due.

  21. 21
    Doug says:

    RE: js @ 20RE: js @ 20 – Ok, fair enough. And while I agree we’re due by historical standards, historical standards are irrelevant and useless in our current monetary system.

    Listen to the yield curve. It will scream recession when we’re actually on the brink.

  22. 22
    Justme says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 12

    >>Except they didn’t. The median was skewed by the fact that the banks are bad, sometimes horrible, at selling property and processing short sales. Absent a particular area being awash in such sales the other houses were not so dramatically affected.

    Can you please expand on what “bad at selling property” means?

    Are you saying that in 2008-2012, banks/lenders were foreclosing and then generally selling at too low prices, below market value for properties in similar condition? (condition of property can be very variable in foreclosures, as I think we all know.)

    My impression has been the opposite: That banks overpriced their REO listings, especially recently in 2015-2016. Basically, banks would load up the default amount with all kinds of exaggerated penalties and carrying costs, and then try to sell properties at the face value of this default, which often had little relation to their true carrying cost.

  23. 23
    Justme says:

    RE: Doug @ 21

    >>The yield curve never lies and it is not currently inverted.

    RE: Doug @ 18

    >>Listen to the yield curve. It will scream recession when we’re actually on the brink.

    The above would probably be true if the yield curve had not been manipulated and engineered to death by the FRB (Fed). Given the manipulation, I think classical ways of looking at the yield curve no longer apply. Heck, it may not have applied since 1987, even. I think it makes more sense to observe that the entire yield curve is way too low, and this means that the real economy (not the asset economy) has been in recession ever since 2008.

  24. 24
    js says:

    By Doug @ 18:

    The yield curve never lies and it is not currently inverted. In fact it still has about 75 bps to go before becoming negative. If it does invert, there’s historically been about a 9-12 month lag from inversion to recession.

    Please research the effects of $1.7T QE on the yield curve. Hint: answer is not known.

    Edit: posted this before reading Justme’s latest post

  25. 25
    Doug says:

    RE: Justme @ 23 – Why since 1987? This chart supports the curve working since then: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y

  26. 26
    Doug says:

    RE: js @ 24 – You’re right, there’s no evidence that supports my thesis in the current monetary landscape (at least I can’t find any) so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    But my money is where my mouth is and I’ll remain long a number of asset classes until I see the curve collapse. Time will tell if I end up getting my face ripped off.

    Interesting to see the financials rallying since Friday’s J-Hole comments. I think additional fed hikes will finally send the curve into negative territory and then, and only then, will we be on the brink.

  27. 27

    By Justme @ 22:

    Can you please expand on what “bad at selling property” means?

    Are you saying that in 2008-2012, banks/lenders were foreclosing and then generally selling at too low prices, below market value for properties in similar condition? (condition of property can be very variable in foreclosures, as I think we all know.)

    My impression has been the opposite: That banks overpriced their REO listings, especially recently in 2015-2016.

    First the last point. REO listings are not the bargains they once were, at least in King County. I’d even push their pricing high back into 2014.

    What I mean by bad at selling properties could mean one of several things, but early on the banks weren’t even clearing the house of the prior owners’ property. The house would be a mess in terrible disrepair. I think it was Freddie and Fannie which first figured out that cosmetic fixes (paint, flooring, etc.) would return more than the cost.

    Some wouldn’t turn on utilities for inspections, or if they would allow it, require the buyer to do so at their risk.

    Most would pick the worst escrow companies in the world to work with, particularly but not exclusively HUD.

    Some wouldn’t allow any “repairs” to make the property eligible for financing, and HUD even considered plugging in a CO detector to be a repair.

    Some banks required buyers to pay the real estate excise tax, which just reduced the number of buyers who had enough for a down payment. But ignoring reducing the number of buyers, it’s incredibly stupid to think that a buyer who would pay $203,000 with the seller paying excise tax would pay $203,000 with the buyer paying excise tax.

    Then there were the agents. There were a few who were good, but most were pretty bad. That could be a benefit for buyers’ agents though knowing that an agent only uses one picture and that the use of only one picture didn’t mean the inside was trashed.

    On the short sale front most took so long to make a decision that most buyers had little interest in short sales, reducing the demand and price. I think it was FHA/VA that would determine a price before a property was listed, and then approve the sale promptly. Not that tough of a thing to do, and it greatly increased the net proceeds.

    I’m sure there are other things I’m not thinking of, but their practices did reduce the price. I am not saying though that you could put all the lower price on the banks and their practices. Many of their houses were trashed by the owners. Many of them were in less desirable locations, such as near freeways or other busy roads.

  28. 28
    uwp says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 27
    That was an interesting and insightful post Kary.
    Thank you.

    I had a bank-owned condo in Greenwood under contract in 2013 that the bank was not helpful with. It caused me to back out, and I didn’t end up purchasing property until this past year. I’d probably have at least $100,000 in equity if I had stuck around. :(

  29. 29

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 27 – One more thing. For the most part banks wouldn’t make repairs, and I understand why they wouldn’t want to routinely negotiate such things. But that meant buyers had to bid based on some negative assumptions. The house that had all those cosmetic fixes often had a lot of issues that were hidden.

    The worst example I can think of is where a HUD property had a leaking supply pipe because the prior owner installed baby gates and two screws hit a pipe. Everything was fine while the owner was there, but HUD removed the baby gates, and it wasn’t noticed until the inspection when the water was turned back on.

    HUD didn’t want to fix the problem, so my buyer backed out. HUD re-listed the property for about $10,000 less and included that repair as an item for a rehab loan at about $800 (along with the CO detector). My client jumped back in going with a rehab loan and had the pipe and drywall professionally repaired for about $500-600. So HUD took a $10,000 hit thinking the fix would cost them $800, and it really didn’t cost that much.

    That’s “bad at selling property.”

  30. 30

    RE: uwp @ 28 – Thank you, and yes the ones who did deal with the banks generally did well, including even our own Erik.

    I did a fair amount of REO buyer transactions and sort of miss them. I don’t miss the short sales at all, and fear the day they might again become common.

  31. 31
    pfft says:

    By js @ 24:

    By Doug @ 18:

    The yield curve never lies and it is not currently inverted. In fact it still has about 75 bps to go before becoming negative. If it does invert, there’s historically been about a 9-12 month lag from inversion to recession.

    Please research the effects of $1.7T QE on the yield curve. Hint: answer is not known.

    Edit: posted this before reading Justme’s latest post

    LOL. you don’t get the answer you want so you just ignore the data. Anyways QE is long over dude. most bond buying is done. if the bond market wanted to sell off there really isn’t much the Fed could do about it. think of all the dire things that were thought to have happened when the Fed stopped it’s bond buying program. the bond market didn’t move much. this proves the fed has some but not a big say in interest rates. rates aren’t at 7% because of QE.

    why don’t you just post research about the yield curve?

    “Fred” says there is only a 3.6% chance of recession.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RECPROUSM156N

  32. 32
    Justme says:

    RE: Doug @ 25

    Why 1987? Because that was more or less the start of DIRP=Declining interest Rate Policy, meaning that after each asset bubble, the interest rate would be reduced to new long-term lows. Another name for DIRP is the well-known “Greenspan put”, I suppose.

  33. 33
    Justme says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 27

    Thanks for clarifying. It is good to know these things.

  34. 34
    Sam Zell says:

    @BellevueTheLivable – I don’t recall people saying that during the bubble in the 2000s at all. There were people that thought prices would go up forever and people that said a crash was coming. I don’t recall anyone thinking in between. Back then you also had the most inflated markets like Florida top out 2 years before Seattle did, this is something I know even Tim has pointed it about the previous correction. That is not happening anywhere yet, correct me if I am wrong. In fact these places are not even at prior highs yet, its much more subdued this time around. Seattle has real demand for housing I don’t see how anyone would question this right now. It has to slow down either through pricing or demand dwindles. I personally think it will be demand driven but its going to take a bear market in stocks and layoffs in the tech sector to spark this slowdown IMHO.

  35. 35
    Eastsider says:

    RE: Doug @ 26

    You may want to know that Japan went through the last 4 recessions without an inverted yield curve.

  36. 36
    Justme says:

    RE: Eastsider @ 35

    Excellent point. I wish I had said that :).

  37. 37
    js says:

    By pfft @ 31:

    LOL. you don’t get the answer you want so you just ignore the data.

    Ignore the data? Whatever, dude, I have no agenda. Just trying to figure out when to sell, and we’re due for a recession. Next spring is looking good.

    It’s fine with me if you think everything is peachy, QE was a success, debt is good for the economy, and a recession is years away. Maybe you can buy my house in the spring?

    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/062816/34-probability-us-recession-q1-2017-ubs-warns.asp

    http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/07/05/yield-curve-shows-60-chance-of-recession-deutsche-bank-says/

  38. 38
  39. 39
    Blake says:

    By Doug @ 21:

    RE: js @ 20RE: js @ 20 – Ok, fair enough. And while I agree we’re due by historical standards, historical standards are irrelevant and useless in our current monetary system.

    Listen to the yield curve. It will scream recession when we’re actually on the brink.

    Under ZIRP, yield curve no longer needs to invert before recessions
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-a-recession-could-arrive-without-a-yield-curve-warning-1454754607
    Japan’s experience with ultralow rates may be instructive. During each of its past four recessions, the yield curve didn’t invert. Analysts at Deutsche Bank AG argue this indicates the yield curve won’t invert when short-term rates are below 1%.

  40. 40

    RE: Sam Zell @ 38RE: Blake @ 39 – You might want to consider the possibility that the next major crisis might be political rather than economic (although with economic effects). Meaning all the data you’re looking at won’t be something that predicted anything.

  41. 41
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 40 – President Trump. Although the wall will boost infrastructure spending.

  42. 42

    RE: Blurtman @ 41 – I was thinking of more issues than just one person. Let’s assume a 2000 type close election. I don’t see either candidate backing down and putting the good of the country ahead of their own interests the way Gore eventually did, and with an eight member Supreme Court whose decisions are more and more based on political ideology (or in the case of Ginsberg, sexism) than law . . ..

  43. 43
    Doug says:

    RE: Blake @ 39 – Ok, let’s say we believe that central banks can distort the conventional relationship between an inverted curve and an implied recession.

    Would you at least agree that the spread still needs to be far narrower than the current 124 bps? Talking about the 3-month yield versus 10-year yield: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y3M

    Although Japan’s curve might not have completed inverted, each recession was precluded by a 50 bp spread and a fast, dramatic spread tightening to get there. The 10-year has room to rally before any recession alarms go off. So I still defend my original position that we are not on the brink or even close to it.

    To Kary’s point (if I understand it), political uncertainties could easily push the spread closer to 50 bps, but until then keep calm and stay long.

  44. 44

    By Doug @ 43:

    To Kary’s point (if I understand it), political uncertainties could easily push the spread closer to 50 bps, but until then keep calm and stay long.

    My point was that between now an November all your economic numbers could show incredible improvement beyond imagination, and a political even could reverse all that in an instant.

    Another example might be 9/11. I understand the government went to great efforts to maintain liquidity and Congress acted within about 5-7 days to protect insurance companies. Absent all that being successful, there could have been economic collapse based on something that wasn’t really in anyone’s minds the day before.

  45. 45
    Blake says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 42:

    RE: Blurtman @ 41 – I was thinking of more issues than just one person. Let’s assume a 2000 type close election. I don’t see either candidate backing down and putting the good of the country ahead of their own interests the way Gore eventually did, and with an eight member Supreme Court whose decisions are more and more based on political ideology (or in the case of Ginsberg, sexism) than law . . ..

    Excellent point Kary… Two Yuuuuge egos!

  46. 46
    Blake says:

    RE: Doug @ 43
    or….
    China devalues the yuan….
    Deutsche Bank or Italian banks collapse and the linked derivatives cascade throughout the system…
    Terrorist attack on Saudi Arabia….
    War in Ukraine, Korea, South China Sea, or India/Pak….
    Trump wins….
    A lot of disaster scenarios….
    #1 is most likely IMHO.

  47. 47
    pfft says:

    By js @ 37:

    By pfft @ 31:

    LOL. you don’t get the answer you want so you just ignore the data.

    Ignore the data? Whatever, dude, I have no agenda. Just trying to figure out when to sell, and we’re due for a recession. Next spring is looking good.

    It’s fine with me if you think everything is peachy, QE was a success, debt is good for the economy, and a recession is years away. Maybe you can buy my house in the spring?

    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/062816/34-probability-us-recession-q1-2017-ubs-warns.asp

    http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/07/05/yield-curve-shows-60-chance-of-recession-deutsche-bank-says/

    “It’s fine with me if you think everything is peachy, QE was a success, debt is good for the economy, and a recession is years away.”

    short answer to all of that. yes.

  48. 48
    Doug says:

    RE: Blake @ 46 – Don’t forget magnitude 10.0 earthquake in Seattle.

  49. 49
    Blurtman says:

    And the Seahawks move to Oklahoma City.

  50. 50
    Sam Zell says:

    @Kary L. Krismer #40- Well that election crisis didn’t affect real estate. The stock market was also already in a freefall from the .com bubble popping earlier in the year. I saw interesting commentary today from Tony Dwyer on CNBC today. He was has been spot on this year about the stock market and the economy. He outlined how worse case the economy is on stable ground for the next 36 months even with Fed tightening for a while. I would check it out if it’s online.

  51. 51

    By Blake @ 45:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 42:

    RE: Blurtman @ 41 – I was thinking of more issues than just one person. Let’s assume a 2000 type close election. I don’t see either candidate backing down and putting the good of the country ahead of their own interests the way Gore eventually did, and with an eight member Supreme Court whose decisions are more and more based on political ideology (or in the case of Ginsberg, sexism) than law . . ..

    Excellent point Kary… Two Yuuuuge egos!

    And one of the greatest egos!

    Actually, thinking about it further the 8 person SC wouldn’t be a huge deal because the lower court decision would stand–but if there were more than one decision appealed, and they somehow conflicted or were inconsistent. . . .

  52. 52
    Doug says:

    RE: Sam Zell @ 50 – Thanks for sharing. Perfect clip to back everything I’ve been saying about being long until the curve inverts — and it will invert when the fed hikes.

    Link: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000547892&play=1

  53. 53
    greg says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 12
    way to try and rewrite history Kary. It was a crash, a full on crash, nobody could sell, I know because I was one of the very few buyers out there. I had my pick of distressed and non distressed homes to pick from.

    I had GREAT agents trying to off load properties very cheaply and still find no buyers, lets not pretend the banks were utterly stupid, they just needed to sell a lot than the mom and pops.

  54. 54
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: greg @ 53
    Interesting.
    Did you buy back then?
    Are you selling now?

  55. 55

    By greg @ 53:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 12
    way to try and rewrite history Kary. It was a crash, a full on crash, nobody could sell, I know because I was one of the very few buyers out there. I had my pick of distressed and non distressed homes to pick from.

    I had GREAT agents trying to off load properties very cheaply and still find no buyers, lets not pretend the banks were utterly stupid, they just needed to sell a lot than the mom and pops.

    I have data to back up my claims, and also the experience of helping a lot of buyers and sellers during the period. Not to mention I gave specific examples of how banks were bad at selling.

    You have your own very limited experience. In conparision, that isn’t worth a thin dime.

    You’re the one re-writing history–or more precisely, not understanding what happening while it was happening and still not understanding what happened even at this point today.

    Finally, the REOs locally were a significant percentage of the market at times (particularly the slower winter markets), but don’t pretend that there were a lot more of them relative to the “mom and pops” or that there weren’t individual owners who really really needed to sell badly.

  56. 56

    In my search for comps I just found a HUD house which recently sold which qualified for their rehab financing. The needed repairs? A missing bedroom light fixture, a missing shower head and no CO detector.

    Now true they do offer rehab financing to do those things, but that financing isn’t as attractive as regular financing and so it would hold down the price received.

    So yes, the bank entities are bad at selling, and remain so to this day.

  57. 57

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 56 – That should have said “some remain so to this day.” Many banks have learned their lessons, and I think even HUD abandoned their policy of requiring the use of what could only be described as the worst escrow company in the world.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.