ahhaha's ahs Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: ahhaha who wrote (1281)	2/27/2001 3:52:21 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) of 24758

The figures I cited come from the country as a whole and they aren't my figures I know you took your figures from the stats, I'm saying the the stats are skewed. You missed my analogy. If people tend to only want to buy what they think is rising in price (the same is true for the stock market as the real estate) then only those houses whose price is rising will be included in the statistics you cite. The same way the averages masked the over all weakness in the market because the buying and appreciation became concentrated in an ever smaller number of large issues. Am I wrong to assume that the statistics are only taken from homes that have sold or are on the market or do they include the price of all homes regardless? If so, how does a home that hasn't been on the market or sold in twenty years get priced? So house inflation isn't good? Even though they give up on selling, they don't lower their price. They gave up on selling after lowering their price several times to the point where they would have to pay off part of the remaining loan with their savings and after having the house on the market for an extended period of time with no offers. This is the squeal point for sellers and most would prefer to stay put then pay to give away their house. This is why I said that if there is no inflation in housing it can cause a world of pain. I have one friend who had his house on the market for five years before he sold it just recently. He couldn't sell it at a price high enough to cover the loan balance and transaction costs. Housing is like everything else, nobody wants a house unless someone else does. Locations that are desirable tend to become more desirable until they top out, locations that are less desirable tend to stay cheap or get cheaper until they bottom out. If you happen to be a bagholder in a cheap location it becomes harder and harder for you to make a transition to the desirable nieghborhood. More expensive houses build up equity faster and tend to appreciate at a higher rate.....unless you happen to be the one who bought at the top. Baltimore is making a fool of you. A whole generation of bagholders are just now getting out from under it. One down and two to go for me. 40k in excess of what? Demand for houses. He said it, I didn't. I just thought it was a funny way to make your city seem like a desirable place to live. The 40k of houses are so dilapidated that no one wants to buy them at any cost. It was all location, the exact same house in DC or San Francisco would have had plenty of buyers at much higher prices. They were just old and in surprisingly good shape when the wrecking ball showed up. Meanwhile the public housing that was being built new across town will not last a decade. Their maintenance is so high that a prospective buyer might as well try to buy something better. How much are tear downs going for in the valley? I'm routinely shocked at the lack of quality in housing stock in California and the prices they get for them. It's appalling the same way the apartments in NYC are appalling but for different reasons. I have friends who made a bundle buying shells during the last urban renaisance here. One of the highest rent areas here in the city is a ten square block area near the water front that 25 years ago was completely empty and surrounded by a ten foot chain link fence. The houses were sold to individuals for $1 with the stipulation that they live in them for 5 years and use their own money to rehabilitate them. It was probably one of the most successful urban renewal projects I've ever witnessed and it was all done with private investment. What made it successful was that the area could be effectively isolated from the surrounding areas of blight and subsequently completely renovated all at once. No government proposes projects like that anymore because they are politically incorrect. People who bought those $1 houses got rich! Even when they occur naturally there is a lot of whining about the resident poor population being displaced.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next