Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderC who wrote (21162)	6/1/2004 8:43:16 PM
From: George8	Respond to of 306849

I'm seeing lots of high ball listings too. I believe that most of them are not trying to get next sucker. I believe that many sellers are inferring the listing prices from NAR numbers which are quite misleading for many sellers' situations. Listing brokers perhaps help pushing up the listing prices with too optimistic comparable in order to get the listing. My friend in Woodcliff Lake, NJ, in my opinion is doing just that. Another example is another friend of mine who moved from Princeton, NJ to Irvine, CA in 1995. He paid around $450K for a nice 2800 square foot single in a nice community in Irvine. Back in 2000 he told me his house would sell for $850K. So, if he were going to use the NAR numbers to conclude that his modest home would sell for $1.5M today, he would be way out in the unrealistic side. Am I right?

To: TraderC who wrote (21162)	6/2/2004 8:22:43 AM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

<<If they are not willing to lower the prices sufficiently, then maybe they are not really interested in selling>> That was my impression, as well, from what Lizzie said about people pulling houses off the market. No agent on earth wants to fool around with an unmotivated seller. If a seller is just fishing for a high price, he can waste his own time, but shouldn't expect agents and buyers to join him in pursuing his hobby. Plain and simple.... a house which won't sell after a decent time on the market is definitely overpriced and/or has an unmotivated seller. If a property sells, it was priced correctly for market conditions at the time and in line with its competition in the marketplace. Buyers are adequately equipped with comparable-sales information to know the difference. I find it amusing that some people are blaming NAR for publishing "misleading" sales statistics which are causing this dreadful overpricing problem for sellers. What a hoot! The other amusing thing is that so many seem to believe this is the first time in history that housing prices have gone up. Anyone working in real estate on the East Coast for decades has dealt with "sticker shock" from buyers who come to the area for the first time from just about anywhere in the U.S. ....EXCEPT California and New York. As for bubble talk.....well, I'm still waiting to see a significant number of buyers and homeowners in my area "speculating" in the real estate market. They simply want homes and there just isn't much more land on which to build them around here. Therefore, prices have gone up to meet the market. And I'm still waiting to see how the allegedly bursting bubble is going to flush millions of homeowners out of their homes in search of rental housing, thereby creating a glut of homes for sale. That will be the day. It would be nice to have a little more equilibrium in terms of supply and demand, and I'm sure then some people will be jumping up and down and claiming they told us so, housing was a bubble, and has burst. Yeah, right.