Market Decline

[Farm Gal]

I am seeing speculative purchase of midwest properties with So Cal addresses to which the tax statements are being mailed.

Dunno if they are crazy like a fox or not.. I DO know that in MY opinion this is just plain nuts. Won't rent for what they owe and frankly I wouldn't have bought THOSE houses when there were better alternative new construction homes available. Ain't an informed buyer in MY opinion.

Unless on the brink of retirement, investor purchase of non-owner occupied SFD homes is either wildly speculative (and the result of a certain national survey which claimed 20% undervaluation in this area... or the hallmark of terribly afraid individuals who may think they want to move here.

I can assure them theweather is mo betta there.

We shall see.

tweet tweet tweet.

 

[Bombadil]

In my current job I get to see 2 BPOs and 2 appraisal on the same property. I also know when the home owner purchase for how much and how many loans they have on property and what they are trying to sell the property for. The next 2 years are going to be one heck of a ride so everybody hang on. I pulling for all you ethical appraisers still doing this full time, heck where all in this together.

 

[Bill Rose]

No crystal ball here, but the signs are stacking up.

 

[Paula Greer]

What concerns me is the increasing number of newspaper articles published within the last 30 days that are all ranking markets by which are the most likely to see a housing bust. And various markets in California are always at the top of the list. What about places like Las Vegas or Phoenix where California investors with 1031 money have been buying like crazy, paying inflated prices in some cases, just to avoid paying any capital gains. Isn't the American system grand? At all costs, never give anything back to the government, the system that got you where you are today.....overpay for a property anywhere instead. I say shame on the Wall Street Journal for this latest article. As one of the previous posters pointed out, when you are buying a house, qualification is based on household income rather than the income of one person if there are more than one wage earner that will be contributing to the mortgage. It appears that WSJ has an "east coast bias", misleading readers about how lenders in California will qualify buyers with a payment that equates to 90% of the mortgage holders income. I don't know of any lender that is that liberal. Even with the interest only loans, the mortgage holder still has to qualify based on income standards that haven't changed that much in the last 20 years. I wonder when this whole doom & gloom outlook becomes self-fulfilling. After hearing enough times that the market is going bust, when does the public start believing it, whether or not the information included--in the case of this WSJ article for example--is skewed to the most unfavorable aspect, rather than based on the facts? h34r:

 

[DTB]

At all costs, never give anything back to the government, the system that got you where you are today

The government never had any money, it is all from the taxpayers. So we have already paid for the system.

 

[Paula Greer]

I don't know, I would say that a free enterprise system that allows private ownership of property rather than communal or "public" ownership like many places in Mexico where the government owns it and you get to "lease" it from the government might be something worth continuing to support....just a thought

 

[Farm Gal]

Paula:

How many people now OWN their property... versus rent from the bank?

And how many know the terms on which the loan(s) can be called?

DO we own our land anymore?

 

[Paula Greer]

Lee Ann,

Touche, your point is well taken. However, at least the way things work here, we are allowed to delude ourselves into thinking that property is ours (until proven otherwise by foreclosure, I guess). Heck, where would The Donald be today without some nice forgiving bankruptcy laws and lenders willing to work things out....

 

[Randy Beigh]

What goes up, must come down. I heard that somewhere.

California markets have been the most radical, longterm, of anyplace in the US. But, it doesn't mean they will only go up, nor does it mean, they will crash. It only means they will rise and fall according to supply and demand. That is as it should be. Or in other words, all is right with the world.

Having prices decline in San Diego or someplace else is neither good nor bad. It's just the market doing what it does and nobody has any control over that.

 

[Bill Rose]

BIG generalizations, Randy. I wish it were as simple as that. If it were, the market would be more stable. There's a whole bunch of things at work here, such as builders holding back in fear of declining prices, ridiculously liberal financing terms, false mortgage applications, inflated appraisals, media hype, decline in the value of the dollar overseas, as nauseum. We're not talking about the automobile market here.