Please post your local house search updates, MLS finds, on-topic ideas, and links here.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Northern Virginia Real Estate Statistics
REAL ESTATE SEARCH
County Assessment Websites
Buy/Sell Without an Agent
Local Real Estate Agents
Housing Economics Blogs
Local Interest
Housing Bubble Links
Eastern Regional Blogs
Western Regional Blogs
- Bakersfield Bubble
- Bay Area Real Estate Blog
- BubbleInfo (N. San Diego)
- Burbed (San Francisco)
- Dr. Housing Bubble (SoCal)
- Patrick.net (San Francisco)
- Portland Housing Blog
- Professor Piggington's Econo-Almanac
- Rancid Truth (Orange County)
- Sacramento Land(ing)
- Seattle Bubble
- SoCal Real Estate Bubble Blog
- Socket Site (San Francisco)
Real Estate Blogs
REAL ESTATE AUCTIONS
73 comments:
CRT,
(from yesterday) I'm still here. Been here, but too busy to post. The Aug-Nov timeframe happens to be insane for my line of work. It also coincided with a time period where I just stopped checking the listings because it was too depressing.
That said, while it's not a land of milk and honey in low-cost PWC, it's definitely improved from years past, and even earlier this year. The problem is that in the end I am competing with investors because I need a cash-flow positive location. I'm also competing with other first time home buyers. And apparently they all have more money than me.
My income is going down, knew that was a possibility, but now it's a reality. Starting 1st of the year it's going down about 20%. Sometime in the summer it'll go down another 30+%. Having planned for that, it's not a breaker, but it really kills the thought of buying anything over $200K. Anything 200K and under gets bid up and goes under contract quick unless there are issues.
So, I'm likely to stick around for a while longer.
high-end REO condo sold 6% lower than 2002 price
MM-
I am not sure which part I am more amazed about. The fact that this condo was selling for 2001 prices in Arlington or the fact that the condo is still 837K. It looks nice, but its not that nice... Although I guess at 2,000 sq ft it is really big. The rooms didn't look that huge I wonder where they are hiding the footage seeing that it is only a 2 bedroom 2 bathroom...
It looks like nationally a lot of people were rushing to buy before January pending sales
I assume the same is true in this area. How did economist expect pending sales to basically be flat the month after the credit was expected to end???
housebuyer,
Hope. Eternal hope.
The goal of any stimulus is to get things moving so that the removal of the stimulus is unnoticeable. I don't think that's ever happened, though.
Would-Be,
(in response to your question yesterday re: properties that have recently come to the market) I've whined and complained about the fact that courthouse auction purchases have been bought at rock bottom prices (within my price range), and put back on the market at much higher prices (outside my price range). If I could only find a flipped property within my price range, I might whine less. I think there may be some eventually, though. Since my family is not really handy, this may be a boon to us, if and only if we can get something we want, at the right price.
Here is an example of what was recently a great deal (still outside my range), relative to regular prices within that neighborhood:
Sold for 545k in Nov, on the market today at 754,900
This one was actually real estate owned, sold through the MLS. The flipper appears to have finished the basement. And, has marked it up 200k. I've also noticed that these flipped properties often come down in price bit by bit, but they certainly, in this tight market, have been snatched up before the price gets really low.
Question about the Repeat-Buyer's tax credit:
...buyers must have owned and lived in their previous home for five consecutive years out of the last eight years.
What if someone lived in a home 4 years, 10 months, and 14 days? Does the IRS round up to 5 years? Is it prorated? Or are the owners ineligible?
NOVAwatcher,
Information on length of time lived in current home
"Q: Your recent article regarding the new buyer tax credit was interesting, but I wondered if you could clarify the “five consecutive years” rule for trade-up buyers. We closed on our existing home in
September, 2006, therefore in January, 2010 we will have occupied it over five calendar years (2006-2010) but not for 60 full months. Would we qualify? The IRS site doesn’t explain this point.
"A: I don't think five calendar years will cut it. You need to live in your home at least five full years.
Recently the IRS issued further clarification on the new rules for the home buyer tax credit: “The new law also provides a ‘long-time resident’ credit of up to $6,500 for others who do not qualify as ‘first-time homebuyers.’ To qualify this way, a buyer must have owned and used the same home as a principal or primary residence for at least five consecutive years of the eight-year period ending on the date of purchase of a new home as a primary residence.”
From the new guidance, it seems clear that the IRS means you have to have lived in your home for 60-months straight out of the past eight years.
My best guess is that Congress wanted to limit fraud and the number of homeowners that could qualify for the $6,500 homebuyer tax credit. In your case, you would have to wait until September 2011 to qualify for the tax break.
However, by that time the tax break will have long expired. While the IRS does not discuss the issue of calendar years, the site is pretty clear about the sixty months that you have to have lived in your home to qualify for the current tax credit."
Xpovos-
I agree it usually does not work, but I think it has worked pretty well for both TARP and TALF. Banks were entirely screwed so the government needed to give them enough money and make illiquid securities liquid enough that they could make some money and become healthier. This has worked well for most of the big banks that have already paid TARP back and are in stronger positions. Some say the banks aren't lending I personally think they are just lending responsibly like they should have in the past so I don't think its a bad thing.
Sounds like unless the IRS counts buying in July 2002 and selling in June 2007 as 5 years, I'm screwed.
Robert said
And, no, I won't change my tune based on a "proposal" that we both know will come in 0 to -5% because the WH has already telegraphed it.
Then you are just trolling on here. Your whole premise is that we were going to see expanding federal budgets each year.
I feel like it's crow crow crow from Va_Investor and you when you see news you like and then silence when there's bad news. Like when Case-Shiller went down recently. You both were very dismissive when commenters here said C-S would go down again, it happened, and neither of you will admit you were overly optimistic. As the Anonymous points out no one on here ever points out they were wrong.
Obama and the Dems have exceeded all of my expectations. I think the spending really caught you off guard. You bought into a lot of the campaign rhetoric.
Most of the spending is related to the stimulus, TARP, and related. I'm not surprised by that. It was clear from the election it was going to happen and GW Bush did some of it. I think you failed to appreciate how much of this spending is related to short-term problems like a possible economic depression.
Okay did some sluething on the Arlington condo. A man named Lawrence Savage bought it in 2002 and foreclosed as per the listing. Robert and Va_Investor -- this was not a liar loan or a poser as they would have been washed out much earlier than that.
I am pretty certain I found out what Mr. Savage used to do: run his own real estate firm. I guess that's not so profitable anymore.
http://xtiandc.com/savage.html (can't find this website so I presume the company is closed for business)
Oh Robert. It must worry even you to see that someone who bought a $800k-$1.1M (depending on the year) was a *realtor* of all things. Not a lobbyist, a law firm partner, a corporate exec, a small business owner, and so on.
Well I guess he was technically a small business owner.
Wow this is pretty absurd http://franklymls.com/FX7230072
The flipper bought the house less than 4 weeks ago for 340K and have it listed for 599K. This is not one of those flippers that I was talking about listing the house for slightly under comps. I can't imagine this sells for much over 450K. Although that would still probably give the flipper 30-50+K after commission and renovation costs.
"TBW Said...As the Anonymous points out no one on here ever points out they were wrong."
Thats because nothing here is ever described in clearly definable terms.
Spider goes on and on about the STAMPEDE of inventory he predicts we are going to see this spring, and yet he refuses to define how much inventory constitutes a stampede. This way, when inventory rises, even by the slightest amount, he can say this was the "stampede" he envisioned and therefore, he wasnt wrong.
Contrary to this spineless display, Robert is one of the few people with the guts to go on record with specific case shiller values for the next 6 12 & 18 months -- no iffs ands or buts:
http://novabubblefallout.blogspot.com/2009/12/northern-virginia-bits-bucket-12142009.html
2/3 of the way down this page, I ask Robert and he confirms that Case Shiller will be at 188 when it comes out in late May.
When that day comes up, either Robert will be right or (more likely now that prices are headed down seasonally), Robert will say I was wrong...
Or he will delete all his posts and refuse to discuss it like Contrarian did.
The Anonymous,
Good point. However we better clear up one are of fuzziness. Robert means the C-S numbers that come out late May which would be the March Case-Shiller numbers. I have a feeling in May when the number is not 188 he'll say "but I meant the May Case-Shiller numbers" and try to move the goal posts. You also should notate his other predictions in case he deletes that comment.
Here's a concrete prediction on my part: we will see 5.5% 30 year fixed mortgage rates within 1Q10 (ending March 31, 2010).
Last week we were at 5.14% on the 30 year fixed.
TBW-
I would have thought he meant the May number, which comes out in July. Either way I am willing to give him a couple of months. That really isn't that long and is part of the same trend. I don't mind this I only get upset when gold bugs who were wrong for 20 years are all bragging about how they knew this would happen... If you pick any commodity and take a long enough time frame sooner or later it will do well.
Either way I think it will be pretty clear by May whether the up trend continued or did not. I consider it pretty ballsy to say housing will go up ~5% every six months. I think the same is true with it going down 10+% a year.
housebuyer,
Either way let's just clear up what he meant before May comes.
In other news, housebuyer, I think you predicted this sort of response (and it's why I don't predict 6% interest rates). Unfortunately, I think they probably will do this when 5.5% interest rates come and the housing market falls apart as we all predicted it would:
NEW YORK, Jan 5 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve is discussing re-entering the mortgage-backed securities market later this year if its buying power is needed to hold down interest rates, Market News said on Tuesday in a story citing Fed officials.
The $5 trillion agency mortgage-backed securities market may weaken when last year's biggest buyer, the Federal Reserve, ends its $1.25 trillion agency MBS purchasing program at the end of the first quarter of 2010.
Fed officials, however, "are prepared to contemplate changes if need be, depending on conditions in the economy, housing finance and in financial markets more broadly," Market News said in a story written by Steven Beckner.
Unlikely TBW -- I anticipated that sort of goalpost moving so after he posted the numbers I said this:
"let me make sure I have this right regarding Case Shiller values in the DC area:
1. In 6 months (i.e. when CS comes out in late May 2010), CS will be at 188 -- right?
2. In 12 months (i.e. when CS comes out in late Nov 2010), CS will be at 198 -- right?
3. In 18 months (i.e. when CS comes out in late May 2011), CS will be at 215 -- right?"
Then 2 posts later he responded "Anonymous - that's right.
So the operative language was the day it "comes out", not the specific month it reports upon.
In any event, I do not anticipate that Robert will delete his posts (and still plan to be active here). Contrarian has no idea the pandoras box he just opened by deleting all his past posts and then going on as if nothing had happened.
Anonymous-
I assume you are right. Robert tends to be open with his predictions and say when he is right or wrong. I do like that for the most part no one deletes old posts unless we get into a school argument and people remove things others found offensive. Its good to hear a bunch of differing opinions to help come to the right conclusions and I think both the bulls and bears are useful for this.
And, no, I won't change my tune based on a "proposal" that we both know will come in 0 to -5% because the WH has already telegraphed it.
TBW said...Then you are just trolling on here. Your whole premise is that we were going to see expanding federal budgets each year.
Have any idea why I put the word, proposal, in quotes?
House passes $1.1-trillion spending measure
The 1,088-page, $1.1-trillion measure would provide $447 billion in the operating budgets for 10 Cabinet departments, awarding increases averaging almost 10%.
10%!! Wow!!
But, here's the key passage:
The measure rejected most spending cuts suggested in May by Obama.
What, you forgot Congress controls the purse strings?
And please note that OBAMA SIGNED THE MEASURE. The measure that rejected all of his spending cuts. Duh. I don't care what comes out of Obama's mouth. CONGRESS is going to spend.
does Cara close today?
Robert,
I understand how the federal government works. Obviously Congress can go nuts with spending even when the President requests otherwise. And given the lack of a line item veto (and last minute nature of these bills) it's almost impossible for the President to veto any of these bills without shutting down government. So it never happens.
So if your prediction is that Pelosi/Reid will massively expand spending in FY 2011 and ignore Obama's proposal to cut spending then I think that's different then what you had been predicting the past few months. You had said Obama wanted to massively expand gov't spending.
Also, if it's just Congress . . . what happens in FY 2012 (done in 2011) if the Democrats lose seats? If the Democrats lose just a few Senate seats and the Republicans remain as obstructionist as they have this year then I don't see how Reid passes a FY 2012 budget that ignores Obama's/Orzsag's request to freeze or cut federal spending.
TBW said...I feel like it's crow crow crow from Va_Investor and you when you see news you like and then silence when there's bad news. Like when Case-Shiller went down recently. You both were very dismissive when commenters here said C-S would go down again, it happened, and neither of you will admit you were overly optimistic.
Minus four-tenths of a percent and I'm suppose to say what?
As the Anonymous points out no one on here ever points out they were wrong.
I'm not sure if you were including yourself in that statement or not.
Most of the spending is related to the stimulus, TARP, and related. I'm not surprised by that. It was clear from the election it was going to happen and GW Bush did some of it. I think you failed to appreciate how much of this spending is related to short-term problems like a possible economic depression.
Clearly I have acknowledged the stimulus spending.
Anonymous said...When that day comes up, either Robert will be right or (more likely now that prices are headed down seasonally), Robert will say I was wrong...
Clearly, that is a prediction.
You are saying CS will be lower than 179 when it comes out May 2010.
TBW said...I understand how the federal government works. Obviously Congress can go nuts with spending even when the President requests otherwise. And given the lack of a line item veto (and last minute nature of these bills) it's almost impossible for the President to veto any of these bills without shutting down government. So it never happens.
I think 10% increases in the middle of a near depression qualifies as 'nuts.' You need to show why Congress will act differently for FY 2011. I expect more of the same.
So if your prediction is that Pelosi/Reid will massively expand spending in FY 2011 and ignore Obama's proposal to cut spending then I think that's different then what you had been predicting the past few months. You had said Obama wanted to massively expand gov't spending.
Either one - Obama or the Dems. I think we get spending and tax increases. I think the evidence, so far, supports what I just said.
Also, if it's just Congress . . . what happens in FY 2012 (done in 2011) if the Democrats lose seats? If the Democrats lose just a few Senate seats and the Republicans remain as obstructionist as they have this year then I don't see how Reid passes a FY 2012 budget that ignores Obama's/Orzsag's request to freeze or cut federal spending.
Well, politics is key. We will go up or down based on government spending.
tbw,
What, exactly, have I been wrong about? I rarely state that anything is more than an educated guess.
Have you been wrong about anything and acknowledged it?
p.s. I'm always right :)
I used to be right. Then I got married.
"Robert said...Clearly, that is a prediction.
You are saying CS will be lower than 179 when it comes out May 2010."
Yes -- I guess you dont remember but I said at the time and I will say again -- CS (DC area) will go up and down in a sawtooth pattern for years, going neither below 160 nor above 180.
If it goes below 160 I will say I WAS WRONG
If it goes above 180 I will say I WAS WRONG
Is it bad sign that my land lord is going to foreclose if he told me he needs to come over in the morning to get information so he can apply to the HAMP program. I am pretty confident a requirement is that the place is your main residence. So either he is going to lie or doesn't know what he is doing. Either way I assume it means he is struggling with the payments.
housebuyer,
I'd guess it's just a matter of time before a foreclosure or short. Do you want to buy the place?
VA-
I am not entirely sure it gets back into the question of do I want a condo for 5-7 years or just get a SFH. I figure we have another 9 months on our lease so we can wait another couple of months and if we decide we want to buy it then we can always give him an offer if not we have more time to decide what we want to do.
housebuyer,
For me much would depend on the price of the condo vs fair market value.
The problem with condo's, and subdivisions in general, is that you are subject to very specific comps.
Getting something at a good buy that you can fix up, gives you the opportunity to really get some upside if you are in a neighborhood that is very mixed.
Anonymous -
Well, then that's a very bold prediction - 160-180 with CS @ 179.
Do you care what goes on in Washington? Do we not sink or float with government spending?
Robert, do you have a link to a recent article that cites what percentage of DC metro area employment is (a) federal employment (military or civil service) or (b) federal contractor?
Re whether I have admitted when I was wrong
I admitted when I was wrong about some Ballston TH someone pointed out. I said it wouldn't get list and it did. I still think I'm right that Ballston TH will not remain at 2006 levels (in fact, I think for the most part that's already true) so I think my prediction was only wrong by a fluke but I've admitted multiple times it was wrong.
Robert said
Well, politics is key. We will go up or down based on government spending.
I disagree. Northern Virginia did quite well in the 80s and 90s during moderate to no growth in the federal government under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.
As always, you are in denial that the 2000-06 was a *bubble* and not because of federal spending.
Federal spending is relevant but not the only factor like you want it to be to make up some new rationalization for bubble prices.
Robert always has us looking at DC and the federal government but let's not forget Richmond and the various localities.
News Robert would hide:
The Virginia Department of Transportation began issuing 678 more pink slips Monday, reducing VDOT's payroll to 7,500 employees as the agency faces a projected six-year revenue shortfall of $4.6 billion.
The additional layoffs had been expected under VDOT's three-stage plan to cut staffing by July 1. So far, 135 employees in Northern Virginia have received layoff notices, but some might be allowed to fill other vacancies in the agency as their jobs are eliminated.
I'm glad they spelled out how many were in Virginia because I'm sure without it Robert would have claimed all were in Richmond and none were up here.
*were in Northern Virginia
Va_Investor said
What, exactly, have I been wrong about? I rarely state that anything is more than an educated guess.
Well I think you have underestimated how many foreclosures have occurred in the $500k+ home bracket. And you have been pretty dismissive of the claims by many of us that more will come because the income/wealth of those homeowners delays the inevitable as compared to someone in a $200k home.
Most of your theory (and those of us on the bearish side) will be tested in 2010-11. I don't see a tsunami coming but I do think 2010 will have many more foreclosures in the $500k+ neighborhoods than we saw in those neighborhoods in 2009.
"Robert said...
Anonymous -
Well, then that's a very bold prediction - 160-180 with CS @ 179."
Think so? lets just say you wouldnt if you werent such a one trick pony (more on that later). Had you paid attention to anything more than spending and jobs, and focused on things like seasonality, inventory, MOI, DOM, etc. etc., you might not have found that prediction so bold.
"Do you care what goes on in Washington? Do we not sink or float with government spending?"
Let me state this as clearly as possible so as to shut down any further line of questioning here...OVER THE LONG TERM, GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS THE END ALL BE ALL REGARDING THE HEALTH OF THIS AREA. In my opinion, the govt spending is priming the pump for serious growth in prices (long term).
That said, we have serious excesses still in the system that need to be worked out (via time as the fundamentals improve to support present pricing).
Lets put the shoe on the other foot for you. Lets take your one trick pony out for a spin and see how it does.
The 2006 Robert would say
1. The DC area Govt spending was 120 billion this year
2. The DC area added 50 thousand jobs this year.
3. Therefore, home prices will rise in a v shaped fashion.
How did that prediction turn out?
The 2007 Robert would say
1. The DC area Govt spending was 126 billion this year
2. The DC area added 23 thousand jobs this year.
3. Therefore, home prices will rise in a v shaped fashion.
How did that prediction turn out?
The 2008 Robert would say
1. The DC area Govt spending was 138 billion this year
2. The DC area added 17 thousand jobs this year.
3. Therefore, home prices will rise in a v shaped fashion.
How did that prediction turn out?
housebuyer,
Sounds like you have a good bargaining chip for asking for lower rent.
Ace said...do you have a link to a recent article that cites what percentage of DC metro area employment is (a) federal employment (military or civil service) or (b) federal contractor?
Center for Regional Analysis GMU Slide Presentation PDF file
About 15% direct and another 15% indirect (contractor).
Still, I would guess 85% of the economy is based on federal spending.
Obviously tourism is not. I'm sure there are others.
Thanks, Robert, those 15% figures sound about right. The 85% I think we could debate, and we could also debate the degree of government influence (e.g., I suppose you could argue that retail is "influenced" by the government because if it increases employment, there are more shoppers but this I would argue is a relatively small influence), though it might not be very useful.
There are many industries that are much less influenced by government spending than the 2 15-percenters (and they will in turn affect things like retail in the same sense that fed. govt. can be said to affect things, but they won't all be operating in the same direction). Some would be: any private orgs. that sell their products or services nationally or internationally (e.g., some tech. orgs., some consulting firms, some biomedical firms, some architects and engineers); universities, especially private ones; state and local govt., including schools; restaurants and shops; hospitals and other health care; etc.
I don't question that federal spending is important to this area, directly and indirectly, but I think its influence is a much smaller piece of the overall picture than you seem to.
A couple of other biggie examples: IMF and World Bank, and many private banks, insurance companies, etc.
I would also add that the non-profit charities, professional associations, etc., that are headquartered here may have a few employees but for many (most?) of them, their fate depends far less on government spending than on the financial health of private donors and members. For example, I know an executive of a big (thousands of members) business professional org. that is really hurting right now because (private) orgs. around the world have cut back on travel and training budgets that pay for what this org. provides.
Anonymous -
You really don't understand me.
I have six months worth of posts on this blog. Why not dig up some stuff I really did say? I know for a fact that I have been wrong - I'll let you find the specific posts.
One trick pony? If that makes you feel better, call me whatever you like.
Ace said...I don't question that federal spending is important to this area, directly and indirectly, but I think its influence is a much smaller piece of the overall picture than you seem to.
It'll be impossible to pinpoint, but we do know that it is growing...quickly.
TBW said...News Robert would hide:
The Virginia Department of Transportation began issuing 678 more pink slips Monday, reducing VDOT's payroll to 7,500 employees as the agency faces a projected six-year revenue shortfall of $4.6 billion.
The additional layoffs had been expected under VDOT's three-stage plan to cut staffing by July 1. So far, 135 employees in Northern Virginia have received layoff notices, but some might be allowed to fill other vacancies in the agency as their jobs are eliminated.
I'm glad they spelled out how many were in Virginia because I'm sure without it Robert would have claimed all were in Richmond and none were up here.
I saw that. Hide? Everything I don't post I'm hiding? That's a lot of stuff.
Robert: We will go up or down based on government spending.
TBW: I disagree. Northern Virginia did quite well in the 80s and 90s during moderate to no growth in the federal government under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.
Anonymous said... OVER THE LONG TERM, GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS THE END ALL BE ALL REGARDING THE HEALTH OF THIS AREA. In my opinion, the govt spending is priming the pump for serious growth in prices (long term).
Robert, take a look at the top slide on page #15. It isn't a clear breakdown of sector sizes, but it does show how the job increases (Oct 08-Oct 09) in the fed. sector were offset several times over by losses in other sectors.
And once the state & local govt. sector #s flip into the negative side of the graph, it's going to be more lopsided, unless there is a quick and significant recovery in other sectors now in the negative side of the graph.
(I'm presuming of course that the GMU researchers are presenting the data fairly.)
Don't forget the Inova Health System who claim to be the biggest employer in Fairfax County. My wife likes to mention this statistic, but in the same breath worries about what health care reform will do to her job security. She actually doesn't want to buy a house this Spring anymore to see how things shake out, which makes me happy since I have grown used to my 5 minute commute.
Not everything the government does is good for jobs here. Most all of the hospital administration staff is worried about their jobs, and they are already making budget cuts to prepare for the money they expect to lose once health care reform passes.
tiredbubblewatcher said...
Re whether I have admitted when I was wrong
I admitted when I was wrong about some Ballston TH someone pointed out. I said it wouldn't get list and it did. I still think I'm right that Ballston TH will not remain at 2006 levels (in fact, I think for the most part that's already true) so I think my prediction was only wrong by a fluke but I've admitted multiple times it was wrong."
TBW -- no offense but this is a bit of a cop out answer -- the type of thing I have been railing about in this thread about specifics.
That house sold just a few months ago at 99.4% of peak prices. So on that house, on that particular instance, you were wrong... Period...
Dont feel bad though. Nearly everyone who has made a bearish prediction about arlington has been bent over by the realities of that market. You, me, everyone.
Now, the first part of your statement was OK, but IMO you completely undid it by stating:
"I still think I'm right that Ballston TH will not remain at 2006 levels (in fact, I think for the most part that's already true) so I think my prediction was only wrong by a fluke"
Thats about as non-descriptic-im-not-really-wrong-cover-your-ass-to-always-be-right answer as you can possibly make.
If you are going to make a prediction -- make it something that the rest of us can easily verify through outside obtainable stats. For example, what will be the biggest peak to trough drop for median prices for the ballston neighborhood?
If you dont want to make that prediction -- fair enough -- I wouldnt want to either. Still, absent making such a prediction, just say you were wrong and move on.
"Robert said...
Anonymous -
You really don't understand me.
I have six months worth of posts on this blog. Why not dig up some stuff I really did say?"
It was rhetorical Robert. It was meant to challenge your basic (and only) belief--govt spending and jobs always leads to price increases.
If you could, be a doll and answer the rhetorical. If spending and jobs are the end all be all to home price gains -- and all the rest of the so called "fundamentals" are noise -- why didnt prices increase in 2006, 2007, or 2008?
"One trick pony? If that makes you feel better, call me whatever you like."
Then be more dammit! IMO you are a wonderful contribution to this blog. You point out -- again and again -- the jobs and govt spending are going gangbusters. And you never cease to amaze me with your ability to find article after article about the bulletproof nature of this area.
You have just about convinced me (and I say this to the chagrin of all the bears) that this area very likely did not go into recession (defined as the traditional two straight quarters of negative growth). Im pretty sure that this area growth went flat, maybe down for a quarter, but thats about it.
Still, thats beside the point. As I am trying to point out, jobs and govt growth are a near constant for this area. And yet despite that constant, sometimes PRICES GO DOWN here! Agreed?
If so -- if you want to convince me or others that we are headed for a v shaped recovery -- be more.
In addition to your constant posting on jobs and spending, give us some analysis of income gains by zipcode -- find some quirk in foreclosure tracking that proves they are overstated by a magnitude of X -- show us some fundamental that based on past upturns (vis-a-vis 1990 or 1974) that is highly correlated to a v shaped recovery. Show us that you have more to offer than just jobs and govt spending.
The posters here are stubborn, but not stupid. If you want to convince any of us here of your v shaped recovery you will have to do more than simply note the tremendous great job growth and spending numbers this area always sees. Good luck.
Hi everyone-- haven't been on for awhile, but I have been following the discussion (at least occasionally) from abroad. I came back to the US last week to accompany my mother to the economics meetings in Atlanta. I went to some panels that included Shiller, Case, and Dean Baker. They all seem to be cautiously optimistic about next year.
Karl Case said he was completely misquoted by the NYT after the latest indices came out-- he's actually pretty optimistic, though he did say that if housing prices start down again and we lose another 10-15% nationwide we are really likely to have a second Great Depression after all...
I had planned on buying this winter (in Montgomery County), but the inventory is so low I've decided to keep this a short visit after all. Assuming I don't find anything to buy right away I'll come back in the spring for a longer look.
Sarah -- did anyone ask Dean Baker why he bought in DC -- in one of the so called "immune" areas that havent dropped much?
According to our most bearish posters here, the areas that havent dropped much yet means they have a much more significant drop yet to come.
Yet despite that, Dean Baker boutght last fall in one such area?
Im only halfway joking about this. Did he say anything about his personal circumstances. The fact that he -- one of the more notorious, penultimate bears would be willing to buy in the immunozone tells me alot. I would love to know why he did what he did.
this is larry savage's website
http://web.archive.org/web/20070618170458/www.lawrencesavage.com/
upsclae georgetown realtor.
http://franklymls.com/AR7184903
Obviously they haven't raised the price enough, i suggest they raise it back to 399 and see if it sells.
The Anonymous- No, no one asked, but I thought he had pretty much explained it when he bought. In any case I would hardly describe him as a 'notorious, penultimate bear'. I believe he sold about the same time we did, in 2005. If we were both still here year round and both working I imagine we would have bought again by now too.
Best news of the day:
Sen. Dodd to retire, sources tell CNN
Anonymous said...It was rhetorical Robert. It was meant to challenge your basic (and only) belief--govt spending and jobs always leads to price increases.
Well, that is my basic belief. You have that right. Government expansion and jobs/incomes ALWAYS lead to price increases. Fact. True. Basic belief.
But, what you are trying to do is say I believe that government expansion ALWAYS leads to price increases in a 12 month period. False. Not a basic belief. It leads to price increase over the long-term.
See, that's why your post wasn't rhetorical. It was retarded.
Anonymous said...If you could, be a doll and answer the rhetorical. If spending and jobs are the end all be all to home price gains -- and all the rest of the so called "fundamentals" are noise -- why didnt prices increase in 2006, 2007, or 2008?
Answer: because inventory was too high.
Do you really think that if you asked me in July of 2006 after NOVA inventory went from 6,000 to 20,000 - I would have said prices are going higher? Nope. See, you don't have a clue.
Anonymous said...Still, thats beside the point. As I am trying to point out, jobs and govt growth are a near constant for this area.
False. Government spending is not constant. It goes up and down.
And yet despite that constant, sometimes PRICES GO DOWN here! Agreed?
Not a constant. But, true, prices sometimes go down.
Anonymous said...In addition to your constant posting on jobs and spending, give us some analysis of income gains by zipcode -- find some quirk in foreclosure tracking that proves they are overstated by a magnitude of X -- show us some fundamental that based on past upturns (vis-a-vis 1990 or 1974) that is highly correlated to a v shaped recovery. Show us that you have more to offer than just jobs and govt spending.
You are missing the forest for the trees. Quirk in foreclosure tracking? Income gains by zip code?
Inventory is tight. The economy is growing. Jobs are being created. Incomes are going higher. The government is tracking for a huge expansion, both short-term - stimulus - and long term - health care, energy, finance, technology, etc.
"Robert said...
Robert -- I will get to the rest of what you said in a moment, but lets deal with this statement first:
"Robert said...
False. Government spending is not constant. It goes up and down."
Really? Take a look at page 13 of your CRA presentation. I see 23 consecutive years where spending has not gone down (one year where it may have gone flat). How is this not constant?
MM,
There is no heat at work... It may get fixed tomorrow....
Interesting point, Jeremy -- and also, Fairfax Co.'s wiki site does list INOVA as one of the five largest private employers.
The Anonymous, good catch. Notice that the top chart appears to be in current $, i.e., the increases each year are adjusted for inflation. Notice also the chart just below it on the same page that shows jobs increased through most of the same period. However, the rate of change wasn't the same from year to year. It would have been nice for them to include a third chart showing the total # of jobs each year for a more direct comparison with the top chart.
And it would have been interesting to see a 4th chart with the current $ housing prices per year.
Ok bears. I heard that alot of mid-range reo's are coming up. Mid being 500-800K. The bottom tier is pretty much either washed out or coming on significantly higher than a year ago.
I heard this from a very reliable source. I had thought that the majority would/could hang on. I in no way expect anything near the carnage of the low-end. In fact, I've also been told that 3 very major lenders are closing up their reo operations and going completely to shorts and mods.
Inventory being what it is, I don't expect many huge "deals"; but get prepared with your pre-approval if you think we are near enough to a bottom in that range.
Va_Investor,
Is this in regard to Nova or nationally? Tks.
Ace said...Really? Take a look at page 13 of your CRA presentation. I see 23 consecutive years where spending has not gone down (one year where it may have gone flat). How is this not constant?
We both see the same data. Whether you call it a constant or I call it a variable is really a stupid conversation.
Well well well Robert. Punting a bit on the answer arent we?
Earlier on, you stated govt spending "goes up and down".
I then pointed out 23 consecutive years where spending has not gone down. Your response
this is a stupid conversation.
You know I actually defended you saying that if the CS price doesnt come in as you expected, you would come right out and say I was wrong. But after this little exchange I have to wonder if thats really the case. Are we seeing a precursor to another "Contrarian" who simply deletes everything rather than saying I was wrong. I certainly hope not.
MM,
NoVa.
Okay, Anonymous. I want to amend my statement.
I retract: Government spending goes up and down.
I restate as: The growth of government spending goes up and down.
It was a sloppy statement.
Post a Comment