Please post your local house search updates, MLS finds, on-topic ideas, and links here.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
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
12 comments:
http://www.redfin.com/VA/Falls-Church/7422-Allan-Ave-22046/home/9550343
Interesting (crazy?) list in my neighborhood. First true flip I've seen since moving here a couple of years ago. Don't know whether the property was in trouble financially or just an estate sale in rough shape. Purchased for $358k and now listed for $599k. Looks like a general flip, nothing overly special from the pictures in the listing, but I haven't been inside.
Looks overpriced to me, Fred.
Agree, Ace. When they set the sale sign out, and prior to the MLS listing, my wife and I guessed at the list price. She went $480k and I went $499k based on our knowledge of the differences in the houses in the neighborhood. Maybe I underestimate the value of a sparkly interior and new appliances, but our refi appraisal last year was way below their list, and our house has 30% more sq footage, a nicer lot, and an extra br/ba.
This listing does bring up the balance of a high list. Do you try to go really high to give your buyers a sense of a deal when they "lowball", or will this technique alienate a segment that won't/can't look at places in this price point.
Housebuyer: I think it was you (maybe I'm misremembering) that discounted the impact that the various bailouts had on the banks. I don't have the patience or know-how to track-down the exact thrust of your argument, but I seem to recall that you made the point that TARP was nice, but not necessary for most of the banks.
This bloomberg article sheds light on TARP, but more importantly, the secret lending that we're just now finding-out about (thank you, FOIA). The article, along with my other reading on the subject, paints a clear picture: the banks were (some, still?) bankrupt. TARP and the secret lending allowed many to "earn" their way out of their huge holes.
I'm still convinced that there are other "details" that we may never know. You won't find me "occupying" anything anytime soon, but all is not well, not for the average joe, anyway.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
mike
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html
here is an old but reasonable
graphic that demonstrates the issue
The Biggest element was the 4.5 Trillion in liquidity to finance the
Money Market Funds and commercial paper.
The Fannie/Freddie and TALF were another 2.4 Trillion that's where the banks took garbage and shoved it at the Feds.
Tarp was small potatoes.
It just got the most attention.
mike
here's a pretty good summary of the bailouts of the banks.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/28/1040502/-Bushs-and-Obamas-Fed-Covered-Up-Bank-Insolvencies-Everybody-lied-like-crazy?via=siderec
Mike-
I don't think that was me. I personally think the Fed saved the banks in 2008 and that if the banking system failed our entire country would have fallen into something worse than the great depression.
I have said that the government didn't lose money on the TARP lending to banks. I also have said that the banks are in dramatically better shape than they were in 2008. In general I am a big supporter of the government having saved the system
Mike-
I should also comment I agree that the average Joe has a lot of issues, but crushing the banks will make it a lot worse not a lot better. I think the banks should be regulated better, but forcing them all to shrink and stop making monkey will just mean fewer loans to consumers and businesses.
The CS numbers came out and we have another downward revision for the previous month and an increase for the current month. It looks like prices continue to be roughly flat though over the last year.
HB
we are 4 years into a fairly dramatic financial crisis with no sign of resolution.
Had the smash hit the wall and the feds came in hired people
and let millions declare bankruptcy, it would have been simple.
There are tens of millions of functionally bankrupt people who are being bled to death by the bloodsuckers, why not let them
write off all this bad paper,
and clean up the banks by rechartering them.
I will note Iceland did exactly this and is doing well now.
Pat-
First Iceland, is doing okay not well. They still have very high levels of unemployment and a weak economy.
Also the main way that they were able to start to heal their economy is by massively devaluing their currency (it fell by 50%) and increasing exports. Seeing that exports are zero sum this means that it happened at the expense of other countries. Iceland is tiny so this is not a big deal. On the other hand the US is a quarter of the world economy there is no way it wouldn't have massive global repercussions if we tried to devalue our currency.
Also most of the money people in Iceland owed in Iceland was to foreign people to going bankrupt hurt other countries not Iceland. This is also not the case in the US so it really is not very comparable.
Personally I think we would be much better off increasing inflation and doing more fiscal stimulus.
HB Says
"First Iceland, is doing okay not well. They still have very high levels of unemployment and a weak economy.
Also the main way that they were able to start to heal their economy is by massively devaluing their currency (it fell by 50%) and increasing exports. Seeing that exports are zero sum this means that it happened at the expense of other countries."
as opposed to the high unemployment here and the economic weakness?
The Vikings kept their governmental balance sheet sound, and let the banks float away on a ice floe.
If we had put all the wall street types on barges and let them sink in NY Harbor we would be way better off
Post a Comment