Randy_H's Discussions

>>Truth is a healthy appreciation is only 5-6% a year.<<Hmmm. I'm a lookin at data for Sonoma County going back 22 years right now, at this very moment. Real data, sales pulled from tax records.Care to site your sources? What I'm seeing shows just shy of 3%, with 11 years of NEGATIVE returns between 1986 and 1997.It's only 3% because of those two stupid 42% and 53% years. Uh, maybe those weren't real?

'haps someday we can help Carrie R learn the difference between "righteousness" and "self righteousness". If you're going to try to chuck around insults, first make sure you're not accidentally complimenting instead. But no, I'm not very righteous either. I skipped CCD all the time in my youth.

Sandy's a lost cause. I'll summarize her arguments:* I contradict myself, even within the same paragraph, and if you point that out to me it's because I have more experience than everyone else.* Because I saw one fixer upper gain during the 11 year downturn in the CA 80s/90s downturn, all of DataQuick is wrong. That's because I have more experience than everyone else.* It's always a good time to buy, but timing is everything. That's because I have more experience than everyone else.* I have three, wait four, wait five houses. You don't. That's because I have more experience than you.* Everyone keeps telling me I might want to revisit my original statement, including a number of other realtors who've been in the business longer than me, but they're wrong. That's because I have more experience than you.What was fun has turned pathetic. Good luck, Sandy. You might try looking up a little data on Sonoma real estate before you go buy any more houses. Oh, and I never said I wasn't here. I've been here for a very long time now. But you know better than me, I suppose, because you have more experience than me.

A little house in Redwood City:1989: $405K1996: $355K2002: $700K2004: $1,150K2006: $1,289KWhat do you think happened to it? Selling every two years, imagine that. So, do you think in 2008 it will sell for $1.4mm?? Quiz: how much income should someone make to afford a $1.2mm house, and is that typical income anywhere in Redwood City?Hint: Propertyshark shows that 2004 and 2006 buyers had effectively zero-down.

Bottoms will be very regional. There won't be a national bottom. Some markets have already bottomed. Others, like the SF Bay Area, will be stubborn until at least next Spring, and then it's anyone's guess how long. 1989-2006 for the last round here to bottom. By that measure, we're talking a long haul.I tend to agree with some that it will be faster, though. But not by much. The doomsday scenarios won't come to pass because there will be too much government monkeying around in the markets, slowing the correction down.I predict one thing: by the end, everyone will be begging the government to just leave it alone so we can get over with it already.

Every time we've purchased a home we use a real estate attorney. In California realtors, mortgage brokers and everyone else on the stage will whine and moan about it. "You don't need a lawyer in California" they say.Every time my lawyer has found material errors in the mortgage documents, and once in the hand scrawled purchase contract addendum. The peace of mind is worth every dollar, especially given the massive sized commitment you're making.

>>The day, as in the exact day is... the day you stop caring about the bottom of the market and you decide you are ready to live in a place for 5-10+ years and enjoy life."<<If you'd said that in 1989, bought somewhere like Redwood City, CA, then sold in 1996 (to me), you'd have LOST quite a bit. How do I know? Because the couple I bought from in 1996 lost around 10% -- much much more if you care about inflation.When you buy *does* matter. Not during normal markets. But during Tulip Manias, it absolutely matters.

Because only fools make discrete predictions. If I really knew, I wouldn't tell you and I'd go make a bunch of money.

>>Unless you can't comprehend what the OP wrote.<<I'm sorry, are we following Roberts Rules of Order now? Silly me, I thought this was a discussion board. Perhaps you could respect my opinion isn't just pulled out of my ass, but perhaps is the product of a wee bit of deduction and reasoning. Heaven forfend.But you have the floor now, good sir.

>>How would young adults living in that area ever be able to afford a starter home?<<They can't, and haven't been able to for over half a decade now. Only those naive enough to get pushed into some 3% down at 12x their income (because they were told to just put down some other number on their stated income loan) were able to "afford" a home. Oh, and those with rich relatives. We have an added bonus here in California no one much talks about: Prop 13 legacy transfers. When mummy buys a home for daughter and son in law, often they're able to take that $1.8mm McMansion and transfer late grampa's tax basis, therefore resulting in a taxable base often 1/12 that of their neighbors (the kids who bought in with the suicide loan).