I bought a house that sat on a double lot. I built on that extra lot. Sold what I built for more than it cost to build. Got a check which I take to the bank and exchange for cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Printable View
I bought a house that sat on a double lot. I built on that extra lot. Sold what I built for more than it cost to build. Got a check which I take to the bank and exchange for cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
That's not cashing out as most understand it. It's successful and profitable real estate development. Cashing out is sucking the equity out of your assets by refinancing.
No, cashing out means converting an asset to cash. Usually by selling it. i.e. I am cashing out of my hookers and blow business. Or Michael Jackson cashed out his music library. You are kind of right, people do call it a "Cash out refinance". But getting a loan and dooming society is not the only way to cash out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
And benny, I am not trying to rub it in your face. I admit, what I do is not what your typical homeowner does and I agree that people have used their equity irresponsibly. But I also have experienced this "crash" from both the buyers side and the sellers side on a daily basis. And all I am saying is that things are not as bad as you think and I think you are making a mistake by waiting for the bottom to fall out. Remember pigs get slaughtered.
Hey, we were talking about this last night at work. Did he sell the Beatles catalog?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsquared
Unless you're living in Charlotte, I don't know how you can look at that chart above, or read the financial page, and say that. We are in the middle of a financial panic right now. Fortunes are being lost, and hardly any are being made.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsquared
Great site. Haven't seen anything that neighborhood specific before. I'm in West Wash Park and the numbers are inline with what I have seen around here over the past year. Though I think most of the boost was due to the light rail. The thing that is killing me about Wash Park is that they are tearing down single family homes and putting in duplexes all over the place (at least for blocks zoned R2). It's increasing density and I don't think it's good in the long run, even when they are selling for $650k-1M. We are planning to either add a 2nd story or move this summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsquared
I'd just like to remind the assembled that MOST (if not all) of these reports on "price increase/decrease" or "home value increase/decrease" are BASED ON USING AN AVERAGE OR MEDIAN SOLD PRICE and not really even close to a scientific measurement. I would advise you are ESPECIALLY careful with newspaper media figures... There are times these averages and medians are good representations of the market, and times when they are dramatically inaccurate.
Here's why... The market has trends in which one portion or the other of the price spectrum has more or less activity. The expensive side tends to be smaller in volume and somewhat more reactionary in my experience - sometimes the expensive homes are selling briskly, other times few are moving. As a result, any calculation using the simple average or median sales price across the entire spectrum of values can be dramatically affected when there is a big change in the number of these sales. If number of sales above say... the 75 percentile fall by say... 50% between two measuring periods, it will appear as if the average or median sales price has taken a dive, when in reality no such decrease may have happened. The reverse, a significant increase in sales in the more expensive homes, is also often reported as a large property value increase when it is substantially due to just more of the higher priced homes selling. This often occurs when an area with historically smaller homes, has a building boom of larger more expensive homes... the media report it using phrases like "prices jump by 35% in (so and so area)", when values are likely more moderately increasing in single digits.
This comparison of value changes BETWEEN areas, especially when they have different types of average prices, can be basically useless using these (often mislabeled) averages or medians. Especially since one report might be using one method, and others are using a different one. I've tried to envision a more accurate calculation method for increases/decreases. Some appraisal studies have used the sale of the same home method, but there are often too few of those to be helpful. The best I've been able to envision is one that uses the "sold price per square foot" of identical home types (1 stories only, 2 stories only, etc) within a set price range ($200K to $500K etc)... This would remove the errors from commingling expensive and cheap homes, and from simple variance in home type/age/sizes of homes. Is a bitch to get the data and do the numbers in the dozens of communities in each metro area though... For example we have more than 74 municipalities within about 45 minute drive from downtown Milwaukee.
In my experience very few real estate companies or agents do much to try and expand the bounds of the way real estate data is reported... It can be quite difficult to do, but the results can be very, very helpful to understand a market. Here is an example of one of several dozen different graphics I create for my personal web site. (I update the data/charts every other year or so since it is so labor intensive... this last updated a year ago)
http://www.timvw.com/maps/all1aaaa.gif
What is it that you don't like about increased density?Quote:
Originally Posted by ColMan
Just curious as I see increased density (not high rises, but duplexes and such) as a pretty responsible form of development. Seems like it can still keep the relaxed vibe but allow more people to live in a good urban neighborhood.
Yeah. this is why some, if not many cities, will do well in the coming energy crunch. Ain't nothing more irresponsible than living in a Macmansion and driving 4 cars to distant jobs or shopping when it comes to energy use. An apartment building close to a subway, bus, or light rail is a much wiser choice. Like NYC.Quote:
Originally Posted by mitch buchannon
I guess it's not the increased density that I have a huge problem with but rather the architecture of the new construction. For instance, there is a triplex going in a block up from me (tore down two homes on double lots) that is super modern, 3 stories per unit (towers above everything), and right next to small 1-story English Tudors built back in the 20's. While some have been built to blend in with the existing homes, a majority of these things are an eyesore. I would rather Wash Park not turn into another Cherry Creek.
for very micro level data, i agree with you, its very hard to come by. on a larger scale though, the two main measures for regional and national homeprices, the ofheo and case-shiller utilize the sales of same homes to get around the problem of medians and means you are talking about. this approach tends to show extra appreciation over time as owners put in enhancements to the same home, making it look like prices are rising even though what is selling is a little better than the original home. i am not sure if or how they adjust for this in the measures. these measures of course have their own issues like i mentioned above.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
As a duplex owner as of Monday, its a great option for those not wanting the upkeep of a older single family home, nor able to afford one of the new single family homes in that neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColMan
CONGRATS again on that!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Housing prices in Weber county (Ogden) are up 20% over this time last year.
Timvw, I was gonna say the same thing you did with the caveat that Koko wrote below. Newspapers here use median which is very easily distorted. Its an interesting world out there.
Prices, going by the median, are still up in my area, but anecdotally they are down a bit from the peak and probably mostly leveled off. I also don't think the pain has migrated this far west (LA) so it is likely that it is coming this way, but who knows. You look at the Case shiller and one would probably think that the sky is falling in LA, but it completely depends on the submarket currently. I'm a pessimist in the short term, so haven't drank the kool aid, but the data just doesn't show much of a drop in prices on the west side of LA. Definitely a drop in volume, which typically fortells a drop in prices, but we also have low inventory which is also counter to what is going on in the rest of the county and country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokomas
Thanks, Tim. It isn't done until we close, but its getting close. The builder/developer has been incredible to work with. They are, however, trying to stick me with their cost overages for lighting when that was included as a fixture in the purchase contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
I won't let it kill the deal, but I refuse to be nickle and dimed by them.
I understand. For me, the ones that don't fit in with the area (i.e. the 4,200 sq/ft per unit triplex that I mentioned in my previous post) is what really pisses me off. There is no need to put up nearly 13,000 sq/ft of living space on a small footprint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Also, congrats and welcome to the neighborhood!
I agree with that. There is a triplex on the 1800 block of Sherman that was just poorly conceived. They absolutely ruined the opportunity they had to put up a well designed duplex on a corner lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColMan
Our duplex fits in well with the changes happening in the 'hood. Incidentally, the developer of our property also developed the property next door as well as one on Washington and another on Pennsylvania. The floor plan is great, with no wasted and nothing but good, practical, and useable space. Plus, there is minimal lawn for upkeep, but a nice patio in the back for privacy.
Well, I guess the line in the sand has been drawn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us...mccain.html?hp
Drawing a sharp distinction with the Democratic presidential candidates, Senator John McCain, warned on Tuesday against hasty government action to solve the mortgage crisis, saying “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”
In an address focusing on domestic issues following his stops in the Middle East, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, did not propose any government bailout.
“Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy,” said Mr. McCain, spoke before a business group in Santa Ana, Calif.
His comments came a day after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called for aggressive federal intervention to help troubled homeowners, including directing $30 billion to states to help homeowners at risk of foreclosure. Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama, has similarly called for active federal intervention, including a $10 billion relief package to prevent foreclosures.
Well... If you would have had an "attorney" review the contract you might not have had this issue? :fmicon:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Sorry, sometimes just can't help myself. In my experience here in our market, the lighting and flooring are usually done as "allowances" and depending on buyers choices, they could owe more (or expect a refund - not often happens). Must not have been the case there?
Well, that is part of the problem. The contract states that it is included as a fixture in the house, but they let us pick the lighting giving us "x" as the budgeted amount (nothing in writing).Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
What ended up happening is that we picked some things, the developer picked others, our selections not blowing the allowance, but theirs being the source of the overage. Plus, they think we should cover the sales tax of the total cost of the lighting.
The thing is that the unit next door (which isn't sold yet) has nearly the same exact lights (except for a ceiling fan in the master bedroom, which I've said I'd pay for) and they won't be stuck paying the overages because it will come included with the contract price of the house.
We'll work something out. I'd expect them to at least cover half the cost of the overage (only a few hundred bucks)
I'd guess this approach will work fine... They have incentive to keep you happy as well as close the deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Enjoy the new place!!! When is the first party?
I think I know the one you are talking about as my sister-in-law lives on the 1900 block of S Sherman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Sounds like a nice pad. Guessing that the addition of a dog is next?
You should just walk by that place on Sherman. The living room is entirely useless and you'd have to be totally fucking nuts to buy the center unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColMan
The only thing good about it is that the side units have ridiculously awesome rooftop decks with mountain views.
No dog anytime soon. The future-Mrs.Rontele has severe allergies.
And you're a toolbox -- but after all, you did invent the London Broil, and I respect that :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Thanks for the recommendation: I'll pick it up.
Its a $$$$$ book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
When I see data reporting the median from the major metropolitan areas, I always think of how cities are broken down into very different neighborhoods. Take SF for example. Data for SF usually includes the SF Bay Area....which geographically is very diverse. SF proper, has so many different neighborhoods, that they act as separate cities themselves. So, I wouldn't take the median to mean much in places like SF. Look for the EXACT neighborhood and find out how much stuff has been selling.
EX. In our neighborhood (North Beach) a guy sold his brand new (2006-7 constructed) 2 BDR condo for approx $950K, paid approx $850K. Mind you, his place also went on the market a couple weeks AFTER all the subprime shit went down. Its a matter of supply and demand. Looking around our place its all 1906 Victorian style buildings. To be in a new building, is some nice security for the future.
Another person just listed 1,000 sq/ft, 1 BDR unit for $850K last week. I think this one should be a better indicator on the current market. I'll let you guys know what happens.
At the end of the day, the old rule of thumb seems to work...location, location, location. :)
You mean the three houses that were bought by the Utah Real Estate association?Quote:
Originally Posted by flykdog
Spats, I was with you for a bit, but then you said…
Quote:
The reason they can do this is because people don't understand money. Hint: if you didn't vote for Ron Paul, you don't either.
For the majority of the state your sentiment is correct (so many inflated numbers), but Ogden actually went up in value and volume last year. Granted, the volume was only up by a few houses, but still pretty unbelievable given the current mess. Most of the rest of the state claimed that prices went up too.... meanwhile their volume went to absolute shit. Even in Ogden things are slower this year. More homes sitting on the market much longer. You better better price it well if you want to unload it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DisArray
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/bu...nted=1&_r=1&hp
Equity Loans as Next Round in Credit Crisis
"The result is a nation that only half-owns its homes. While homeownership climbed to record heights in recent years, home equity — the value of the properties minus the mortgages against them — has fallen below 50 percent for the first time, according to the Federal Reserve."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...AN_GRAPHIC.jpg
My mortgage guy told me 2 months ago second loans are on there way out becuase with all the defaulting going on, the 2nd place loans were getting shafted. Makes sense, but still sucks.
I don't quite know what to make of that statistic. If there are two houses and one is owned free and clear and the other one was just bought with an 80/20 then there is only 50% equity in those two houses. I don't know if that makes any statement about the fitness of the the market in one way or another.
Article from this mornings paper: City Condo Prices: Sky's the limit!!
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8709780
However, anybody who spends $700/ft to live in a condo obviously has more money than sense.
Banks have come to the horrible realization that a lot of borrowers have realized they can default on a second lien without risking foreclosure.
I just read that article too. I don't get living right in downtown, but that is just me. Where do you grocery shop?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsquared
If I had to hear one more time that the Glass House is THE place to live, I was going to puke.
I'm happy I had to pay less than $200/ft
There is something to be said for being able to walk to work, movies, coors field dinner, bars, etc etc while still having a car to access the mountains and yes you pay more for that. As they continue to build out more residential in downtown and get rid of those surface parking lots you are going to see alot more restaurants, grocery stores, dry cleaners etc etc and you will end up with a much more vibrant city that doesn't shut down at 6pm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
*I did buy a new condo downtown recently but not in glass house
I agree with what Cubuck said. Living downtown isn't for everybody. But being able to walk downtown and to movie theatres, bars, restaurants is where it is at. I live just west of Riverfront park at the top of that hill and have been watching the development for quite a while. And part of why I bought where and when I did. Although not really my style either, it is going to be huge. Right at the central hub of all the transportation and within walking distance of everything. Lots of retail and other shops are going to go in. They are going to be building a grocery store in the near future and right now there is a vitamin cottage at 15th and platte which gets lots of business. I hope they get every dollar they are asking for. Because if they start getting 700/ft plus HOA fees of $2-3/ft/year I got a place just up the hill that has a large yard and a oversized 3 car garage that I'll let go for 750k ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
When gas prices double, and then double again, living within walking distance of all that stuff is going to be the place to be. And it is kind of a perfect storm for them right now. Baby boomers who are downsizing and young dinks like yourself are all competing for the same properties right now and have the greatest amount of disposable income.
I have read more than once that this time the high end market is holding up value/percentage wise better than the starter home market. Reason is, starter homes over the last 4-5 years were bought with little to no money down. A $1M+ home likely had at least 20% down on average. Which deal is easier to walk from and who has more dough to sit out a declining market? Not to mention it is the little guys that normally had to buy over their heads just to get into the great investment known as real estate. Now the market is correcting, everything costs more due to inflation, they are not getting raises to keep up with their monthly expenses, when they bought the home they did a Stated Income loan (because they didn't really qualify) and now they can't refi because Stated loans are history for the most part and they still don't qualify for a full doc loan. Lucky the index most of these loans are tied to has come way down in the last 6 months, or the average loan would be adjusting to 7.50%+ rather than 5.50% now.Quote:
Originally Posted by skier666
Lots of people painted themselves into a corner over the last 5 years and if you have the cash, you may be able to pick up some good values for a long term hold in the next year.
Don't get me wrong, I love downtown Denver and my hope is what CUBUCK said: that the surface parking lots will disappear giving way to more buildings, with better restaurants, etc. Everyone who lives in the City and county benefits from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsquared
But I just don't see you getting TONS of value currently downtown. Our place isn't cheap, but for the same price downtown we would have probably only gotten something half the size.
And admittedly, I live a stones throw from two different light rail station, which negates the walking advantages to some extent.
Yea, I understand what you are saying. But I think the idea is that instead of downtown being a place you visit, it is a place you live. And sure your place would be half the size, but just think. You could have gotten some place twice the size of the place you are buying if you bought in westminster or parker. But you wouldn't do that because who wants to live way the fuck out there and be surrounded by strip malls and be hobbled by having to drive everywhere? The value will get there. It is going be less about square footage and more about amenities. If I was a single guy in my 20's I would be looking at the glass house right now. I would get a puppy and be up to my armpits in nubile easily impressed females with belly rings. But as a married guy in my 30's I think more about taxes, CD ladders and health insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele