REOs Leased by Bank Considered Shadow Inventory?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Must you be snide to me in every single post? Who exactly are you to take such liberties? Do you think people respect you for this? You can also call whatever this stuff is "shadow inventory", but the phrase has lost all meaning. The only thing I assume we can definitively exclude from shadow inventory appears to be mausoleums. At some point in time at some price point, 100% of real estate will transact. Try fighting for an analysis that isn't so comical.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252925262]Must you be snide to me in every single post? Who exactly are you to take such liberties? Do you think people respect you for this? You can also call whatever this stuff is "shadow inventory", but the phrase has lost all meaning. The only thing I assume we can definitively exclude from shadow inventory appears to be mausoleums. At some point in time at some price point, <blockquote>100% of real estate will transact</blockquote>. Try fighting for an analysis that isn't so comical.</blockquote>


Your lost in that exact idea.



<blockquote>100% of real estate will transact</blockquote>


What you dont understand. Your not in the game. Your just in the stands watching.

Yes everything will eventually transact. Thats a simple constant. Like Death and Taxes. How profound of you to have this concept.

But having the skills to be on the buy and sell side in a market when prices are collapsing. To be cashing checks on these transactions.



Only the strong survive in this market. People shuffling paper are just noise. It might have been a living in the past. Today its just noise.



Sorry you dont get a joke either. Thin skined ? Thats a tell.



Lighten up man. Your going to have a heart attack with your attitude here if it carries into your real life.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252894264][quote author="graphrix" date=1252891566][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1252886483][quote author="bltserv" date=1252849092]I think the boys went to sleep finally



<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/SkippyRolar.bmp" alt="" /></blockquote>


Says the tool posting at 11:45 pm on a saturday night...



* Don't yell at me for name calling! His avatar is a hammer, a hammer is a tool.</blockquote>


You are pushing it. Do it again, and it will be name calling. Really, you don't want to push me. You won't like it.</blockquote>


Does posting nasty photos not constitute abuse? It's the double-standard that is driving conflict. Would you allow me to post this photo in reference to yourself?</blockquote>


To be honest, if you posted that pic and said that was me and no_vas... I would laughed pretty damn hard. Worst case, I might tell you, you owe me new keyboard, because that would have been the funniest thing you have posted, and I might begin to think you have a sense of humor. I mean, I made you laugh with the crying baby pic. Come on, lighten up and have some fun, just don't name call or put people down in a malicious way.
 
[quote author="Philips21" date=1252938940]I agree with that...Posting of that pictures...It's so really a funny one...Good Day!!





Regards



Albert



_______

Pret immobilier (spam link deleted)</blockquote>


See! Even spammers from the Philippines think the pictures are funny.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252925262]Must you be snide to me in every single post? Who exactly are you to take such liberties? Do you think people respect you for this? You can also call whatever this stuff is "shadow inventory", but the phrase has lost all meaning. The only thing I assume we can definitively exclude from shadow inventory appears to be mausoleums. At some point in time at some price point, 100% of real estate will transact. Try fighting for an analysis that isn't so comical.</blockquote>


<img src="http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mfl/lowres/mfln130l.jpg" alt="" />



I posted three links for you to read that contained data on shadow inventory. You chose one survey out of the three and posted your "opinion" that the survey was slanted.



<blockquote>Wild-ass guesses (based upon national numbers) by Realty Trac and Zillow aren?t as good as the concrete facts already known about Orange County.



?It seems as though some pretty reliable sources with no skin in the game.?

</blockquote>


Then to disprove Zillow you made a <strong>"Wild-ass guess."</strong> (to quote you)about the number of housing units in the US. You guessed there was 100 million housing units. The census burue disagrees though and calls it 129 Million. <strong>You were off by almost thirty million.</strong>



<a href="http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/tables/HU-EST2008-01.xls">This shows 129 million housing units in 2008</a>



Then you said <strong>"I don?t know how may live in owner-occupied properties - let?s call it 65 million"</strong>. So you <strong>made another "wild ass guess"</strong> . Your guess was wrong again because based on my research which took two minutes I actually used google and typed in <blockquote><strong>number of housing units in the us</strong></blockquote> you could get to this site <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/07housing.html">Survey Finds Expansion of Housing in the U.S. </a>

which says



<blockquote><strong>The number of houses, apartments and mobile homes in the nation rose by almost four million from 2005 to 2007, to 128.2 million....Renters occupied 32 percent and owners 68 percent</strong></blockquote>


So if I muliply 128 by 68% I would come up with the number 87.04 Million owner occupied not the 65 Million you <strong>"called it".</strong>



So excuse me if I am snide because you tried to wing it with your numbers to disprove someone elses. Especially if i could come find the correct numbers and do the math in less then 2 minutes.



One last data point I saw no where in the article or the survey where it said "<strong>owner occupied"</strong>... So if an individual owns three properties and wanted to sell them they would not be part of the 87 million but it would count toward shadow inventory.



Do your research at least and don't <strong>"call it"</strong> anything when I made the comment to google the number I really would have thought you would but instead you decide to go down the hostile road.



Oh and I don't understand your comment Zillow and Realty track have no skin in the game. How do Zillow and Realty track produce revenue? Does it benefit them if buyers sit on the sideline waiting for this fake shadow inventory to appear?



I won't buy into your hostility or name calling. I will post funny pictures though because I know you like them
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252966141][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252925262]Must you be snide to me in every single post? Who exactly are you to take such liberties? Do you think people respect you for this? You can also call whatever this stuff is "shadow inventory", but the phrase has lost all meaning. The only thing I assume we can definitively exclude from shadow inventory appears to be mausoleums. At some point in time at some price point, 100% of real estate will transact. Try fighting for an analysis that isn't so comical.</blockquote>


<img src="http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mfl/lowres/mfln130l.jpg" alt="" />



I posted three links for you to read that contained data on shadow inventory. You chose one survey out of the three and posted your "opinion" that the survey was slanted.



<blockquote>Wild-ass guesses (based upon national numbers) by Realty Trac and Zillow aren?t as good as the concrete facts already known about Orange County.



?It seems as though some pretty reliable sources with no skin in the game.?

</blockquote>


Then to disprove Zillow you made a <strong>"Wild-ass guess."</strong> (to quote you)about the number of housing units in the US. You guessed there was 100 million housing units. The census burue disagrees though and calls it 129 Million. <strong>You were off by almost thirty million.</strong>



<a href="http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/tables/HU-EST2008-01.xls">This shows 129 million housing units in 2008</a>



Then you said <strong>"I don?t know how may live in owner-occupied properties - let?s call it 65 million"</strong>. So you <strong>made another "wild ass guess"</strong> . Your guess was wrong again because based on my research which took two minutes I actually used google and typed in <blockquote><strong>number of housing units in the us</strong></blockquote> you could get to this site <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/07housing.html">Survey Finds Expansion of Housing in the U.S. </a>

which says



<blockquote><strong>The number of houses, apartments and mobile homes in the nation rose by almost four million from 2005 to 2007, to 128.2 million....Renters occupied 32 percent and owners 68 percent</strong></blockquote>


So if I muliply 128 by 68% I would come up with the number 87.04 Million owner occupied not the 65 Million you <strong>"called it".</strong>



So excuse me if I am snide because you tried to wing it with your numbers to disprove someone elses. Especially if i could come find the correct numbers and do the math in less then 2 minutes.



One last data point I saw no where in the article or the survey where it said "<strong>owner occupied"</strong>... So if an individual owns three properties and wanted to sell them they would not be part of the 87 million but it would count toward shadow inventory.



Do your research at least and don't <strong>"call it"</strong> anything when I made the comment to google the number I really would have thought you would but instead you decide to go down the hostile road.



Oh and I don't understand your comment Zillow and Realty track have no skin in the game. How do Zillow and Realty track produce revenue? Does it benefit them if buyers sit on the sideline waiting for this fake shadow inventory to appear?



I won't buy into your hostility or name calling. I will post funny pictures though because I know you like them</blockquote>


Can you be more dishonest? Don't make me compile your posting history. And who cares if the stock is 87 million or 65 million? The normal workings of the real estate market aren't "shadow inventory". That's ludicrous. And it's especially ludicrous because the theory is that these sellers will appear when prices are stronger. Good luck with that driving prices down!
 
<blockquote>Can you be more dishonest? Don?t make me compile your posting history. </blockquote>


I really doubt that you will compile my posting history because that would take research. If you did compile my positing history I think you would have a very difficult time proving I am a dishonest person. If I have made an error here or there we are all human. Typically I do some research and try to post links to what I am citing. As I did in this case. As I do in most cases. Like I did when I showed you that you were incorrect about your <strong>"wild ass guess"</strong> that 2/3 of option arms were fixed.



<blockquote>And who cares if the stock is 87 million or 65 million?</blockquote>


You accused Zillow of conducting a slanted survey. I would expect that if you are trying to PROVE the survey is slanted you could use REAL numbers. Not make <strong>"wild ass guesses"</strong> that are 22 million housing units short.



<blockquote>The normal workings of the real estate market aren?t ?shadow inventory?. That?s ludicrous. </blockquote>


Let me point out the obvious for you....The normal workings of the real estate market were thrown out the window when the bubble started inflating. Foreclosures are at historically high levels which is driving prices down.



<blockquote>And it?s especially ludicrous because the theory is that these sellers will appear when prices are stronger. Good luck with that driving prices down! </blockquote>


I am not driving prices down.



Here is another cite for you about what is driving prices down.



<a href="http://www.lpsvcs.com/NewsRoom/Pages/20090903.aspx">LPS Releases Study That Demonstrates Impact of Foreclosure Sales on Home Prices </a>



<blockquote>?REO sales account for as much as 60 percent of housing activity in some states,? said Nima Nattagh, Ph.D., senior vice president, LPS Applied Analytics. ?Our study contains specific data to show this is causing precipitous drops in home values.?...Michigan and Nevada are the highest ranking states in REO sales with more than 60 percent of home sales being REO sales in the first half of 2009. California and Arizona followed with REO sales comprising 50 percent. </blockquote>




<a href="http://www.lpsvcs.com/NewsRoom/IndustryData/Documents/09-2009 HPI/ChangesinHomePrices.pdf">Home Price Changes</a>



Edited to fix broken link



http://www.lpsvcs.com/NewsRoom/IndustryData/Documents/09-2009HPI/ChangesinHomePrices.pdf



Can't fix broken link so you will have to copy and paste.
 
I think it's important for new visitors to be welcomed by the community, but the new posters should try to

observe IHB's norms and culture. For example, funny pictures are welcomed and TRUTH is always respected.

Thus, when I say that Graph's side business is doing well now that he has expanded manufacturing capacity

to include pets, that is not considered an insult.



<img src="http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/tinfoil_hat_cat.jpg" alt="" />
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252971351]<blockquote>Can you be more dishonest? Don?t make me compile your posting history. </blockquote>


I really doubt that you will compile my posting history because that would take research. If you did compile my positing history I think you would have a very difficult time proving I am a dishonest person. If I have made an error here or there we are all human. Typically I do some research and try to post links to what I am citing. As I did in this case. As I do in most cases. Like I did when I showed you that you were incorrect about your <strong>"wild ass guess"</strong> that 2/3 of option arms were fixed.



<blockquote>And who cares if the stock is 87 million or 65 million?</blockquote>


You accused Zillow of conducting a slanted survey. I would expect that if you are trying to PROVE the survey is slanted you could use REAL numbers. Not make <strong>"wild ass guesses"</strong> that are 22 million housing units short.



<blockquote>The normal workings of the real estate market aren?t ?shadow inventory?. That?s ludicrous. </blockquote>


Let me point out the obvious for you....The normal workings of the real estate market were thrown out the window when the bubble started inflating. Foreclosures are at historically high levels which is driving prices down.



<blockquote>And it?s especially ludicrous because the theory is that these sellers will appear when prices are stronger. Good luck with that driving prices down! </blockquote>


I am not driving prices down.



Here is another cite for you about what is driving prices down.



<a href="http://www.lpsvcs.com/NewsRoom/Pages/20090903.aspx">LPS Releases Study That Demonstrates Impact of Foreclosure Sales on Home Prices </a>



<blockquote>?REO sales account for as much as 60 percent of housing activity in some states,? said Nima Nattagh, Ph.D., senior vice president, LPS Applied Analytics. ?Our study contains specific data to show this is causing precipitous drops in home values.?...Michigan and Nevada are the highest ranking states in REO sales with more than 60 percent of home sales being REO sales in the first half of 2009. California and Arizona followed with REO sales comprising 50 percent. </blockquote>




<a href="http://www.lpsvcs.com/NewsRoom/IndustryData/Documents/09-2009 HPI/ChangesinHomePrices.pdf">Home Price Changes</a>



Edited to fix broken link



http://www.lpsvcs.com/NewsRoom/IndustryData/Documents/09-2009HPI/ChangesinHomePrices.pdf



Can't fix broken link so you will have to copy and paste.</blockquote>


Your theory would hold more water if places like Irvine didn't have stable prices despite continuing foreclosures.
 
This mornings Irvine Numbers from Data Quick



92602 $619,500 -1.7% 34 +9.7%

92603 $683,000 -14.4% 28 -6.7%

92604 $475,000 -13.5% 18 -5.3%

92606 $673,000 +13.1% 14 +0.0%

92612 $430,000 -0.6% 31 -3.1%

92614 $559,500 +11.9% 19 +26.7%

92618 $532,500 -1.4% 25 +19.0%

92620 $625,000 +1.0% 54 +17.4%



All OC $420,000 -5.4% 2,985 +6.6%
 
<blockquote>Your theory would hold more water if places like Irvine didn?t have stable prices despite continuing foreclosures.

</blockquote>


That is your entire response? It is not my theory this came from "Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) is a leading provider of integrated technology and services to the mortgage and real estate industries."



This theory is actually from, Nima Nattagh, Ph.D., senior vice president, LPS Applied Analytics. It appears that the Ph.D actually did some research that led to the theory.



If you have data to refute what the Ph.D has stated please show me the data. I would love to see it.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252975325]<blockquote>Your theory would hold more water if places like Irvine didn?t have stable prices despite continuing foreclosures.

</blockquote>


That is your entire response? It is not my theory this came from "Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) is a leading provider of integrated technology and services to the mortgage and real estate industries."



This theory is actually from, Nima Nattagh, Ph.D., senior vice president, LPS Applied Analytics. It appears that the Ph.D actually did some research that led to the theory.



If you have data to refute what the Ph.D has stated please show me the data. I would love to see it.</blockquote>


Are you serious? Do you really, really want me to post real sales data (not median BS, but real sales data)? Be careful what you wish for.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252975569][quote author="trrenter" date=1252975325]<blockquote>Your theory would hold more water if places like Irvine didn?t have stable prices despite continuing foreclosures.

</blockquote>


That is your entire response? It is not my theory this came from "Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) is a leading provider of integrated technology and services to the mortgage and real estate industries."



This theory is actually from, Nima Nattagh, Ph.D., senior vice president, LPS Applied Analytics. It appears that the Ph.D actually did some research that led to the theory.



If you have data to refute what the Ph.D has stated please show me the data. I would love to see it.</blockquote>


Are you serious? Do you really, really want me to post real sales data (not median BS, but real sales data)? Be careful what you wish for.</blockquote>


Sure can you do me a favor and analyze 92603 and 92604.



BLT posted the data quick numbers.



Can you take the 92603 zip code and post the real sales data for all of the 28 transactions.



Then do the same thing for the 18 transactions in 92604.



That would be great to see. Thank you for your generous offer. I think this would really help me. Look forward to seeing the data on these 46 transactions.
 
Here's someplace you might be familiar with, trrenter:



Turtle Rock - Sierra streets 2009 sales:



19491 Sierra Soto Rd? 1,615 $809,250 $501

19511 Sierra Santo Rd? 1,836 $865,000 $471

5421 Sierra Verde Rd? 1,572 $825,000 $525

19262 Sierra Inez Rd? 2,020 $855,000 $423

19451 Sierra Santo Rd? 2,043 $850,000 $416

19442 Sierra Mia Rd? 1,637 $875,000 $535

19481 Sierra Santo Rd? 2,044 $882,500 $432

19422 Sierra Chula Rd? 2,016 $900,000 $446

19141 Sierra Maria? 2,300 $939,900 $409

19531 sierra soto? 2,020 $880,000 $436

6262 Sierra Palos? 2,459 $1,113,000 $453

19125 Sierra Majorca Rd? 3,336 $1,350,000 $405



Average price per square foot = $454





Turtle Rock - Sierra streets 2008 sales:



6302 Sierra Elena Rd? 1,830 $780,000 $426

6161 Sierra Bravo? 1,580 $780,000 $494

5772 Sierra Casa? 1,650 $839,000 $508

5302 Sierra Roja Rd? 1,717 $820,000 $478

19262 Sierra Cadiz Rd? 1,549 $825,000 $533

5841 Sierra Cielo Rd? 2,107 $880,000 $418

6022 Sierra Siena Rd? 2,033 $920,000 $453

19261 Sierra Gerona? 1,717 $979,000 $570

19221 Sierra Gerona Rd? 2,261 $941,500 $416

19532 Sierra Raton Rd? 2,400 $965,000 $402

6141 Sierra Bravo? 3,800 $1,455,000 $383



Average price per square foot = $462
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1252976966][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252975569][quote author="trrenter" date=1252975325]<blockquote>Your theory would hold more water if places like Irvine didn?t have stable prices despite continuing foreclosures.

</blockquote>


That is your entire response? It is not my theory this came from "Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) is a leading provider of integrated technology and services to the mortgage and real estate industries."



This theory is actually from, Nima Nattagh, Ph.D., senior vice president, LPS Applied Analytics. It appears that the Ph.D actually did some research that led to the theory.



If you have data to refute what the Ph.D has stated please show me the data. I would love to see it.</blockquote>


Are you serious? Do you really, really want me to post real sales data (not median BS, but real sales data)? Be careful what you wish for.</blockquote>


Sure can you do me a favor and analyze 92603 and 92604.



BLT posted the data quick numbers.



Can you take the 92603 zip code and post the real sales data for all of the 28 transactions.



Then do the same thing for the 18 transactions in 92604.



That would be great to see. Thank you for your generous offer. I think this would really help me. Look forward to seeing the data on these 46 transactions.</blockquote>


You have me confused with someone who gives a snot what you ask for.
 
You asked me if I really, realy wanted you to post real sales data. I answered that I would and this is how you answer.



You can't even follow through with your threat to provide real sales data.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252977129]Here's someplace you might be familiar with, trrenter:



Turtle Rock - Sierra streets 2009 sales:



19491 Sierra Soto Rd? 1,615 $809,250 $501

19511 Sierra Santo Rd? 1,836 $865,000 $471

5421 Sierra Verde Rd? 1,572 $825,000 $525

19262 Sierra Inez Rd? 2,020 $855,000 $423

19451 Sierra Santo Rd? 2,043 $850,000 $416

19442 Sierra Mia Rd? 1,637 $875,000 $535

19481 Sierra Santo Rd? 2,044 $882,500 $432

19422 Sierra Chula Rd? 2,016 $900,000 $446

19141 Sierra Maria? 2,300 $939,900 $409

19531 sierra soto? 2,020 $880,000 $436

6262 Sierra Palos? 2,459 $1,113,000 $453

19125 Sierra Majorca Rd? 3,336 $1,350,000 $405



Average price per square foot = $454





Turtle Rock - Sierra streets 2008 sales:



6302 Sierra Elena Rd? 1,830 $780,000 $426

6161 Sierra Bravo? 1,580 $780,000 $494

5772 Sierra Casa? 1,650 $839,000 $508

5302 Sierra Roja Rd? 1,717 $820,000 $478

19262 Sierra Cadiz Rd? 1,549 $825,000 $533

5841 Sierra Cielo Rd? 2,107 $880,000 $418

6022 Sierra Siena Rd? 2,033 $920,000 $453

19261 Sierra Gerona? 1,717 $979,000 $570

19221 Sierra Gerona Rd? 2,261 $941,500 $416

19532 Sierra Raton Rd? 2,400 $965,000 $402

6141 Sierra Bravo? 3,800 $1,455,000 $383



Average price per square foot = $462</blockquote>


19501 Sierra Soto 2,500 sqft Asking price 969k - $388 per sq ft. on redfin 129 days

19502 Seirra Soto 2,519 sqft Asking price 975k - $387 per sq ft. on redfin 57 days

6002 Sierra Siena Rd 2516 Asking price $1,069,000 $425 per sq ft on redfin 62 days

1941 Sierra Noche Rd 3216 sqft Asking price 999k $411 per sq ft on redfin 96 days.



You should run out to this neighborhood and let these people know they severly undercutting what todays market will bear.



That idiot on 19501 Sierra Soto should raise his asking price to $501 per sq ft like his neighbor at 19491 got and that should make it sell immediatly. That dope has been on redfin for 129 days because he is priced $113 per sq ft to low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top