REOs Leased by Bank Considered Shadow Inventory?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="Geotpf" date=1253251608]Inventory is extremely low today. Prices are stable (check Redfin's price per sq ft graphs for proof). Demand is very elastic; people are very price sensititve. Supply of non-REOs is very elastic as well-the first sign of a price recovery will cause more standard sales as people who normally would sell have been holding off. The combination will kill the recovery, keeping prices stable. But since supply is so below demand, additional units (at reasonable prices) will be easily snatched up. Prices aren't going to fall much if many houses for sale get 30 offers. Now, if there's really a huge flood of foreclosures for sale all at once, that would drive down prices further. But currently, inventory is going down, not up; there's absolutely no indication of such a huge flood coming on the market. That is, there are very few non-distressed sellers, so the prices that REOs are at is the market. There's currently a shortage of said REOs, so adding more won't cause prices to rise, but until there isn't a shortage, prices won't fall either. If prices show signs of rising, even more standard sales will come on the market, plus many buyers will drop out, lowering prices back down.



All signs seem to point to stable prices, IMHO.</blockquote>


Your entire post reads like an "if-than-else" statement and you take both side of every possibility. Your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's but I don;t see anything to support your views. Do you have any evidence supporting your supposition other than redfin's $/sqft chart?
 
[quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1253253041][quote author="Geotpf" date=1253251608][quote author="Nude" date=1253245425][quote author="Minimorty" date=1253244490]I wish we had someone knowledgeable (with supporting evidence) to argue the other side of the bear mentality. It would be more interesting to have both sides presented with good data behind each argument.</blockquote>


If there were "good data" for the bull argument, people wouldn't have to strain, twist, obfuscate, or deny the facts in the bear argument as it would be obvious. The lack of a coherent argument on the other side isn't due to lack of desire, it's due to a complete lack of ability to produce supporting evidence. You have to be willfully ignorant to assume prices are going up.



Note that I am not saying not to buy a home. I own one and we are above water by a large margin, however the price trend is down and it appears to be continuing for the foreseeable future. If you find a place you like at a price you can afford, this may be the time to buy it but you <strong>might</strong> get it cheaper or at the same price 2-3 years from now, too.



(Edited for syntax, spelling, and tense errors... where is my coffee?)</blockquote>


What about the argument about splitting the middle? That is, my personal opinion is prices will not rise or fall significantly for years. That's not bearish or bullish-I'm splitting the difference.



Inventory is extremely low today. Prices are stable (check Redfin's price per sq ft graphs for proof). Demand is very elastic; people are very price sensititve. Supply of non-REOs is very elastic as well-the first sign of a price recovery will cause more standard sales as people who normally would sell have been holding off. The combination will kill the recovery, keeping prices stable. But since supply is so below demand, additional units (at reasonable prices) will be easily snatched up. Prices aren't going to fall much if many houses for sale get 30 offers. Now, if there's really a huge flood of foreclosures for sale all at once, that would drive down prices further. But currently, inventory is going down, not up; there's absolutely no indication of such a huge flood coming on the market. That is, there are very few non-distressed sellers, so the prices that REOs are at is the market. There's currently a shortage of said REOs, so adding more won't cause prices to rise, but until there isn't a shortage, prices won't fall either. If prices show signs of rising, even more standard sales will come on the market, plus many buyers will drop out, lowering prices back down.



All signs seem to point to stable prices, IMHO.</blockquote>


Except for that 3.5 million homes in some stage of foreclosure.</blockquote>


But there's been lots of houses in some stage of (pre-)foreclosure for quite awhile now. Why haven't they gone to auction yet? There is absolutely no indication that said houses will be offered as REOs all at once, which is what it would take to further lower prices. If they doubled the number for sale, each house would go from having 30 offers on it to 15. That's not going to decrease prices.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253254056][quote author="Geotpf" date=1253251608]Inventory is extremely low today. Prices are stable (check Redfin's price per sq ft graphs for proof). Demand is very elastic; people are very price sensititve. Supply of non-REOs is very elastic as well-the first sign of a price recovery will cause more standard sales as people who normally would sell have been holding off. The combination will kill the recovery, keeping prices stable. But since supply is so below demand, additional units (at reasonable prices) will be easily snatched up. Prices aren't going to fall much if many houses for sale get 30 offers. Now, if there's really a huge flood of foreclosures for sale all at once, that would drive down prices further. But currently, inventory is going down, not up; there's absolutely no indication of such a huge flood coming on the market. That is, there are very few non-distressed sellers, so the prices that REOs are at is the market. There's currently a shortage of said REOs, so adding more won't cause prices to rise, but until there isn't a shortage, prices won't fall either. If prices show signs of rising, even more standard sales will come on the market, plus many buyers will drop out, lowering prices back down.



All signs seem to point to stable prices, IMHO.</blockquote>


Your entire post reads like an "if-than-else" statement and you take both side of every possibility. Your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's but I don;t see anything to support your views. Do you have any evidence supporting your supposition other than redfin's $/sqft chart?</blockquote>
Sorry, but not everybody's opinion is as valid as everyone else's.

Some people's opinion is based on conjecture and wishful thinking.

And some are based on fact, history, evidence.

Some people are wrong a lot.

Others are right more often.

Some opinions are more valuable than others.



Whose opinion is more valuable re. the housing market? IrvineRenter's or Geotpf's?
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1253254350][quote author="Nude" date=1253254056][quote author="Geotpf" date=1253251608]Inventory is extremely low today. Prices are stable (check Redfin's price per sq ft graphs for proof). Demand is very elastic; people are very price sensititve. Supply of non-REOs is very elastic as well-the first sign of a price recovery will cause more standard sales as people who normally would sell have been holding off. The combination will kill the recovery, keeping prices stable. But since supply is so below demand, additional units (at reasonable prices) will be easily snatched up. Prices aren't going to fall much if many houses for sale get 30 offers. Now, if there's really a huge flood of foreclosures for sale all at once, that would drive down prices further. But currently, inventory is going down, not up; there's absolutely no indication of such a huge flood coming on the market. That is, there are very few non-distressed sellers, so the prices that REOs are at is the market. There's currently a shortage of said REOs, so adding more won't cause prices to rise, but until there isn't a shortage, prices won't fall either. If prices show signs of rising, even more standard sales will come on the market, plus many buyers will drop out, lowering prices back down.



All signs seem to point to stable prices, IMHO.</blockquote>


Your entire post reads like an "if-than-else" statement and you take both side of every possibility. Your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's but I don;t see anything to support your views. Do you have any evidence supporting your supposition other than redfin's $/sqft chart?</blockquote>
Sorry, but not everybody's opinion is as valid as everyone else's.

Some people's opinion is based on conjecture and wishful thinking.

And some are based on fact, history, evidence.

Some people are wrong a lot.

Others are right more often.

Some opinions are more valuable than others.



Whose opinion is more valuable re. the housing market? IrvineRenter's or Geotpf's?</blockquote>


My opinion is completely worthless, I agree. I've stated my logic and line of thinking, and others disagree. That's perfectly fine. We'll see in a year or three who is right.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1253254350]Whose opinion is more valuable re. the housing market? IrvineRenter's or Geotpf's?</blockquote>


Valuable... or valid? I would be hard pressed to ignore IR, but that doesn't mean that Geotpf might not have a point.



I am not arguing that "valid" is equal to "well-reasoned", just that I'm not going to dismiss it based on the person presenting it.
 
That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.



This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness, demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling, <strong>absolute </strong>freedom of opinion and sentiment on <strong>all subjects</strong>, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological.



The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people, but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically <strong>inseparable </strong>from it.



John Stuart Mill
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253254605][quote author="awgee" date=1253254350]Whose opinion is more valuable re. the housing market? IrvineRenter's or Geotpf's?</blockquote>


Valuable... or valid? I would be hard pressed to ignore IR, but that doesn't mean that Geotpf might not have a point.



I am not arguing that "valid" is equal to "well-reasoned", just that I'm not going to dismiss it based on the person presenting it.</blockquote>
Point taken.

And when someone keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over, after their reasoning, input, data, and conclusions are shown to be faulty and wrong, their credibility becomes questionable and just their name causes doubt in anything they bring forth. Yes or no?
 
[quote author="Geotpf" date=1253254503]

My opinion is completely worthless, I agree. I've stated my logic and line of thinking, and others disagree. That's perfectly fine. We'll see in a year or three who is right.</blockquote>
Your opinion is not worthless.



In fact, it can be argued that opinions are neither right or wrong (I've seen a zillion forums posts that have discussed this).



How you come about to making your opinion is what matters. And people will agree or disagree. But when you state things as fact (not you specifically... but another recent poster), you should back them up with data in order to give more strength to that assertion.



As for your specific opinion on the current housing market, I can understand your viewpoint... but I still feel that it is not the bottom... from the depths of my being (sorry... NewSkip may be banned... but we can still conjure his ghost).
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1253256094]And when someone keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over, after their reasoning, input, data, and conclusions are shown to be faulty and wrong, their credibility becomes questionable and just their name causes doubt in anything they bring forth. Yes or no?</blockquote>


I think it's safe to say that failure to acknowledge errors in one's reasoning, whatever the cause, would affect one's reputation negatively, yes. There is a difference between being naively ignorant and willfully ignorant, and the latter deserve to be ridiculed if they persist in attempts to spread their willful ignorance publicly.
 
[quote author="SoCal78" date=1253239625][quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1253233483]

It does not say "excluding foreclosures". Maybe you should edit that.</blockquote>


Just f.y.i., Skipper won't be editing anything. He is no longer with us.</blockquote>


Dang. I miss all the action when I'm at work. Is it possible to be both relieved and a little disappointed?
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253257396][quote author="awgee" date=1253256094]And when someone keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over, after their reasoning, input, data, and conclusions are shown to be faulty and wrong, their credibility becomes questionable and just their name causes doubt in anything they bring forth. Yes or no?</blockquote>


I think it's safe to say that failure to acknowledge errors in one's reasoning, whatever the cause, would affect one's reputation negatively, yes. There is a difference between being naively ignorant and willfully ignorant, and the latter deserve to be ridiculed if they persist in attempts to spread their willful ignorance publicly.</blockquote>


Have I mentioned that I'm glad you're back?
 
All I keep reading is, "I'm right and you're wrong," and that bulls don't stick around when challenged... Could it be that they challenge back but it eventually gets to a point about where people on this forum just say "Nope, I'm right and you're wrong." Or even better, they show housing stats, but thoooooose stats are disregarded because they are all from untrustworthy sources. And, what makes them untrustworthy? The fact that they show positive elements... So to say that bulls have no supportive data and just keep repeating themselves is completely naive. All I hear is, "it's not over, too many foreclosures, here comes the wave..." FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS NOW! And not to mention that statement is just packed full of unknown factors to even make it a good argument. Geotpf, I'm glad you're still around, don't start name calling.



Second point: It's pretty undeserved to see NewportSkipper go. Since day 1 he was attacked and called names and he adjusted to the environment by fighting back the same way. All the sudden he's told to stop (by the same person who threw most of the blows in the first place), while still taking abuse from other members who went without even a warning. Granted his random comment towards USC was undeserved and malicious, he didn't deserve to get banned. Just another way to return this forum back to its' one-sided analysis.
 
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1253265159][quote author="Nude" date=1253257396][quote author="awgee" date=1253256094]And when someone keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over, after their reasoning, input, data, and conclusions are shown to be faulty and wrong, their credibility becomes questionable and just their name causes doubt in anything they bring forth. Yes or no?</blockquote>


I think it's safe to say that failure to acknowledge errors in one's reasoning, whatever the cause, would affect one's reputation negatively, yes. There is a difference between being naively ignorant and willfully ignorant, and the latter deserve to be ridiculed if they persist in attempts to spread their willful ignorance publicly.</blockquote>


Have I mentioned that I'm glad you're back?</blockquote>


:kiss:
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1253267233]All I keep reading is, "I'm right and you're wrong," and that bulls don't stick around when challenged... Could it be that they challenge back but it eventually gets to a point about where people on this forum just say "Nope, I'm right and you're wrong." Or even better, they show housing stats, but thoooooose stats are disregarded because they are all from untrustworthy sources. And, what makes them untrustworthy? The fact that they show positive elements... So to say that bulls have no supportive data and just keep repeating themselves is completely naive. All I hear is, "it's not over, too many foreclosures, here comes the wave..." FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS NOW! And not to mention that statement is just packed full of unknown factors to even make it a good argument. Geotpf, I'm glad you're still around, don't start name calling.</blockquote>


You know, if the data really was irrefutable, people like me would have no problem with acknowledging it. I'm not ever going to buy in Irvine, so what happens there as far as prices will not affect me at all. In other words, I am not emotionally invested in being right or wrong. As far as bull vs. bear, I have not seen a convincing argument that prices are stable or rising. I have yet to see any sales data showing prices rising when it is one owner-occupier selling to another owner-occupier, but I have seen hundreds of asking prices below the last recorded sale and closing prices lower than asking. And people were calling a bubble for YEARS before it actually popped, but their bad timing didn't negate the existence of the bubble itself.



<blockquote>Second point: It's pretty undeserved to see NewportSkipper go. Since day 1 he was attacked and called names and he adjusted to the environment by fighting back the same way. All the sudden he's told to stop (by the same person who threw most of the blows in the first place), while still taking abuse from other members who went without even a warning. Granted his random comment towards USC was undeserved and malicious, he didn't deserve to get banned. Just another way to return this forum back to its' one-sided analysis.</blockquote>


Let's review NewportSkipper's first posts here on these forums:



<span style="font-size: 11px;"><blockquote><blockquote>NewportSkipper - 27 August 2009 03:07 PM



I?ve been watching this pissing match for a few weeks now, and I gotta say it?s stupid.</blockquote>


<blockquote>NewportSkipper - 27 August 2009 03:10 PM



I thought you were the braintrust, the way you are idolized here!</blockquote>


<blockquote>NewportSkipper - 27 August 2009 03:46 PM



You don?t have the goods to back up the swagger, bud!</blockquote>


<blockquote>NewportSkipper - 27 August 2009 04:00 PM



I?ve been watching how you treat people (like Robert), so I was expecting that nothing reply of yours. Your ?analysis? was a little short on the ?ysis?. Stop berating people who know as much or more than you do.</blockquote>
<blockquote>

NewportSkipper - 28 August 2009 07:52 AM



No-Vaseline, I wouldn?t say you were a liar, but I would say you are confused. I?d say you are exagerrating.



making friends was the last thing on my mind.



And lastly, the search feature here is worthless. </blockquote>


<blockquote> NewportSkipper - 29 August 2009 07:43 AM



Focus Graphrix, focus!



I?m still waiting to see you prove your brilliance. You can do it!



NewportSkipper - 29 August 2009 08:10 AM



?you?re not disproving this brain-thrust (spelled correctly this time for you) are you now when more and more and more and more and more and more factual data comes out proving you are just full of? well? Kool-Aid filled air. ROFL! Dopes!?

</blockquote>
<blockquote>NewportSkipper - 29 August 2009 07:12 PM



Awgee, it took me one call and 2 minutes to have this emailed to me:



You should pretend to be more humble. Your bad attitude isn?t working for you.

</blockquote>
<blockquote>NewportSkipper - 29 August 2009 07:16 PM



You really don?t have a clue what you are talking about. You should be ashamed of your bad attitude and complete lack of manners.



(After seeing your disgusting comments on Ted Kennedy, I guess this lack of class is your own personal albatross)</blockquote>


<blockquote>NewportSkipper - 29 August 2009 07:36 PM



Graphrix, Graphrix, Graphrix, you did not let me down. That?s one cringe-worthy post you put up there! For real? You sound like a 14 year old with a narcissistic personality disorder. You put me down as not adding value when what I added had three times the sophistication of your hopelessly shallow ?there?s your shadow inventory, bitches? analysis? Are you for real? All you?ve done is prove your complete inability to stay on topic. So, you have a lifetime ?Get out of jail free? card because you saw the bubble? What the hell are you ?right? about anyway? This is a thread that you added no value whatsover to.

</blockquote></span></blockquote>


And this was just the first TWO DAYS of posts.



He was warned more than a a few times... by IrvineRenter himself at least half a dozen times. Three different mods warned him over the span of more than 2 weeks. And still there was no ban despite his lack of change in behavior. He got so belligerent on the main blog today that there really was no other choice.



In other words, he did it to himself.
 
Do I really need to post the comments coming from other people? I hope I don't, I don't want to waste the time and we both know the comments are there. Whatever, whats done is done, and I'm just saying I think it's stupid. I'm not sure what point he was making on the blog, I just read it and I think he was saying there have never been 1000 sales in one month in Irvine.



Did the blog ever come to a conclusion as to how trulia was estimating the sales numbers. Counting the numbers of sales in the previous 90 days, dividing by 3 and then annualizing it? I think it would be pretty interesting to discuss. Not to put down IrvineRenter, because whether he is right or wrong, it's clear he does put a lot of work into his submissions, but because it could be an interesting discussion.



As for the same property comparison... I'm on it.



The Ask v. Bid ratio for Irvine during last August was 98.01%. During the same period in 2005, it was 98.39%
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1253270733]Do I really need to post the comments coming from other people? I hope I don't, I don't want to waste the time and we both know the comments are there. Whatever, whats done is done, and I'm just saying I think it's stupid. I'm not sure what point he was making on the blog, I just read it and I think he was saying there have never been 1000 sales in one month in Irvine.



Did the blog ever come to a conclusion as to how trulia was estimating the sales numbers. Counting the numbers of sales in the previous 90 days, dividing by 3 and then annualizing it? I think it would be pretty interesting to discuss. Not to put down IrvineRenter, because whether he is right or wrong, it's clear he does put a lot of work into his submissions, but because it could be an interesting discussion.



As for the same property comparison... I'm on it.



The Ask v. Bid ratio for Irvine during last August was 98.01%. During the same period in 2005, it was 98.39%</blockquote>


I'm aware of the back and forth, but in his very first post he called people stupid. Regardless of what others were doing, ignored multiple warnings from multiple moderators... who were also warned and mellowed out. But you are ignoring a key point: he was warned for weeks and he simply refused to follow the requests made to change his abrasive nature. How long should the moderators allow people to ignore their requests? And "so, he did it too" isn;t much of a defense.





The Ask v Bid is nice, but it doesn't show a trend unless you include multiple years... and provide a source so it can be independently verified.
 
Bid vs. Ask is not in reference to closed sales Rob. The point was that a whole bunch of asks are never going to hit the bid. These won't ever be recorded as sales. At least not until one of the two figures moves. The assumption is that asks will fall to the bid in a buyers market.
 
[quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1253272503]Bid vs. Ask is not in reference to closed sales Rob. The point was that a whole bunch of asks are never going to hit the bid. These won't ever be recorded as sales. At least not until one of the two figures moves. The assumption is that asks will fall to the bid in a buyers market.</blockquote>


How is that measured? Looking at the average number of days on market?
 
OK, so Skippy was a little annoying, ok, maybe a lot, but I am going to be frank here.... well, y'all know I'm a woman, so I'll be Frankette..... I did see a total double standard in the chastisations. The "in" crowd was able to say things equal or worse insult wise and not get condemned. I agree, his arguments did not make sense and he was a bit rude, but many of you are rude with your snark. If he was banned, then it makes me think that this board is really only for the insiders. Let's face it, the people who are continually shunned go away on their own and don't require banning.



Skipper would have either left on his own or perhaps even managed to tough it out enough to get some acceptance. There are a number of us who had tough inductions, but ultimately have become part of the community. IHO? USC? Heck, I came on here swinging my bear claws, but toughed it out while reading/educating myself. Anyway, the guy wasn't very pleasant, but Winex was worse and he didn't get banned... just left on his accord. I think Skippy should have been given the same opportunity to either learn a little about how to properly debate (and maybe even where this crazy market may lead) or leave on his own accord. If it weren't for so much double standard, I wouldn't have said a word.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1253277501]OK, so Skippy was a little annoying, ok, maybe a lot, but I am going to be frank here.... well, y'all know I'm a woman, so I'll be Frankette..... I did see a total double standard in the chastisations. The "in" crowd was able to say things equal or worse insult wise and not get condemned. I agree, his arguments did not make sense and he was a bit rude, but many of you are rude with your snark. If he was banned, then it makes me think that this board is really only for the insiders. Let's face it, the people who are continually shunned go away on their own and don't require banning.



Skipper would have either left on his own or perhaps even managed to tough it out enough to get some acceptance. There are a number of us who had tough inductions, but ultimately have become part of the community. IHO? USC? Heck, I came on here swinging my bear claws, but toughed it out while reading/educating myself. Anyway, the guy wasn't very pleasant, but Winex was worse and he didn't get banned... just left on his accord. I think Skippy should have been given the same opportunity to either learn a little about how to properly debate (and maybe even where this crazy market may lead) or leave on his own accord. If it weren't for so much double standard, I wouldn't have said a word.</blockquote>


Winex never made up his own datapoints, and then hurl insults your way when you called him on it. No double standard. I couldn't disagree more.



Skippy was trolling from the drop of the hammer and should of been handled accordingly. I hope the admin learned something about trolls. Not handling them as such encourages bad behaivor by otherwise upstanding forum members who either can't help pile on or are "standing up" since the admin can't/wont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top