beethovengirl said:NorCalSci said:Great post beethovengirl! You are so good at reading beyond headlines and having a more comprehensive understanding of the market.

I really appreciate your ability to read the data, bad or good, and at least be objective about it. That is truly refreshing.
Thank you! Unfortunately, my "objectivity" about stats makes me sad about the value of my own home. As some may recall, I bought a townhouse 9 months ago [went under contract 11 months ago]. The last comparable sale 2 weeks ago was for what I paid, and there are no comparables on the market currently. I was nervous about buying, but my husband wanted to buy, and the rent:mortgage payment ratio was neutral regarding whether to buy or rent [hence, prices have stagnated in my development, which is what I expected]. However, I did not anticipate the scope and depth of the problems in the national mortgage market, which will probably negatively impact my home's value, even if the ratio between rents and mortgage payments favors buying in my area. However, the worst aspect for me is that I hate my new home, and I feel trapped.

beethovengirl- I am sorry to hear about your feeling regarding your new home. I hope it isn't causing marital strife too. Hang in there, values will rebound over time. And there are always options, such as renting it out. Not exactly sure where the hared for your home stems from, but it might be worth exploring with a therapist. They can be helpful in uncovering hidden or symbolic meanings.

Dealguy123 said:cameron2003 said:I am reporting on my neighborhood's activities. Its one of the values of having a forum with people form across the country. But that is such an obvious observation, only a troll would need that explained. I am taking another vacation from this stupid thread.

And who says we care about your neighborhood's activities?? Someone says "SF prices are falling" and every time you jump in "but the house down the street in this specific neighborhood which has a nice tree in the yard by the culdesac is selling for more than last yr! Yeah! All those other neighborhoods that everyone else considers the Bay area aren't the 'true bay area,'" lol Be gone with your useless anecdotal evidence. Based off of how much red you get I don't think you'll be missed. Don't forget to give norcalsci a pat on the butt before you leave, as he enjoys that kind of activity from fellow males! ROFLYou have really reached a new low.

Red to all three of you for aruging like kids on a forum. Please take it to PM so that we can (try to) keep this post informative. On to some news...

"Tuesday April 22, 4:26 pm ET
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer

Sales of existing homes fell in March, the seventh drop in the past eight months, as the spring sales season got off to a rocky start.
The median price of a home was down compared with a year ago, and some economists predicted home prices could keep falling for many more months given all of the troubles weighing on housing, from a severe credit crunch to a rising tide of foreclosures.
The National Association of Realtors reported Tuesday that sales of existing single-family homes and condominiums dropped by 2 percent in March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.93 million units.
The median price of a home sold last month was $200,700, a decline of 7.7 percent from a year ago and the seventh consecutive year-over-year price drop. It was also the second biggest decline following a record 8.4 percent drop in February. These records go back to 1999.

Patrick Newport, an economist with Global Insight, said he believed existing home sales would keep declining for another six months with home prices falling well into 2009 given all the headwinds facing the housing market from tight credit to rising job losses and sinking consumer sentiment.

"All this adds up to another dismal house-selling season," Newport said."

This pretty much is just confirmation of what most of us already know. Home sales are slow, and will continue to be so for the time being.

Dealguy123 said:beethovengirl said:The most telling number to look at is actually the number of months of inventory. The national inventory levels are at a 9.9 month supply, a slight increase over last month but down from a peak of 10.5 in October 2007. A balanced/healthy market is at a 6 month supply, so we've got a ways to go. [In my town, there is a 6-7 month supply]

Ya I very much agree.. Question for you, do you know where to find more of those pdf's?
No, but since I downloaded that data from NAR before, I have the stats going back to July 2005. If you want a copy, feel free to PM me with your email address.

Best of luck with your place beethovengirl. If I recall you were in Chicago and prices weren't as crazy there when you bought.
Thanks! yeah, I live in a suburb of Chicago with one of the lowest inventory levels in the area, and I "only" paid 3% more than the original 2003 price, but I can't deny my impending sense of doom.

beethovengirl said:Thanks! yeah, I live in a suburb of Chicago with one of the lowest inventory levels in the area, and I "only" paid 3% more than the original 2003 price, but I can't deny my impending sense of doom.

You know the one big advantage now is you have the upper-hand now going forward in financial decisions! You have the "I told you so" at all times in your back pocket. It seems difficult at times trying to stay rational in certain decisions especially with a spouse or S.O.. I know a few people who are/were looking to buy and it's often the case where usually the wife or husband was pushing to buy a place because "prices won't go down much further." It can be a bit of a struggle at times but it also depends on the circumstances.

Sent you a pm, thanks!

Makaira said:beethovengirl said:I certainly agree that the data is ugly. The most telling number to look at is actually the number of months of inventory. The national inventory levels are at a 9.9 month supply, a slight increase over last month but down from a peak of 10.5 in October 2007. A balanced/healthy market is at a 6 month supply, so we've got a ways to go. [In my town, there is a 6-7 month supply]
This is a really good point. Number of sales in the month is just one figure that by itself is fairly meaningless. It's an amalgam of market health and "quality" of sales. Forced sales like foreclosures and REOs are "low quality" - just because you have a bunch of these doesn't mean the market is improving. It needs to be compared to the number of new listings for the month.
ITA. Actually, to me, the scariest piece of data in the MarketWatch article that Dealguy posted was this quote from the NAR's chief economist:
"Inventories have been boosted by foreclosures, Yun said. Currently, 18% of homes for sale listed on the multiple-listing service have negative equity at the asking price, indicating either a short-sale or a foreclosure, he said."

Dealguy123 said:Ya, adding to that point beethovengirl, we have foreclosure NOD's (notice of default) going out in record numbers this past quarter for California.

Jump in Foreclosure Activity in CA

Article said:Lending institutions sent homeowners 113,676 default notices during the January-to-March period...

...To put things in perspective, it looks like we almost had an equal number of sales for CA in Q1 and NOD's going out for CA for Q1. If anyone has the actual sales numbers for CA that would make it clear.
On the right hand side of the article you posted, there are links to that data:
"A total of 24,565 new and resale houses and condos were sold statewide last month. That makes it the slowest March in DataQuick's records, which go back to 1988. Sales were up 19.8 percent from 20,513 in February and down 38.3 percent from 39,811 for March last year."

"A total of 19,145 new and resale houses and condos were sold statewide [in January 2008]. That's the lowest number for any month in DataQuick's records, which go back to 1988."

So, there were more default notices than sales. wow.

Also, a third of sales in CA were foreclosures.

michal1980 said:While the overall realestate market is down. To worry about home sales in CA when you are in chicago. Is kind of like claiming you feel the earthquakes then have when your 2000+ miles away.

While the market is soft overall, what happened in certain states like CA cannot be directly compared to the market in Chicago.

If I lived in chicago, i'd worry more about the mayor and county, bending me over, and shaking out every dollar I earned, by raising every fee and tax.Good thing our economy isn't interconnected. Like, a local city government who decides that it's a good idea to take the city's reserves and invest them in...oh, say...mortgage backed securities.

That would never make your local taxes rise.

Or, a credit crunch that causes a commodities bubble, which causes your city to have to pay $3.50/gallon for gas, or $400/ton for liquid asphalt.

angryrenters

ifyouhavetoask said:michal1980 said:While the overall realestate market is down. To worry about home sales in CA when you are in chicago. Is kind of like claiming you feel the earthquakes then have when your 2000+ miles away.

While the market is soft overall, what happened in certain states like CA cannot be directly compared to the market in Chicago.

If I lived in chicago, i'd worry more about the mayor and county, bending me over, and shaking out every dollar I earned, by raising every fee and tax.Good thing our economy isn't interconnected. Like, a local city government who decides that it's a good idea to take the city's reserves and invest them in...oh, say...mortgage backed securities.

That would never make your local taxes rise.

Or, a credit crunch that causes a commodities bubble, which causes your city to have to pay $3.50/gallon for gas, or $400/ton for liquid asphalt.

i never said it wasn't interconnected. and now we are expanding housing to be the cause of every problem?

But at the same time, a downfall/crash of the CA market does not mean the chicago market is crashing as well.

if so then chicago would have seen the 20%+ yoy inscreases in value as well.