I've been traveling so a little late in posting this week.
By now, no doubt you've seen the LA Times article from last Sunday, "House Hunting? It's Not a Buyer's Market Everywhere".
We are known in these parts to bash our colleagues in the real estate transaction business, but here I have to say "kudos" to the RE industry for winding up the marketing/hype machine given the current combination of low rates and RELATIVE low pricing.
Some of my favorite nuggets (sense of bitterness, anyone?) from the article:
"The biggest problem," said agent Phyllis Harb, "is that people are overreacting to housing statistics, thinking they can come in and make an offer 20% below price."
Ummm ... since when is offering a price you think is fair, in a capitalist society, a "problem"?
Or:
Said Slusher, "Nobody wants to be the sucker who paid too much, so they combat that fear by offering unrealistically low amounts. But if you're trying to time the bottom, you're going to end up with junk. It's always the best houses and cheapest houses that sell first."
"Unrealistically low" = "what they can actually afford"?
Look, I'm not saying that some of the outlying areas haven't bottomed, and the affordability index might be making sense there. Nor do I think that higher-end areas will see as much pricing pressure. Also, if you're a buyer who's looking for a home for the next 15+ years and you find a property that you love and the pricing works for you, it certainly doesn't make sense to time the market - as long as you're realistic that if you're forced to sell in the next 5-10 years, you might still be underwater.
For those who can afford to wait it out, unlike the Vegas casinos, where time is the enemy, in markets like WeHo, it's your best friend.
By now, no doubt you've seen the LA Times article from last Sunday, "House Hunting? It's Not a Buyer's Market Everywhere".
We are known in these parts to bash our colleagues in the real estate transaction business, but here I have to say "kudos" to the RE industry for winding up the marketing/hype machine given the current combination of low rates and RELATIVE low pricing.
Some of my favorite nuggets (sense of bitterness, anyone?) from the article:
"The biggest problem," said agent Phyllis Harb, "is that people are overreacting to housing statistics, thinking they can come in and make an offer 20% below price."
Ummm ... since when is offering a price you think is fair, in a capitalist society, a "problem"?
Or:
Said Slusher, "Nobody wants to be the sucker who paid too much, so they combat that fear by offering unrealistically low amounts. But if you're trying to time the bottom, you're going to end up with junk. It's always the best houses and cheapest houses that sell first."
"Unrealistically low" = "what they can actually afford"?
Look, I'm not saying that some of the outlying areas haven't bottomed, and the affordability index might be making sense there. Nor do I think that higher-end areas will see as much pricing pressure. Also, if you're a buyer who's looking for a home for the next 15+ years and you find a property that you love and the pricing works for you, it certainly doesn't make sense to time the market - as long as you're realistic that if you're forced to sell in the next 5-10 years, you might still be underwater.
For those who can afford to wait it out, unlike the Vegas casinos, where time is the enemy, in markets like WeHo, it's your best friend.
No comments:
Post a Comment