"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


I still think I have the right solution - but nobody pays attention to
me. :)


Read your post with interest. (no pun intended)

I snipped it just for brevity here.


I think I agree with the plan, after reading your explanation and thinking
about it some more.
One of the arguments against it was that the re-valued properties would also
tend to de-value
the property of those who have been paying consciensously. But ... housing
values are dropping anyway and
*all* had become overvalued.

I noticed another very interesting thing about a month ago. Zillow.com
publishes estimated market values for properties based on recorded data in
the registry of deeds, local market factors and a bunch of other components
that they feed into their calculator.
Their estimated house values peaked several months ago, and has been
dropping ever since. But, what is interesting is that they recalculated
the estimated historical value as well. In other words, the peak value
published a year ago no longer exists in their data base.

Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the
particular house value.

Eisboch

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .


I still think I have the right solution - but nobody pays attention to
me. :)


Read your post with interest. (no pun intended)

I snipped it just for brevity here.


I think I agree with the plan, after reading your explanation and thinking
about it some more.
One of the arguments against it was that the re-valued properties would also
tend to de-value
the property of those who have been paying consciensously. But ... housing
values are dropping anyway and
*all* had become overvalued.

Exactly right - it's hurting everybody, not just those who made stupid
bets or stupid loans.

So, in the interest of stabilizing the industry and trying to recover
some kind of value and establish a floor, it requires that the GSEs do
their thing and make that happen.

The interesting thing is that if the GSEs did this, it doesn't cost
the taxpayers anything and in fact, it will actually make money.

I noticed another very interesting thing about a month ago. Zillow.com
publishes estimated market values for properties based on recorded data in
the registry of deeds, local market factors and a bunch of other components
that they feed into their calculator.
Their estimated house values peaked several months ago, and has been
dropping ever since. But, what is interesting is that they recalculated
the estimated historical value as well. In other words, the peak value
published a year ago no longer exists in their data base.

Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the
particular house value.

Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the
page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along
with all kinds of intersting data that involves time.

It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that
shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the
particular house value.



Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the
page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along
with all kinds of intersting data that involves time.

It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that
shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson.


There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something
within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator".
According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4
months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and
look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is 400K
lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the historical
data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value instead of
400K. :-)

I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something
within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator".
According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4
months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and
look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is
400K lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the
historical data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value
instead of 400K. :-)

I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own.

Eisboch


Mis-typed. Shuda said, " ... 300K in value instead of 700K.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:07:01 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the
particular house value.

Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the
page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along
with all kinds of intersting data that involves time.

It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that
shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson.

There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something
within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator".
According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4
months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and
look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is 400K
lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the historical
data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value instead of
400K. :-)

I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own.

Ah - I understand now. Let me go look.

Hmmm - that's interesting. The house peaked about 4 months ago at
$250K and it's now $224K which I expected, but as I remember it it was
$265 back then.

You know what they may have done is readjust the historical data to
reflect actual market conditions at that time. To tell the truth,
that house was never worth $250K. It does have a high assessment
because it's an unusual house lot - the apartments are huge - the
total house is like 2,780 square feet.

The house we're living in now peaked at $450K - it's now down about
$385K. - which is kind of bogus - the land is worth more than the
house. :)

Interesting times - interesting times.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news

Ah - I understand now. Let me go look.

Hmmm - that's interesting. The house peaked about 4 months ago at
$250K and it's now $224K which I expected, but as I remember it it was
$265 back then.

You know what they may have done is readjust the historical data to
reflect actual market conditions at that time. To tell the truth,
that house was never worth $250K. It does have a high assessment
because it's an unusual house lot - the apartments are huge - the
total house is like 2,780 square feet.

The house we're living in now peaked at $450K - it's now down about
$385K. - which is kind of bogus - the land is worth more than the
house. :)

Interesting times - interesting times.



It is. I also agree, I think Zillow had everything overvalued for several
years.
No big deal. Eventually this whole mess will straighten itself out, along
with inflation, consumer prices and income.
The result will be an overall "correction" for the phony valuations over the
last couple of years and the economy will stabilize.

I hope.

Eisboch

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:21:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news

Ah - I understand now. Let me go look.

Hmmm - that's interesting. The house peaked about 4 months ago at
$250K and it's now $224K which I expected, but as I remember it it was
$265 back then.

You know what they may have done is readjust the historical data to
reflect actual market conditions at that time. To tell the truth,
that house was never worth $250K. It does have a high assessment
because it's an unusual house lot - the apartments are huge - the
total house is like 2,780 square feet.

The house we're living in now peaked at $450K - it's now down about
$385K. - which is kind of bogus - the land is worth more than the
house. :)

Interesting times - interesting times.

It is. I also agree, I think Zillow had everything overvalued for several
years.
No big deal. Eventually this whole mess will straighten itself out, along
with inflation, consumer prices and income.

I've always viewed inflation as a necessary evil. Looking out ten
years, inflation actually is your friend in terms of "real" dollars -
meaning dollars now, not compared to then. Yeah, you could buy a
gallon of gas for .05¢ in 1930, but so what - you don't live in 1930.

The oil bubble will burst, prices will readjust, inflation will take
care of itself in the long run.

The result will be an overall "correction" for the phony valuations over the
last couple of years and the economy will stabilize.

That's exactly what has to happen. You should reasonably expect a
decent return over time on real estate, but it's like anything else -
you get bubbles, they correct and six to eight months (sometimes up to
a year) later you pretty much reset values and the market is in
balance. On average, real estate will return 50% gain over 15 years -
that's historical data and it's pretty much fact. Even with this
recent correction, we've made decent money gaining on average 8% a
year on real value and on income, heh - apartments ain't cheap.
Everybody has to live somewhere 'ya know? :)

I read a really interesting piece of data the other day that was sent
to me by somebody who is heavily invested in REITs. One REIT that
he's involved with reevaluated their holdings on a cyclical basis
starting at year one and moving forward against historical data
nationally. What they found was very interesting.

Apparently there is a seventeen year cycle - give or take six months
in aggregate - and it's an exact match to previous housing cycles and
matches up to the last data point which was six months ago. In
effect, the bottom was coming and it's bottom plateau is now.

What was particularly interesting from an economic standpoint was that
every decline in value was precipated by differing economic conditions
in every cycle.

I think eventually, the realisation by banks and mortgage companies
that if people can pay $900 to $1,200 a month for an apartment, they
can afford to pay the same for a home. 30 year fixed mortgages for
average value homes are exactly in that ball park. Given decent
credit, the markets will begin to pick up again.

I hope.

No hope needed - it's basic economics. It's a shake out which is
good.

When you evaluate data sets like Case-Shiller, nationally the decline
is only 3% on average. There are hot spots where it's higher and hot
spots where it's lower, but on average, that's not so bad.

Which means it's not as bad as media would make you think.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:55:21 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I think eventually, the realisation by banks and mortgage companies
that if people can pay $900 to $1,200 a month for an apartment, they
can afford to pay the same for a home.

I would argue that they can afford to pay 20 to 30% more than rental
because of the tax advantages and equity appreciation opportunities of
home ownership.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:12:27 -0500, wrote:

The guys who sold their houses
and loaded up on gold at $450 in 2005 are probably happy

Or loaded up on oil stocks. :-)

Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:12:27 -0500, wrote:

The guys who sold their houses
and loaded up on gold at $450 in 2005 are probably happy

Or loaded up on oil stocks. :-)



We got out of the scam known as the stock market a long time ago, but
for a couple of stocks we still have. Our gold holdings are on their way
to tripling, at which point we will liquidate some, but not for dollars.