topic Re: The numbers are in for February... in Los Angeles

The numbers are in for February...

NolanSame — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:10:09 GMT

The California Association Of Realtors has posted the February Market Update via Youtube.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Annualized Sales Rate - 497,660
Nationwide Median - $$271,320
Investors are still very active in the market - low to moderate
Financing is a big issue, and as rates will continue to rise...this should boost urgency in the marketplace

Do you have any thoughts regarding February's numbers? See any trends that'll come up in the future? Share with the forums...we'd love to hear your opinions.

Leslie Appleton-Young

Chief Economist for CAR

Re: The numbers are in for February...

Pasta — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:15:23 GMT

I don't trust any realtor association...

these are the same people that said we'd have 3% growth, with no dropoff, after that crazy run-up since '98. If they can be that wrong with that, they can be that wrong with a lot of things.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

LoansbyJW — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:08:34 GMT

Although 20 / 20 hindsight is a rough taskmaster, Ms. Young has come a long way since this:

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20051215-9999-1b15outlook.html

Thanks for reading,

Re: The numbers are in for February...

Lizard — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:22:53 GMT

Financing is a big issue, and as rates will continue to rise...this should boost urgency in the marketplace

Urgency on whose part? Buyers, sellers or REO bankers?

More nonsense from the NAR. Higher rates will simply make it less affordable for the masses.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

JK_1 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:34:57 GMT

I prefer "Pasta" over the CRA or NRA or ___________( insert your own acronym here):smileyvery-happy:.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

NicoleBuys — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:43:35 GMT

Redfin, you are supposed to be different from the Realtor's association. that's why i like your site, read these blogs and would use you to buy a home, when the time is right. When you post crap from the liars (really, i don't use that word lightly) at the NRA, you put yourself on the same level. Someone should sue them for all of the misleading of the public that they are responsible for in the last 10 years.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

STARCHY — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:08:53 GMT

NicoleBuys wrote:
Redfin, you are supposed to be different from the Realtor's association. that's why i like your site, read these blogs and would use you to buy a home, when the time is right. When you post crap from the liars (really, i don't use that word lightly) at the NRA, you put yourself on the same level. Someone should sue them for all of the misleading of the public that they are responsible for in the last 10 years.

Q: How will you know "when the time is right"?

Re: The numbers are in for February...

Hank_in_Hancock — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:39:11 GMT

Q: How do you know when the time is wrong (to buy RE)?

I'd say the years from 2002-2003 were highly suspect (WRONG time to buy RE), given the extreme appreciation run up far beyond the rate of inflation, hell even part of 1999-2001 should have raised red flags. But there's no doubt that 2004-2008 were the wrong time to buy RE (and 2009 and 2010 as well, given the enormous government intervention, tax credits, interest rate manipulation all done to grease the market and create an artificial bull trap...not to mention RE values are back to the post-peak lows of early 2009 prior to the tax credits and interest rate manipulation)...and given that it took roughly 10 years for the bubble to inflate from the previous trough to present, we're only 3.5 years (4.5 in some areas/regions) from peak. It's arguably a "less wrong" time to buy RE than 2005-2010, but that certainly doesn't mean it's the "right time to buy".

Of course, for some it's ALWAYS the right time to buy (and sell!) real estate.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

STARCHY — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:42:52 GMT

Hank_in_Hancock wrote:
Q: How do you know when the time is wrong (to buy RE)?

I'd say the years from 2002-2003 were highly suspect (WRONG time to buy RE), given the extreme appreciation run up far beyond the rate of inflation, hell even part of 1999-2001 should have raised red flags. But there's no doubt that 2004-2008 were the wrong time to buy RE (and 2009 and 2010 as well, given the enormous government intervention, tax credits, interest rate manipulation all done to grease the market and create an artificial bull trap...not to mention RE values are back to the post-peak lows of early 2009 prior to the tax credits and interest rate manipulation)...and given that it took roughly 10 years for the bubble to inflate from the previous trough to present, we're only 3.5 years (4.5 in some areas/regions) from peak. It's arguably a "less wrong" time to buy RE than 2005-2010, but that certainly doesn't mean it's the "right time to buy".

Of course, for some it's ALWAYS the right time to buy (and sell!) real estate.

wasn't asking you - already know YOUR answer

Re: The numbers are in for February...

776877 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:48:05 GMT

I'd imagine the 'right time' to buy will be based on the buyers needs, if you are trying to gauge when the absolute bottom of the market is good luck, no-one can. I 'need' to buy a place soon so for me right now is the 'right time'...better than three years ago! :-0

Re: The numbers are in for February...

john72 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:48:01 GMT

776877 wrote:
I'd imagine the 'right time' to buy will be based on the buyers needs, if you are trying to gauge when the absolute bottom of the market is good luck, no-one can. I 'need' to buy a place soon so for me right now is the 'right time'...better than three years ago! :-0

Again....there is no V shaped bottoms.....ultimately 10% of either side of the bottom is generally ok. Exactly because you can't time a bottom. But a buy range of a few years...you'll come out ok.

The problem is buying at $400K vs $300K or whatever. Not buying at $400K vs $360K.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

STARCHY — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:27:02 GMT

you can't time the market

no one can predict the future

Re: The numbers are in for February...

john72 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:29:52 GMT

STARCHY wrote:
you can't time the market
no one can predict the future

And there aren't absolutes :smileytongue:

Re: The numbers are in for February...

STARCHY — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:13:03 GMT

john72 wrote:
STARCHY wrote:
you can't time the market
no one can predict the future
And there aren't absolutes :smileytongue:

sure there are - :smileyhappy:

Re: The numbers are in for February...

Andiamo53 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:24:02 GMT

NicoleBuys wrote:
Redfin, you are supposed to be different from the Realtor's association. that's why i like your site, read these blogs and would use you to buy a home, when the time is right. When you post crap from the liars (really, i don't use that word lightly) at the NRA, you put yourself on the same level. Someone should sue them for all of the misleading of the public that they are responsible for in the last 10 years.

I love that NicoleBuys caled the National Association of Realtors the "NRA". She's got that right--Both are equally credible.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

Cartman — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:03:14 GMT

Here's the question I am always left with when looking at time to buy.. Lets acccept the earlier post that it has been a bad time to buy since 2001....and that it still is not a good time to buy...lets assume higher interest rates, foreclosures etc and all that take another 2-3 years to lead to lower prices...2014 might be a good time to buy.

Bur imagine the first time home buyer who is 30 years old married and looking for his first place to buy in 2001, he would be 40 years old today and still renting... He would still not be paying off his mortgage when he retires if he bought 2014....meanwhile he more likely than not has had one or more kids - needing to be in the same school district...and had to move several times...

I think that is the reason you still see people looking to buy even if they know there are drops ahead....

Re: The numbers are in for February...

CalCoast — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:22:41 GMT

Price is only one metric when considering a purchase, and for virtutally everyone not the top one. If it were everyone would be snapping up homes in western North Dakota right now.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

Hank_in_Hancock — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:26:39 GMT

People can't buy what they can't afford (or get approved for enough debt to "afford")...

Re: The numbers are in for February...

STARCHY — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:43:53 GMT

Cartman wrote:
Here's the question I am always left with when looking at time to buy.. Lets acccept the earlier post that it has been a bad time to buy since 2001....and that it still is not a good time to buy...lets assume higher interest rates, foreclosures etc and all that take another 2-3 years to lead to lower prices...2014 might be a good time to buy.

Bur imagine the first time home buyer who is 30 years old married and looking for his first place to buy in 2001, he would be 40 years old today and still renting... He would still not be paying off his mortgage when he retires if he bought 2014....meanwhile he more likely than not has had one or more kids - needing to be in the same school district...and had to move several times...

I think that is the reason you still see people looking to buy even if they know there are drops ahead....

^^^ thats a lot of assumptions!!

its "time IN the market- not TIMING the market" that pays off in the LONG run.

the best "time to buy" is when the time is right for the BUYER - job security, long term commitment, affordable mortgage... and of course the right combination of location, price and house.

Re: The numbers are in for February...

CRinLA — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:46:12 GMT

Hank_in_Hancock wrote:
People can't buy what they can't afford (or get approved for enough debt to "afford")...

In LA and other metro areas with high end real estate that may be true. But even if I could afford to live in ND or the Mid-West, I certainly would not pick up and move there. Living here without the threat of blizzards, hurricanes, or tornadoes is a premium that I will just have to accept.