[ackackack]

I guess I should stop paying attention to economists and economic data and start paying more attention to the National Realtor's Association. I like their outlook much more.

[Oneway]

I am not sure how accurate it is but here you go:
HousingTracker: Median Home Price & Inventory Data for Las Vegas, Nevada

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Oneway

I am not sure how accurate it is but here you go:
HousingTracker: Median Home Price & Inventory Data for Las Vegas, Nevada

It appears to include new build which is virtually all the variablity and has all sorts of mix and spif problems. The only good source in my mind of what actually goes on is single family residental resales. Because they don't have the same games played. Even the condo date is polluted by condo conversion and by high rises. That means it jumps all over the map depending on who does what.

Try ...

http://www.lasvegasrealtor.com/stats/Statindex.htm

Those are the best numbers I know of for Las Vegas Resales...unless you wnat to extract the Clark County Assessors site. That would probably be better data but you have to process it yourself. I do for local markets but the overall market is too big a job.

[ackackack]

Nice link, from the looks of the data, it looks like it may take more than a few months to recoupe. I'd like to see a site that shows the affordability index of the population living in these respective cities and the percentage of their population who can still afford a median priced home. It would also be nice to see the trends, or how rapidly over the last few years have home prices outpaced wage increases. I read an article sometime ago about Las Vegas and it was disturbing how small a percentage of the population can afford a median home price. I can't remember or find it now, but I'm sure there is a site somewhere that shows data like this. All I can remember is that it wasn't on the National Realtor's Association website.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by ackackack

I guess I should stop paying attention to economists and economic data and start paying more attention to the National Realtor's Association. I like their outlook much more.

It is the National Association of Realtors (NAR) They know no more about Las Vegas than do the national economists. RE is local. Las Vegas is very local. These people projected a very large drop last year and this year that simply have not occurred. If you believe fairy tales...well you believe fairy tales.

[TerpsandHorns]

Equity "challenged' homes are much more prevalent than the realtor would have you believe..

He says that only homes purchased in the 2003-2006 era are equity challenged.

That is quite a large chunk of homes to ignore. The bulk of Las Vegas' growth took place during that cycle.

Plus anyone who bought a home prior to 2003 AND refinanced a lot a cash out equity also falls into that equity challenged category....Cashout refinances accounted for about 80% of all junk mail offers and telemarketing the last few years...people did in fact refi their homes when blanketed with that deluge of offers...(A LOT OVER AND OVER)

....

AND, to ignore the income qualifying effects of higher rates is absurd.

It might have been okay to qualify for a 450K loan at 5.75% if you made say 70 grand a year....Banks will laugh at you now with rates at 6.75%..

....

Friendly Appraisers: Don't be so naive. Are we to believe that all the real estate speculators and individual flippers during the 2001-2006 boom all followed guidelines. If you purchase a non-owner occupied property, expect to put down 20% in cash. It is much easier to just claim that you intend to occupy it. At least half of all investor deals were wrote up to look like "owner occupied". If you believe in the integrity of appraisers/broker/investors .... well there is a bridge in brooklyn for sale.......

Realtors need to face reality. It isnt money just falling off trees anymore. Tighten the belt and ride it out like everyone else. The only upside is that a lot of the competition (i.e. inexperience agents) will fall out back to other careers.

...and btw as I am typing AHM (large near prime lender) just bit the dust taking its 3% of market share loans away from potential buyers...

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by TerpsandHorns

Equity "challenged' homes are much more prevalent than the realtor would have you believe..

He says that only homes purchased in the 2003-2006 era are equity challenged.

Olecapt said no such thing. Read it again. This time for content.

That is quite a large chunk of homes to ignore. The bulk of Las Vegas' growth took place during that cycle.

Where do you get this silliness. They were good growth years. So were the twenty before them. Short sales are and remain a small part of the Las Vegas market. Not non-existent...but small. And providing no strong pressure on price.

Plus anyone who bought a home prior to 2003 AND refinanced a lot a cash out equity also falls into that equity challenged category....Cashout refinances accounted for about 80% of all junk mail offers and telemarketing the last few years...people did in fact refi their homes when blanketed with that deluge of offers...(A LOT OVER AND OVER)

What percentage of Vegas went past good sense? Some did of course. It is that kind of town. But most? Or even a whole lot? Don't see it in the data. As I observed elsewhere 90% of the short sales are locally owned and 60% are owner occupied. In fact the number in the target years is about the same as all other years combined. It is certainly a problem but dropping sales by half? Not on a cold day in hell.

AND, to ignore the income qualifying effects of higher rates is absurd.

It might have been okay to qualify for a 450K loan at 5.75% if you made say 70 grand a year....Banks will laugh at you now with rates at 6.75%..

....

So they buy a $350,000 house. In fact people are not buying any house at all. Simply tighter screening is having an impact. But again it limits the size of the loan but does not prevent any loan. The rates are still reasonable.

[

U]Friendly Appraisers[/u]: Don't be so naive. Are we to believe that all the real estate speculators and individual flippers during the 2001-2006 boom all followed guidelines. If you purchase a non-owner occupied property, expect to put down 20% in cash. It is much easier to just claim that you intend to occupy it. At least half of all investor deals were wrote up to look like "owner occupied". If you believe in the integrity of appraisers/broker/investors .... well there is a bridge in brooklyn for sale.......

Why do you inssit upon being silly? How on earth would an appraiser know that a house that is not occupied by the buyer will not be occupied by the buyer? One does not move into a house before buying it. I would think you know that. It is simply absurd to think that an appraiser takes money to certify that you are doing what there is no possible way for you to be doing.
\
Of course they did not follow guidelines. And everybody knew it. And it worked fine as long as the market appreciated ten percent per annum or more. Than it stopped and reality returned. But no fast conspiracy. Just greed.

Realtors need to face reality. It isnt money just falling off trees anymore. Tighten the belt and ride it out like everyone else. The only upside is that a lot of the competition (i.e. inexperience agents) will fall out back to other careers.

As I said before price is of very little interest to the RE Agent. We care about velocity and little else. And we certainly don't care if Bankers lend money they should not...particularly if it sells more homes. It is not our job to set loan standards. Merely to use them in the best way for our clients.

...and btw as I am typing AHM (large near prime lender) just bit the dust taking its 3% of market share loans away from potential buyers...

Which will have almost exactly zero impact on Las Vegas which will proceed to sell almost exactly the same number of houses this month that sold last month. At pretty much the same prices.

One note that has been well reported on the RE side. The middle is taking the beating. The low end and the high end are doing about twice as well relatively as the middle. It is the move up buyer who has stopped.

[ihateny]

I didn't read much of this post, but never listen to ceo's or real estate people when it comes to forecasting real estate. Go see what the economists predict, they are usually not biased. I say this because I am both myself, and I know real estate people are full of b.s.

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by TerpsandHorns

The problem isn't just the greed of sellers and buyers.

It is a "perfect storm" of events that could last for years.

Your entire post was a troll and fact-free.

Try again.

For instance, how in hell could you (not a professional RE market analyst, I presume) know that all sellers have zero equity. Dumbest thing I've read yet on this board.

Suffice it to say that if you're in a hurry to sell your home this year or next, you've got to be willing to lower your price. Or else put your moving plans on hold.

[ParkTwain]

All the "RE bubble and doom" blogs constantly harp on the "affordability index" crap. This is a canard. It is a false metric on its face, especially for cities and regions that attract retirees and second home buyers. Do these brainless commentators really believe that buyers in a given market, especially ones like LV or San Diego or the Florida coasts, don't bring equity from selling their previous home with them to help buy the next home? Sometimes these retirees are paying cash for the home. For retirees living off pensions and such, their income is completely independent of the local employment situation, thus the affordability metric is useless for indicating much of anything about the local RE market. To say anything intelligent about a given local RE market, you've got to know a lot more (than what the affordability index tries to tell you) about who's buying in that region and how they're financed.