[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

The number of homes owned by the banks and not on the market is less than 4000 and is down over a 1000 so far this year. That big hold back is all myth. And it is easy to find out. Ownership of property in Nevada is a public record.

Property ownership is public record in virtually all, if not every state in the union. That said, who has searched every property to determine if it was bank or privately owned? In other words, how did they arrive at your 4,000 number? Secondly, for the sake of conversation, let's say that 4,000 is correct. If the REO inventory is only down by 1,000 YTD, that's only a 200 unit REO deficit a month. At that run rate it would take another 20 months to clear out the entire inventory.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

Property ownership is public record in virtually all, if not every state in the union. That said, who has searched every property to determine if it was bank or privately owned? In other words, how did they arrive at your 4,000 number? Secondly, for the sake of conversation, let's say that 4,000 is correct. If the REO inventory is only down by 1,000 YTD, that's only a 200 unit REO deficit a month. At that run rate it would take another 20 months to clear out the entire inventory.

Please. This is not a large data base. And there is even a flag that tells you which ones have been acquired by a lender.

But you could search it against the top 50 lenders in I would guess 2 seconds. And any title company in the valley is capable of doing that. Plus if you want to do it yourself they will sell you the data set for a couple of hundred dollars.

The 4000 is not the REO inventory. It is those held by the banks which have not yet reached the MLS. It is those between a trustee sale and the MLS lsiting.

The REO inventory since the beginning of the year is down about 3500 units from 6000. And is still going down about 150 a week.

Gotta get your nomenclature clear if you want to play in this game. "Bank held" and "REO" are different sets.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Please. This is not a large data base. And there is even a flag that tells you which ones have been acquired by a lender.

But you could search it against the top 50 lenders in I would guess 2 seconds. And any title company in the valley is capable of doing that. Plus if you want to do it yourself they will sell you the data set for a couple of hundred dollars.

In other words, this 4,000 number is one that you, and perhaps you alone have arrived at? Nowhere to be found in GLVAR data?

The 4000 is not the REO inventory. It is those held by the banks which have not yet reached the MLS. It is those between a trustee sale and the MLS lsiting.

The REO inventory since the beginning of the year is down about 3500 units from 6000. And is still going down about 150 a week.

Gotta get your nomenclature clear if you want to play in this game. "Bank held" and "REO" are different sets.

If the 4,000 is not REO inventory, I think my nomenclature is clear but rather your reading comprehension that may be a bit murky. The question originally asked when you answered 4,000 was -

Originally Posted by gtbguy

What about the REOs that are still NOT on the market?

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

In other words, this 4,000 number is one that you, and perhaps you alone have arrived at? Nowhere to be found in GLVAR data?

Shove it. It is a simple GLVAR data base search. However you are not up to simple data base searches are you?

And I would also point out a correct number is not changed by the number of people who know it. There are those who would "vote" facts...but it works out badly.

If the 4,000 is not REO inventory, I think my nomenclature is clear but rather your reading comprehension that may be a bit murky. The question originally asked when you answered 4,000 was -

I will give you one there. In fact REO is an MLS defined term. A non-listed REO is a a nonsequitur.

What he and you are trying to say is that the banks have a set of properties not listed on the MLS. They do and it is less than 4000. REO is the callout for those bank owned properties which have been listed and that now total about 2500 SFRs.

Watch the blog Tony...learn something.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Shove it. It is a simple GLVAR data base search. However you are not up to simple data base searches are you?

And I would also point out a correct number is not changed by the number of people who know it. There are those who would "vote" facts...but it works out badly.

I'm fine with database searches. It's your search results I question. I recall a recent Foreclosure.com search you did that resulted in a sizeable error that you attributed to rounding. I had some difficulty in understanding the logic in rounding 23,900 to 26,000. Ring a bell?

I will give you one there. In fact REO is an MLS defined term. A non-listed REO is a a nonsequitur.

I can only suggest that if you believe that to be the case, then your answer to gtbguy should have reflected that. He asked about REOs, you answered with a specific number. I question where the specific number came from and you tell me the number doesn't reflect REOs. Inconsistent at best.

What he and you are trying to say is that the banks have a set of properties not listed on the MLS. They do and it is less than 4000. REO is the callout for those bank owned properties which have been listed and that now total about 2500 SFRs.

gtbuy suggested that was the case, and although I believe that to be true, my question was limited to how you arrived at 4,000.

Watch the blog Tony...learn something.

I've looked in a couple of times but I'm not much of a blog fan, OC. They seldom contain any data that I can't find on my own and I only have myself to blame for rounding errors.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

I'm fine with database searches. It's your search results I question. I recall a recent Foreclosure.com search you did that resulted in a sizeable error that you attributed to rounding. I had some difficulty in understanding the logic in rounding 23,900 to 26,000.

You have a cite for that? I don't believe I have ever used foreclosure.com.

Ring a bell?I can only suggest that if you believe that to be the case, then your answer to gtbguy should have reflected that. He asked about REOs, you answered with a specific number. I question where the specific number came from and you tell me the number doesn't reflect REOs. Inconsistent at best.

The language in all of this stuff tends to be imprecise. But ask. I can generally explain it.

gtbuy suggested that was the case, and although I believe that to be true, my question was limited to how you arrived at 4,000.I've looked in a couple of times but I'm not much of a blog fan, OC. They seldom contain any data that I can't find on my own and I only have myself to blame for rounding errors.

Actually you don't have ready access to the data driving the blog entry. It is not publicly available. So no you can't get it on your own.

[rpachigo]

Tony, he has some mysterious witches' brew that only he has access to of course and that we cannot see. Again inventory yoy is up 1% and up 2.2% in the past week.

HousingTracker.net | Median Home Asking Price & Inventory Data for Las Vegas, Nevada

[jwt8070]

It is interesting that there has been so much focus on the supply of REO properties, while there has been little discussion about the demand side of things. Here is a question: is the current high sales volume sustainable?

Based on what I have read, there are two groups of buyers who are driving the home sales in Vegas these days. They are the first time home buyers who account for ~50% of the sales activities and investors who account for ~30% of the sales activities. The two main reasons for a large number of the first time buyers in the market are affordability and the $8000 tax credit. However, the tax credit will expire at the end of November. It will be interesting to see what will happen after the tax credit expires.

One may get some clue by following the germany's car-scaping incentive. It has been reported that the car-scraping plan in Germany has been a huge success in germany during its first few months by bringing out a large number of car buyers. But in recent weeks, the number of participants in the program has been waning. The reason is simple, there are only so many people who own an old car and are in a position to take advantage of the program.

I suspect the same also holds true with the number of first time home buyers in Vegas and elsewhere in the US. There is a finite number of people who are in a position to take advantage of the $8000 tax credit. With an economy still shedding jobs, the number of potential first time home buyers is not expanding and it is probably shrinking. I suppose most of these people who want and can afford a home are actively looking for a home today and trying to get a deal closed before the November deadline.

So it won't be surprising to see a sharp drop off in the number of first time home buyers when the tax credit expires. Even if the Congress extend the tax credit for another year, I would still expect a significant drop off in the number of first time buyers in the market because many, if not most, first time buyers currently in the marketplace will have already found a home by then - it is difficult not to given the number of homes for sales on the market in Vegas today.

So, what will happen after the November deadline passes? Based on everything I have read, the foreclosure in Vegas will remain high for at least until next year, while there will likely be a dramatic decline in the number of the first time buyers who account for roughly 50% of the transactions today.

Has anyone considered this scenario?

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

You have a cite for that? I don't believe I have ever used foreclosure.com.

Huh, the recollection can't reach back three months? Your results were a little...interesting.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/7639704-post33.html

The language in all of this stuff tends to be imprecise. But ask. I can generally explain it.

The language itself isn't a problem. It's the inconsistent application of it that creates problems. The question was about REOs -

1. Originally Posted by gtbguy

   What about the REOs that are still NOT on the market?

   Your answer -

2. Originally Posted by olecapt

   The number of homes owned by the banks and not on the market is less than 4000 and is down over a 1000 so far this year.

   When asked where that 4,000 number came from, you go on to say -

3. Originally Posted by olecapt

   The 4000 is not the REO inventory.

   Please refer back to #1.

   Actually you don't have ready access to the data driving the blog entry. It is not publicly available. So no you can't get it on your own.

   Which speaks to my relative skepticism of information provided on blogs. If the information can't be readily verified, I'm left wholly with the blogger's interpretation of the information they present. As the above foreclosure.com episode might suggest, I often run across some interesting discrepancies when I take the time to verify information presented as fact. Ergo, blogger info = big grain of salt.

[ocean2026]

Today's Review Journal says 1 in 8 mortgages are delinquent. This means a lot more foreclosures coming up -despite the lull the past two months.

REAL ESTATE: Loan delinquencies soar for Nevadans - Business - ReviewJournal.com

Added to a lack of job growth its easy to see why the UNLV economist says the recession in housing will last longer for NV, CA, AZ and FL than the rest of the country.

Still bottom fishers are paying list price or more on the cheap foreclosures and large amounts of them are being bought up quickly.

Doesn't this mean the market is coming back up. I would say "NO". If they were first time house buyers who were going to live in them -yes that would be a great sign. Instead they are "investors" who in true Las Vegas Style want to gamble. When they find the market for "flipping" may not be as good as it seems, they may start dumping, although some can be leased out as long as the renters don't lose their jobs.


If this sounds like I'm negative on the LV Market, the truth is I am one of those who believe that Vegas is not and never will be dead and that eventually it will recover. That however is a couple of years away. Meanwhile Denver is a much better buy, as prices are still depressed, yet jobs are growing and people moving in. The mid to south Coast of Texas is similar.