Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh, the recollection can't reach back three months? Your results were a little...interesting.
[url]http://www.city-data.com/forum/7639704-post33.html[/URL
Nothing wrong with my memory you just misconstrued the event. At the time I initially reported it the number rounded as stated. Later when I checked to provide the current number it was down. There was nothing wrong with either number. At the moment that foreclosure list claims 20,256 which is down more. So what?
The language itself isn't a problem. It's the inconsistent application of it that creates problems. The question was about REOs -
[
Quote:
LIST=1][*]Your answer -[*]When asked where that 4,000 number came from, you go on to say -[*]Please refer back to #1.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.
Sorry but the problem is that there is no "approved" description and that leads to uncertainty. In fact the banks own just over 13,000 homes of which about 9800 are on the MLS. So they have roughly 3200 homes they own but have not listed. Of the ones on the MLS 3300 are actually available for sale and of those 2500 are single family residences as is tracked on the blog.
Quote:
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.[/list]
But you found no error in my post. Merely a different number at a different time. That is the nature of live data...it moves.
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?
Below 100,000 there appears to be an endless stream of buyers. We presently have an offer on a 49K place in the NE which was on the market three days and had 13 bidders. We are offering $57K and may not get it.
And even up higher. There is a high threes place in the NW that has been on the market less than a week and is in a best and final bidding with a likely bid in the mid 4s to take it.
At this price level I can't see any problem finding an endless stream of buyers. Note however that the non-distressed properties are not on the same price line and some appear to have stabilized. Most homes in 89134 as an example.
We are now under a month of SFR REO inventory and that inventory is still dropping and the demand is still rising. What happens as the system becomes starved? I think that is happening now. These intense bidding wars on the nicer places. I even got a multi-offer notice on a not great short...
Nothing wrong with my memory you just misconstrued the event. At the time I initially reported it the number rounded as stated. Later when I checked to provide the current number it was down. There was nothing wrong with either number. At the moment that foreclosure list claims 20,256 which is down more. So what?
Nothing wrong with your memory? You just said you couldn't recall using foreclosure.com, when you quite obviously had just three months ago. Is this another one of those "I never said most everything under $150K had multiple bids" moments?
In the linked post I provided, you said your Vegas foreclosure search on foreclosure.com returned 26,000 results. I tried the same exact search 90 minutes after you did and didn't receive the same results. I asked you to link me to your search results because I was getting a different number. You provided the linked search results ~9.5 hours later and the actual foreclosure number was 23,900. I pointed out the 2,100 discrepancy and you attributed it to a rounding error. Who in the world rounds 23,900 up to 26,000? People not so good with numbers, that's who.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
Sorry but the problem is that there is no "approved" description and that leads to uncertainty. In fact the banks own just over 13,000 homes of which about 9800 are on the MLS. So they have roughly 3200 homes they own but have not listed. Of the ones on the MLS 3300 are actually available for sale and of those 2500 are single family residences as is tracked on the blog.
No "approved" description? Weren't you just professing that it was defined by the MLS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
I will give you one there. In fact REO is an MLS defined term. A non-listed REO is a a nonsequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
But you found no error in my post. Merely a different number at a different time. That is the nature of live data...it moves.
The foreclosure data doesn't move by any material measure in the 90 minutes between your search and mine. Nor does it move by 2,100 in 9.5 hours. Have you abandoned the rounding error defense?
Nothing wrong with your memory? You just said you couldn't recall using foreclosure.com, when you quite obviously had just three months ago. Is this another one of those "I never said most everything under $150K had multiple bids" moments?
I never "used" foreclosure. com. That is because it is worthless. I quoted a number from their web site that I though worthless.
Quote:
In the linked post I provided, you said your Vegas foreclosure search on foreclosure.com returned 26,000 results. I tried the same exact search 90 minutes after you did and didn't receive the same results. I asked you to link me to your search results because I was getting a different number. You provided the linked search results ~9.5 hours later and the actual foreclosure number was 23,900. I pointed out the 2,100 discrepancy and you attributed it to a rounding error. Who in the world rounds 23,900 up to 26,000? People not so good with numbers, that's who.No "approved" description? Weren't you just professing that it was defined by the MLS? The foreclosure data doesn't move by any material measure in the 90 minutes between your search and mine. Nor does it move by 2,100 in 9.5 hours. Have you abandoned the rounding error defense?
The response that you got was not that it was a rounding error. It was...
Quote:
It could have been user error. It was always intended as an order of magnitude number. It is absurd at 26,000 or 23,900.
You are nitpicking.
And I was simply avoiding a stupid discussion which you have carried on. It may very well have been correct...it could well have been from days or weeks before...I knew it was fallacious from prior viewings. just was absurd at either level and therefore not worth discussion. But you don't understand such plain words do you?
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.
Roughly 60% of the foreclosure sales are to owner occupants. The remainder is split between investors and second homes. I don't know an easy way to separate the two.
I never "used" foreclosure. com. That is because it is worthless. I quoted a number from their web site that I though worthless.
If you never "used" foreclosure.com how did you provide a link to foreclosure.com search results? Is there a self-searching version of foreclosure.com I'm unaware of? Maybe someone else logged in using your alias? http://www.city-data.com/forum/7637836-post32.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
The response that you got was not that it was a rounding error. It was...
You have quite a history of flat denying things you've said, until your own words are used to prove you wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
You are still nit picking. There was no "navigation" involved. Simply opened the thing and pullled off an absurd number. Which may have been incorrectly rounded but still spoke to the point.
Incorrectly rounded = rounding error. I repeat, the only people rounding 23,900 up to 26,000 aren't very good with numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
And I was simply avoiding a stupid discussion which you have carried on. It may very well have been correct...it could well have been from days or weeks before...I knew it was fallacious from prior viewings. just was absurd at either level and therefore not worth discussion. But you don't understand such plain words do you?
Your post above from February states you simply opened the thing and pulled off a number. Today's version is the number you quoted could have been from weeks before. That would be referred to as revisionist history."I never used foreclosure.com." "I never said it was a rounding error." "I never said virtually everything below $150K has multiple bids." Yada, yada, yada. I certainly understand BS when I hear it and right now I'm knee deep in it.
Lots of properties falling out of escrow. People can't seem to close the deal. I just got two properties dumped in my lap today that fell out of escrow.
the market could go lower, it did in my primary residence but who wants to wait for the horrible mess of homes that will be availble when house prices are $1.00?
some houses I would not give a nickle for
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
