Should I Get a Real Estate Attorney Instead of Using My Buyer's Agent? (Austin: loans, how much)

[sshurgot]

Originally Posted by BlueU81

Yes, like much of '53, it was new constuction.

The reason I asked you if the houses were purchased new (when I knew the answer) was to point out that most of the people who find themselves in doo-doo are folks who bought new houses back in 2006-2007. Remember Stabart47? She chimed in any time we had a real estate thread and it was the same story. She and her husband moved away and became landlords. She was (and probably still is) very upset.

TexasRedneck is in favor of buying in established neighborhoods rather than new ones and I can't say I disagree. All the people I know of who are under water with their mortgage are people who bought in new neighborhoods. Many bought brand new houses, using the builder's preferred lender in order to get the thousands of dollars in incentives (upgrades and/or a price reduction) offered by the builder to buyers who used their preferred lender...at a time (before 2008) when the lender could pick the appraiser. To this day, if I take a buyer to see new construction, it's very difficult to convince that buyer to at least shop around for a lender other than the builder's preferred lender. Those incentives are mighty tempting.

[sshurgot]

Originally Posted by kevcrawford

No doubt that that sucks and I understand how hard that can be, but SA just has a very jaded view of what a real estate bubble is. $30,000 is a good chunk, and it sucks, but it's not 50-70% of your value, which is what people are getting hit with in places that TRULY experienced a bubble.

Yes $30,000 is a good chunk but do the math: if you borrowed $200,000 at 5% (fixed) amortized over 30 years, at the end of 3 years you've paid $29,338.38 in mortgage interest.

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by sshurgot

Yes $30,000 is a good chunk but do the math: if you borrowed $200,000 at 5% (fixed) amortized over 30 years, at the end of 3 years you've paid $29,338.38 in mortgage interest.

At the end of 3 years or 30 years?

[sshurgot]

Originally Posted by MattTx

At the end of 3 years or 30 years?

At the end of THREE years.

[Proffer]

@Sshurgot. No, I do not believe that SABOR would alter the numbers. I believe that they would in part conceal (or soften the impression of) a past bubble by making 1995-2003 data unavailable. I believe that they spin current and recent numbers to minimize the impression that the market has softened.

@TexasRedneck. Your experience sounds very valuable and I appreciate your perspective. I would not be surprised if some people are more optimistic now than they were a couple of years ago because over that time period, the whole system has been propped up by artificial means (i.e., there isn't a true market for homes or mortgages because it's all being underwritten by the government). In other words, the can of trauma that many experienced two years ago has simply been kicked down a very short road. Nothing has been resolved.

[sshurgot]

Originally Posted by Proffer

@Sshurgot. No, I do not believe that SABOR would alter the numbers. I believe that they would in part conceal (or soften the impression of) a past bubble by making 1995-2003 data unavailable. I believe that they spin current and recent numbers to minimize the impression that the market has softened.

There's no need for MLS to keep data that far back; appraisers use much more recent sales and agents don't need to look at very old comps either. As I said before, old sales data wouldn't be as reliable anyway and you can't draw conclusions based on questionable data. I might expect the Texas A&M Real Estate Research Center to keep all that information since they do a lot of statistical research, but SABOR isn't in the business of serious research. There's no real reason for them to be a keeper of numbers other than what is necessary for agents and appraisers to conduct our day-to-day business. Remember that MLS is much more than numbers; agents load pictures, pdf files, and property details to share with each other and the public. It's not terribly useful to SABOR, MLS, or agents to have all of that stored for more than about 5 years.

How do you think SABOR would benefit from concealing a past bubble? And when you say "past" bubble how far past would that be?

[TexasRedneck]

Proffer, with all due respect it's become obvious to me that no matter what, you've made up your mind that there's some conspiracy within the RE industry, and nothing that can be said or done will alter your mind set. That's a shame, because rather than really learning, you've already decided the answers - no matter the truth.

So, that being said, I'll just leave it alone now.

[BlueU81]

Maybe there's not a "conspiracy", per say, but you can't blame people for questioning the viewpoint of the realtors. Did anyone see the headline yesterday about the NAR? They basically lied about pre-existing home sales in recent years, reporting them much higher than they actually were. I think housing, overall, is a bad investment these days and will be for a very long time.

[TexasRedneck]

Housing has never really been an investment per se. Sure, there's folks that want you to think that it is, and to a savvy investor it CAN be - but for the average Joe, it's not really wise IMO. Most of us are too busy with day-to-day life to give the kind of attention RE needs to really do well.
Do I blame folks for their opinions? Yes and no - now, give me someone on here trying to push homes for investment purposes, telling everyone how "easy" it is...I'll be on 'em like a fly on horse apples. But by and large, buying a home to live in has any number of positive aspects for MOST folks - certainly not ALL folks.
I'm not sure that NAR "lied" about the sales so much as having failed to question their information sources (mostly federally provided, IIRC). When a branch of the US Government tells you that "xyz" has happened, most folks think it's accurate - but it's often not.
Buying a home thinking you'll get back anything in under 5-10 years is something that used to be unheard of - and the "old school" thought was that anyone buying for less than that time period was a fool. Today, folks walk around wanting to blame others because a place hasn't appreciated enough - even though they bought a new home in a subdivision full of new homes. Sorry - ain't gonna happen. It takes years to build the equity as the costs of materials and labor increase. Sure - a good school district will have an impact as will other environmental considerations - but to make a decision based on THOSE variables is the height of foolishness.
When I was in the service, we heard time and again - do NOT buy a home, because you won't be there long enough to recoup your expenses. Today, military members apparently aren't given that advice any longer, and it's a shame.
It's up to each of us to do our OWN research - to try to blame it on another is nothing more than a cop out. Buy a home with 100% financing, 0 down, roll in the costs of closing......DUMB.

[kevcrawford]

Originally Posted by BlueU81

Maybe there's not a "conspiracy", per say, but you can't blame people for questioning the viewpoint of the realtors. Did anyone see the headline yesterday about the NAR? They basically lied about pre-existing home sales in recent years, reporting them much higher than they actually were. I think housing, overall, is a bad investment these days and will be for a very long time.

NAR didn't so much lie as they didn't examine the info they were given closely enough. It was not acceptable, but it wasn't a conspiracy. There were a few things counted twice. Not everything though. Regardless, the NAR numbers and the government numbers hold no water. Real estate is local. There are places in the country doing well. There are places in the tank. We're right in the middle. Just a little flat, but not up or down too much.

Now, for housing being a bad investment, I tend to disagree, but only if you can afford to buy. It's actually got nothing to do with me being in the industry. What I'm doing is watching and talking to some of the wealthiest and most successful folks I know, and most of them are buying. Some buying homes for rentals. Lots buying raw land. Some buying a second place. They're all buying though.

In anything, the 90/10 rule applies. When 90% of people are saying that real estate is bad, 10% are buying it all up and doing well off of it.

Granted, it's easier for them to do because they've got money, but they got that money because they were smart enough to buy (stocks, property, etc) when everyone else was selling.