[Scott456]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

There is another possible outcome -- the DeBeers real estate market. The banks are solvent enough that they can release inventory to the market a little at a time. Just like DeBeers does with diamonds to prop up prices. If diamonds were sold in a truly free market, they'd be cheaper than synthetic diamonds.

If they can hold out, releasing inventory piecemeal, banks will do better than flooding the market with everything they have. The buyer gets it in the pants. But that's always been true, historically.

Holding on to all that paper has resulted in a general feeling that "the worst is behind us." People see house prices rising, and faith in the system is restored. Sure, it's misplaced faith. But when you get down to it, our economy has run on misplaced faith ever since we quit bartering.

Your theory is based on the assumption that all banks agree on releasing inventory piecemeal. But I don't see the evidence of that.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by Scott456

Your theory is based on the assumption that all banks agree on releasing inventory piecemeal. But I don't see the evidence of that.

True. Right now the banks are forced to hold off. But they might see the advantages of not flooding the market. Of course, it will take collusion on the bankers' part. But when it comes to real estate in Las Vegas, I wouldn't put anything past them.

[logline]

Originally Posted by Scott456

Your theory is based on the assumption that all banks agree on releasing inventory piecemeal. But I don't see the evidence of that.

Not yet, but if you can count on anything, it's a bank's ability to exhibit sheer greed. The DeBeers model makes perfect sense when they control the inventory. The question is why wouldn't they throttle back and inflate the prices of the assets they already own?

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by logline

Not yet, but if you can count on anything, it's a bank's ability to exhibit sheer greed. The DeBeers model makes perfect sense when they control the inventory. The question is why wouldn't they throttle back and inflate the prices of the assets they already own?

Case in point; the house next to me. The neighbors ran off two years ago, their renters ran off a year ago. The bank secured the asset. They removed the AC unit and put up notices about anti-freeze in the drains. The city finally noticed it was empty and cited them in March.

The house still isn't for sale.

The owners also left their cat, Sniffy, who I've been feeding for a year now. He still thinks that house is his home.

[eventusstultorummagister]

Originally Posted by bayview6

We've reached the bottom.

My oh my.

[fishordie]

Originally Posted by bayview6

Sour grapes all over again.

We've reached the bottom. The baby boomers are coming and replacement costs will begin to affect the re-sale market.

There are no houses for sale in my sub-division.

Just curious, which part of a cesspool is the bottom???? Seems like the ones up to their necks in it are the ones saying the bottom is below them. Be very wary of open cesspools and market predicting real estate agents. Waay too many variables, not only in America but in the world, to determine where the housing market will be in the next few years. Sure, you can say inventory is low now and multiple offers are being made, but that is another case of short term thinking when owing a home is a long term plan.

I really did like the De Beers reference as the public refuses to believe this kind of scenario can occur. Be it diamonds or any other item the old term of selling Ice to Eskimos can be seen all over the world. Machiavelli was and always is right. Just a shame the human condition continues to tell the regular Joe's to listen to their superiors when there really are no superiors. Just those striving for more power.

FOD

[Californiapch]

Originally Posted by logline

Not yet, but if you can count on anything, it's a bank's ability to exhibit sheer greed.

Sheer greed?

If the banks want to hold on a bit to maybe lose 30-35% on an outstanding defaulted mortgage ( if offers continue coming in over asking amounts or prices go up a bit due to low inventory ) instead of losing 40%,,, that is sheer greed? Crazy how these banks are losing $100,000 to $300,000 per condo/home....


Guessing - I am no financial expert.

Brian

[logline]

Originally Posted by Californiapch

Sheer greed?

If the banks want to hold on a bit to maybe lose 30-35% on an outstanding defaulted mortgage ( if offers continue coming in over asking amounts or prices go up a bit due to low inventory ) instead of losing 40%,,, that is sheer greed? Crazy how these banks are losing $100,000 to $300,000 per condo/home....


Guessing - I am no financial expert.

Brian

The banks have lost NOTHING. The taxpayers on the other hand...

[Californiapch]

Originally Posted by logline

The banks have lost NOTHING. The taxpayers on the other hand...

OK, my bad then. I am in Canada and don't / haven't read enough on who is bailing out who.

Brian

[Scott456]

Originally Posted by Californiapch

OK, my bad then. I am in Canada and don't / haven't read enough on who is bailing out who.

Brian

The story started with Bush bailed out banks, then Obama continued the bail-out and asked nothing from the bank in return. No regulation, no investigation, no jail terms, no penalty.