The news media is so misleading on real estate, says this guy lost 300K..but I did some research and he didn't

[annerk]

It's also possible that he put money INTO the house after he bought it.

My sister and brother-in-law bought a home for $550K that needed a lot of work. I mean a lot. They've dumped $200K into it in the past two years, about $50K from a HELOC, the rest out of pocket.

If they went to sell right now they'd take a cash loss, fortunately they plan on staying there for another 20 years or more, so they will eventually recoup what they've put into it.

[AONE]

This story is far from unique. The news media feel compelled to fill time and space and truth an accuracy have little place as it is far too ordinary to sell. I turned off the news long ago as I realized they simply aren't accurate with the details.

Many homes here in Orlando have seen appraisals fall from the 2005 time frame. It only hurts if you had bought in that time frame.... oddly the bulk of our short sales and REO's . When you have people that paid 600k for homes they can buy for 180k now it makes it hard for them to justify paying the 400k they owe, even with 200k down. I dare say some of the REO's arent from people that can't pay but rather realize it isnt profitable to do so.

Many buyers made use of IO's a few years back so they could have what they could not afford. Many of our Windermere neighborhoods have lost great deals of value, but in most cases it was not a loss as it was not actually bought and sold ( those are mostly our REO's) For those that bought in the 2--3 period they are for the most part still positive. unless they were pulling equity out early... face it they already sold for a profit when they did that and now lament that they are losing money... No you arent losing you sold it when you refied and squandered the money.

There is a man here in town selling his home and throwing a Rolls Royce into the deal. For 700k you can get his 3364 ft home and a Rolls... personally I think he needs to replace his laminate counters and that would make a world of difference. His homes has been on the market for 16 months and its droped 180k in price. There are so many homes like this and some great bargains to be had even in the $1M plus range. One I know was priced at 12M at one point, I got an acceptance for 6.5M.... tell me that number feels good for the owner.

Ah well, life goes on and homes go up and down, with the traditional steady trend up. The News media will continue to distort reality and people will still turn them on and believe. Everyone would be so much happier if they would turn it off and go talk to their neighbors instead.

[ejbenz]

What the article says is that the house was appraised for 1.1 million a few years ago and the value has since gone down over 300k - not that there was 300k lost. In all your "investigative" work you failed to actually read the article properly and have made assumptions about something you know nothing about.

[aneftp]

Originally Posted by ejbenz

What the article says is that the house was appraised for 1.1 million a few years ago and the value has since gone down over 300k - not that there was 300k lost. In all your "investigative" work you failed to actually read the article properly and have made assumptions about something you know nothing about.

It's still completely misleading anyway you look at it.

If the writer had said, "Owner purchased home for 700K in 2004 [according to current county tax records], and than home was valued at 1.1 million in 2006 but now the home is listed for 779K in 2009" And than add that the home value had dropped $300K from "peak" Now, that would be considered fair and balanced reporting.

That's the true story. You can look up that information yourself on the public county record page.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by ejbenz

What the article says is that the house was appraised for 1.1 million a few years ago and the value has since gone down over 300k - not that there was 300k lost. In all your "investigative" work you failed to actually read the article properly and have made assumptions about something you know nothing about.

I don't see a way to spin it that is not misleading.

Why does the appraisal at the peak of the market matter ? Unless you sell and trade down, it's just a paper gain.

This guy's quote is completely ridiculous. He says:

People either need to get the deal of the century or they feel they're getting ripped off if they don't steal the house.

So, when he purchased for 40k less than his list price, was it "the deal of the century" ? Did he "steal" the house ? Instead of throwing in the car, why doesn't he start by reducing his price to the price at which he purchased the place ?

The context is important, because they are trying to put a human face on this story with this anecdote, but they leave out material facts which have considerable relevance. They are clearly trying to make this guy look like a poor desperate seller (e.g. they are trying to create the impression that he has to liquidate most of his personal assets) who is a victim of the falling market, when in fact he's most probably a victim of his own propensity to overspend.