Are Property Price Declines Mirroring Case-Shiller? 1929 W. Irving Park in North Center
This 3-bedroom at 1929 W. Irving Park in North Center has been on the market since October 2011. (It is the vintage building in between the two new construction buildings in the picture above.)
It is bank owned and is currently listed for 34% under its 2004 purchase price.
According to Case-Shiller, Chicago prices have declined 34.8% through November 2011.
This building was constructed in 1903 and was converted into condos in 2004.
This unit looks like a typical vintage layout with a separate dining room and three smaller bedrooms.
From the pictures, it appears the kitchen is intact. It has stainless steel appliances, cherry cabinets and granite counter tops.
Pictures also indicate that the one bathroom is intact as well.
The listing says there are “real” hardwood floors. There is also central air.
There is no mention of a washer/dryer or of parking, but the 2004 sale appears to have included a parking space.
Since October, the unit has been reduced $40,000.
Compared to renting, is this a deal?
Jason Shapiro at Rising Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #3: 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, no square footage listed
- Sold in December 2004 for $301,500
- Bank owned in June 2011
- Originally listed in October 2011 for $239,900
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $199,900
- Assessments of $202 a month
- Taxes of $4018
- Central Air
- No mention of washer/dryer
- No mention of parking
- Bedroom #1: 14×8
- Bedroom #2: 12×8
- Bedroom #3: 11×8
- Dining room: 16×11
I think everyone realizes that price declines mirror the Case Shiller index only on average. The most desirable parts of the city have not seen nearly the declines. I posted some Zillow data a while back: http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2011/07/chicago-home-price-changes-by-zip-code-2/ that shows this pretty clearly.
On a personal note, SFHs in the West Town area that I’m looking in have only declined about 15 – 20% since the bubble peak.
“According to Case-Shiller, Chicago prices have declined 34.8% through November 2011”
Not to split hairs but I calculate only a 33.3% drop since the peak in September 2006.
What would anyone here be willing to pay to rent this place with tiny bedrooms, on IPR, with basically no light from the sides? Can someone make a case for more than $1500? At $1500, it’s worth about $150 as a rental.
Yes they are, I think that is the point of the case-schiller index.
Why is everyone on this site so stupid? Case Shiller is a BROAD BROAD average and while it gives a very GENERAL snapshot into what is happening in the city – it is unhelpful and even DETRIMENTAL to individuals because it really is confusing to them. Because I understand that you are all morons/idiots, let me explain in a different way: If I was in the market for a luxury 4 bedroom house in the gold coast, should I EXPECT houses to have decreased to 2001 levels or 33.3-34.8%? If I was in the market for a 2/2 in the park hyatt, should I DEMAND and wait for prices to come down to 2001 levels? Alternatively, if I was in the market for a condo in Englewood, should I offer above asking price because prices are at 1900 levels? Come on – don’t be stupid.
Follow-up questions: Does anyone here really understand what an “average” is? I thought so…. OK – let me explain by example. Let’s say you have 100 homes – 50 are worth 1,000,000 and 50 are worth 100,000. The average of those homes is 550,000 (now this does NOT mean the 1,000,000 homes are worth 550,000). Still with me? OK….. Now let’s say we are in an average market and 5 of the 100,000 homes sell and 4 of the 1,000,000 homes sell. The average would be 500,000. Now let’s say the market gets worse and 7 of the 100,000 homes sell but only 3 of the 1,000,000 homes sell. The average would be 370,000. OK now let’s say the economy is still bad and 8 of the 100,000 homes sell and only 2 of the 1,000,000 homes sell. The average would be 280,000. You can see that the “average” (like the Case Shiller Index) keeps decreases while the prices of the INDIVIDUAL homes stay the same. This parallels what is happening out there right now. Sabrina doesn’t showcase the many houses that actually sold for higher than what they were bought. She is more interested in the 2/2s in less than desirable areas that were bought in the bubble (2004-2008) and are struggling to sell right now.
“What would anyone here be willing to pay to rent this place with tiny bedrooms, on IPR, with basically no light from the sides?”
considering its exact location, i would say lack of window and *fresh air are positvies
“Does anyone here really understand what an “average” is? I thought so”
looks like that UIC top notch, high institution, elite schooling is failing you.
“Sabrina doesn’t showcase the many houses that actually sold for higher than what they were bought.”
Like what? Send me some in the city of Chicago. And I’m not talking about the flipper/renovators.
There are plenty of people TRYING to get more than they paid for 10 years ago (and many not succeeding.)
Sure- if they bought in 1992- they are probably able to make some money. But we have seen people who have bought in the late 1990s that are STILL underwater (and not from serial refinancing either.) I’ve also showcased plenty of estate sales where they bought prior to 1985. But that’s not 99% of the homesellers in Chicago.
“If I was in the market for a 2/2 in the park hyatt, should I DEMAND and wait for prices to come down to 2001 levels?”
Yes- they already have. Anyone could have bought the foreclosure in there (that was flipped by Bill Ranic and his wife.) Prices are WAY down in all the luxury buildings now. Clio- you know that the Palmolive owners are selling for less than they paid in 2005, right? Some have taken million dollar losses in that building.
The luxury buildings are NOT immune. I’m very interested to see what happens to sales in the two new luxury buildings that will start closings shortly (the Ritz and 2520 LP.)
“According to Case-Shiller, Chicago prices have declined 34.8% through November 2011?
“Not to split hairs but I calculate only a 33.3% drop since the peak in September 2006.”
Gary: I used the data from the Calculated Risk blog since it has the nice city-by-city graphs.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/01/case-shiller-house-prices-fall-to-new.html
So, everyone reading these comments probably knows this, but just in case … Clio’s statement that “You can see that the “average” (like the Case Shiller Index) keeps decreases while the prices of the INDIVIDUAL homes stay the same” is incorrect. The Case Shiller Index is specifically designed to look at price changes in constant quality homes and thus hold constant for changes in the mix of homes that are selling over time. Anyone interested in how it actually works can run Google searches on the index.
Very narrow bedrooms, one bathroom, busy street, small association, possibly no parking or washer/dryer… I find it hard to believe this will sell for over $150k.
I agree with Plaza 440 here. The CS index is designed to show changes in prices over time for similar homes. I’m no statistician but I think it tracks pairs of property sales (for the same property) over time and weights them in some fashion in order to come out with the index. Clio is very wrong here, and the CS index is valuable, and would be even more so if we could drill down to the GZ only, or split it into property sizes (1 bedroom condo versus 3 bedroom townhouse). Even then, it’s not like 99% of the Chicago properties sold are outside the green zone. I ran the math at one point that showed the number of people in the green zone hoods compared to the total city population and it was a larger proportion than one might think. I think this was discussed in an earlier post.
Sad and Dave – how has the CSI helped you as an INDIVIDUAL?!! Yeah, I thought so – all that analysis and work and you are still stuck where you are…… c’mon, learn something here….
Sad and Dave – how has the CSI helped you as an INDIVIDUAL?!! Yeah, I thought so – all that analysis and work and you are still stuck where you are…… c’mon, learn something here….
“Gary: I used the data from the Calculated Risk blog since it has the nice city-by-city graphs.”
Think it’s prob the NSA v SA difference. CR, per the link, uses the SA, while S&P reports the NSA.
Clio: does the case schiller index EXCLUDE “luxury 4 bedroom homes in the gold coast” ? it doesn’t? okay, then it should be pretty accurate.
“Gary: I used the data from the Calculated Risk blog since it has the nice city-by-city graphs.”
Ahhh. Those are the seasonally adjusted numbers.
“[clio being clio]”
Perhaps before you attack “everyone” for being idiots you should take 10 minutes to understand what you are “explaining”.
Although when you ask “Why is everyone on this site so stupid?”, you are including yourself, so perhaps it’s fair enough.
I had a condo which was foreclosed on just last week. $395K purchase price, 300K owed, auction sale at 145K. Built 2006, Mccrapbox construction. Rents go for $1500/month, but buyer will never get out. Small inept association, no reserves, no reserve study, no occupancy permit and numerous municipal code violations. Buyer thinks he got a deal, it will be a perpetual rental until the first liability claim, and then the buyer getrs wiped out-you can’t rent an unsafe unit. There are tens of thousands of these Mccrap boxes in the shadow inventory which will continue to deflate the market for years.
First off it is an indicator that buyers can use to evaluate the overall state of the market (no one is advocating ignoring the comps and just looking at CSI), but more importantly it should teach something to you as a broker. It means you should advise your clients to price their properties realistically. If you and other Realtors were actually paying attention, the prices might have been closer to where they should be and hence you’d actually see sales. So ignoring and denying CSI is hurting you Clio but you fail to see it.
“Sad and Dave – how has the CSI helped you as an INDIVIDUAL?!! Yeah, I thought so – all that analysis and work and you are still stuck where you are…… c’mon, learn something here….”
“Very narrow bedrooms, one bathroom, busy street, small association, possibly no parking or washer/dryer… I find it hard to believe this will sell for over $150k.”
Typical CC discussion. 16 comments and less than 25% actually discuss the featured property. 50% are arguing about Case Shiller finer nuiances and 25% are attempting to precisely demonstrate what type of a moron Clio is.
back to the wiki.
” But we have seen people who have bought in the late 1990s that are STILL underwater (and not from serial refinancing either.)”
Wait–15 years in, with no refi’s which did anything other than roll in the refi costs, and they still *owe* more than the house/condo is worth (not that the house/condo is worth less than they paid)? Is that really what you’re saying?
Even at 7%, for the whole 15 years, they’d have paid off over 25% of the principal. Where are these people who own places that are over 25% down from late 90s prices? Outside of affirmatively bad hoods.
““Sabrina doesn’t showcase the many houses that actually sold for higher than what they were bought.”
Like what? Send me some in the city of Chicago. And I’m not talking about the flipper/renovators.”
Took me a few minutes of searching to find half a dozen properties that closed above what they last sold for. And that is just within a couple blocks of me that have closed in the past three months.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2111-N-Kenmore-Ave-60614/unit-D/home/13352155
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1853-N-Fremont-St-60614/home/13350808
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1130-W-Armitage-Ave-60614/unit-3/home/13351467
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1648-N-Bissell-St-60614/home/40100103
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1646-N-Bissell-St-60614/home/13351349
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1701-N-Halsted-St-60614/unit-D2/home/13346861
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1857-N-Orchard-St-60614/unit-C/home/13346960
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1857-N-Orchard-St-60614/unit-B/home/13347792
“considering its exact location, i would say lack of window and *fresh air are positvies”
Looking again, at least one of those “bedrooms” isn’t a legal bedroom, as it doesn’t have an actual window. Plus, given the size of the rooms, it makes more sense to reconfigure it and turn it into a decent 2/2. And add a bathroom. Then you’d have a place that could easily rent for $1500, and therefore have a property that is currently worth about $100k.
“Even at 7%, for the whole 15 years, they’d have paid off over 25% of the principal. Where are these people who own places that are over 25% down from late 90s prices? Outside of affirmatively bad hoods”
EXACTLY – more lies and exaggerations from Sabrina……..
“Looking again, at least one of those “bedrooms” isn’t a legal bedroom, as it doesn’t have an actual window.”
borrowed light thing? i f’ing hate that code. i understand when converting an existing building (i.e. loft conversions) but when you’re building new it irks me to no end. this is a three flat conversion and it probably was a two bedroom with a butlers pantry now its a 3 br.
still the noise, smog, silt here makes the lack of windows its selling point
lol @ clio callling everybody stupid, but actually getting it completely wrong. so funny. and then trying to start more arguments just to turn attention away from the mistake!
“I’m very interested to see what happens to sales in the two new luxury buildings that will start closings shortly (the Ritz and 2520 LP.)”
Me too.
clio: “how has the CSI helped you as an INDIVIDUAL?!!”
I can give an answer to this stupid, stupid question.
It has helped me by giving me an approximate guideline for what homes fair values are given their historical sales records. So all of those places on the market right now that sold in 2004-2008 and are still priced near what the buyer paid even though they put NOTHING into them? I know that I’d have to be a grade A MO-RON to bite as a buyer at those price levels.
The fact that you find CS useless is hilarious. The fact that you think it only serves to “confuse” buyers is absurd and insulting.
TOO MUCH INFORMATION IS BAD! JUST BUY ALREADY! MY BUSINESS IS DOWN! I NEED MONEY!
“lol @ clio callling everybody stupid, but actually getting it completely wrong. so funny. and then trying to start more arguments just to turn attention away from the mistake!”
you would be surprised, they actually teach that in a 300 level class at UIC
“It has helped me by giving me an approximate guideline for what homes fair values are given their historical sales records”
yeah, I thought so – all speculation and theory. Seriously, dude – HOW HAS THIS INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY HELPED YOU? Basically, it hasn’t – saying “oh, it has showed me to wait to buy” is not helpful because we don’t have the conclusion of that scenario. At best, you can say: we will see…….
“Wait–15 years in, with no refi’s which did anything other than roll in the refi costs, and they still *owe* more than the house/condo is worth (not that the house/condo is worth less than they paid)? Is that really what you’re saying?”
15 years is an exaggeration. But 10? I think you can find properties sold in the early 2000’s that are underwater, even in decent to good hoods. There are definitely pockets where we are back to 1990s levels.
“yeah, I thought so – all speculation and theory. Seriously, dude – HOW HAS THIS INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY HELPED YOU? Basically, it hasn’t – saying “oh, it has showed me to wait to buy” is not helpful because we don’t have the conclusion of that scenario. At best, you can say: we will see…….”
So you are telling me that buying a 2/2 in the GZ at the same price as it was sold for in 2007 is a sound financial decision? Because I can dig up scores of properties that would fit those criteria.
If you are so damn sure, pull the trigger on them moneybags.
“yeah, I thought so – all speculation and theory”
Wait, this is important.
The CS index is giving us a snapshot of what current prices of homes are in the market relative to historical levels. It is an aggregate, so there will obviously be outliers and deviations. But it is compiled with statistical information to help give a picture of the overall market. It is NOT speculation. It is NOT theory.
Now let’s say someone is going into the market to make a home purchase. How should they determine if the homes they look at are priced fairly or are in line with the market? Should they look at the property’s historical price record (you’ve recommended against that)? Should they look at what other homes in the area are actually selling for (you’ve recommended against that as well)? Should they look at overall market indicators like the CS index (you’re recommending against that right now)?
No, according to clio, you should ask your realtor and your gut and say “is it worth it to me?”
Now, I ask you chatterati, who is engaged in speculation and theory?
“Typical CC discussion. 16 comments and less than 25% actually discuss the featured property. 50% are arguing about Case Shiller finer nuiances and 25% are attempting to precisely demonstrate what type of a moron Clio is.”
No kidding.
I think that this probably rents for $2000 or so as is if it includes parking (which I would guess that it does). If you wanted to do some cosmetic work for the kitchen and bathrooms, you might be able to get $2300 or so This is a pretty good location and very accessible to the entire North Side, as well as Metra and El. Good for a rental. If it were a normal sale, I think that it might go for around $250k, and it seems unlikely to me that there is too much wrong with it, although you still have to mitigate as you can and bear the risk that there is. I would be surprised if it goes for less than $195k.
“If you are so damn sure, pull the trigger on them moneybags.”
I have moved on to bigger and better things…..
I actually agree with people NOT buying right now. Look at this property – recently rented for 7k/month. You CANNOT do better than this (absolutely one of the the most unique properties in chicago – unparalleled location, 4 bed/4 bath w/ private rooftop terrace, 2 balconies, fireplace, 20 ft ceilings, w/ heat, electricity, maint. all included)
http://www.urbanrealestate.com/property/215-E-Chestnut-Unit-PH-CHICAGO-IL-60611-YRPAAREPSFD5S.html
“I have moved on to bigger and better things…..”
so from UIC to Phoenix U online?
i just keeps getting better
I guess the question is, once you un-closet the small bedroom, is it actually usable as a bedroom or office? It does kind of suck that this place got squeezed between two new developments, but that’s the city. I have not looked at North Center rents very recently, but I doubt very much that you could find a place of this quality for $1500.
Read between the lines, moron….
“Read between the lines, moron….”
i did and found the Letter I in the middle of U and the letter C…..and i have not stopped laughing since
“But 10? I think you can find properties sold in the early 2000?s that are underwater, even in decent to good hoods.”
Ok, so 10 years in, with no cash-out refi’s, they should have paid off 20%. Where are you finding places down 25%+ from 2001? I’m excluding zero down loans on purpose. “Underwater”, as I understand it, and as I believe is the vernacular, means “owing more than you can sell it for”, not “selling for less than you paid”.
“I’m excluding zero down loans on purpose.”
How about 5% down with a second mortgage? How about ARMs where their interest payments skyrocketed after 5-7 years? Are you including closing costs in your calculation?
Sure, for “good” mortgages in that time period, maybe there aren’t a lot (or any) truly underwater. I’m not sure that is the best metric to use (I’d go with a “worth it” metric for myself, which is admittedly much more subjective), but I can get behind what you are saying.
don’t waste your time anon, I have corrected her a few times on that misstatement but whatever
“I have not looked at North Center rents very recently, but I doubt very much that you could find a place of this quality for $1500.”
This: http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/apa/2802600640.html
is asking $1600, includes *garage* parking, free laundry, actual light thru the windows, and is not on IPR. Maybe the finishes aren’t quite as nice (no pix of bathroom or kithcen), but it beats the hell out of this place otherwise.
“Underwater”, as I understand it, and as I believe is the vernacular, means “owing more than you can sell it for”, not “selling for less than you paid”.
Unfortunately, some owners don’t see the difference. A friend owns a place in the New Yorker. I’d say its been about a decade, she only refi’d to get a lower rate, never cash out. Her comps say she could sell without bringing money to the table but since she won’t get any liquid cash from the transaction, she would rather hold on to it and be a reluctant landlord.
clio never gets a thing right.
“Not to split hairs but I calculate only a 33.3% drop since the peak in September 2006.”
Gary got something right about the CSi. Sabrina was quoting the SA number, though.
“lol @ clio callling everybody stupid, but actually getting it completely wrong. so funny. and then trying to start more arguments just to turn attention away from the mistake!”
To the wiki, please.
I’ve seen home prices in the suburbs 25%+ off the 2003 prices. Not foreclosures, not estate sales. Just older homes in need of renovation. FHA and first time buyers generally don’t want ‘old’. They want ‘new’. so new homes in these suburbs are selling for 25% to 50% more psf than ‘old’ houses. The ‘new’ houses seem to be beating the CS index and the ‘old’ houses are getting slammed by the CS index. One ‘old’ home, in excellent condition, but ‘old’ I toured was listed for 80k off the 2003 price. how do I know the 2003 price? The house next door to the south was the exact same house with a mirror image floor plan. Even crazier, the house directly to the north, renovated ‘new’ (same floor plan, but 50 sq feet bigger) sold within 10% of the 2003 price of the house 2 doors to the south. Hell, older homes in Arl. Hts. are selling for late 90’s pricing. Yes they need new kitchens and bathrooms but these are not neglected homes.
“How about 5% down with a second mortgage?”
That’s still $0 down. Excluded.
“How about ARMs where their interest payments skyrocketed after 5-7 years?”
Um, what? Whose ARM adjusted upward *at all* from 01 to a first float in 06 or 08, nevermind “skyrocketed”? And in either 06 or 08, it still would have been easy to refi that ARM to a fixie without taking any cashout.
All Negative Am Loans are also excluded, because that is effectively the same as a cashout refi.
“Sure, for “good” mortgages in that time period, maybe there aren’t a lot (or any) truly underwater.”
Right, but Sabrina sez “[W]e have seen people who have bought in the late 1990s that are STILL underwater (and not from serial refinancing either.)” and 1. “late 90s” is 13+ years ago now, 2. the distinction b/t “serial” refis and a single big cashout refi isn’t a genuine difference, and 3. this is one of those where I invoke my honorary Missurah citzenship–Show Me!
And, also, yes, someone who bought in [fringe area X] that didn’t turn enough and is now worse off due to massive f/c’s would be in that situation, but that was always going to be a gamble.
“And, also, yes, someone who bought in [fringe area X] that didn’t turn enough and is now worse off due to massive f/c’s would be in that situation, but that was always going to be a gamble.”
you rang 😀
“I’ve seen home prices in the suburbs 25%+ off the 2003 prices”
Is 2003 the “late 90s”? Did we do a calendar revision that I somehow missed?
“older homes in Arl. Hts. are selling for late 90?s pricing.”
But are they 25%+ *below* late 90s pricing, without having significant deferred maintenance?
Don’t change the fucking goal posts anon(tfo) or I’ll start calling you clio:
“Where are you finding places down 25%+ from 2001? ”
That’s what you said. Then I answered 25%+ from 2003 prices, and not just hypothetical 2003 prices, but actual 2003 sales prices.
HD – I’ll tell you what I told my kids (when they were in grade school) – “just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean that they are wrong. Try to figure out what they are trying to say and then think about it for awhile. Then, see if you can learn anything…..” – but then, of course, that type of teaching gets you into Yale, not some tenth tier school…… (cue Groove with the false info that I went to UIC…..you know, because the internet is NEVER wrong….)
“That’s what you said. Then I answered 25%+ from 2003 prices, and not just hypothetical 2003 prices, but actual 2003 sales prices.”
So, are you implying that prices in 2003 were the same as in 2001? Wasn’t 2001 almost 25% below 2003? Call it 20%, to give a little wiggle–are they *40%* (80%*75%) below the 2003 prices?
The start of the convo was bc Sabrina (absurdly, imo) asserted that “[W]e have seen people who have bought in the late 1990s that are STILL underwater (and not from serial refinancing either.)”. The 2001 question was shifting to address TFT’s point, and now, to shift to yours, yes, certainly there are people who bought in 2003, with 10% or less down, who haven’t done a cashout, who are underwater. No doubt about it. But that wasn’t even *close* to the point of dispute.
” because the internet is NEVER wrong”
Sereiously, if the doc whose info HD posted is you, I’d get that corrected.
“The fact that you find CS useless is hilarious.”
If it were positive, I am certain our resident Moron would find it useful.
“you know, because the internet is NEVER wrong”
the irony is so darn thick you can even cut it with a UIC dorm lunch hall knife.
Clio, don’t you have some stents to put in or something?
“This: http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/apa/2802600640.html
is asking $1600, includes *garage* parking, free laundry, actual light thru the windows, and is not on IPR. Maybe the finishes aren’t quite as nice (no pix of bathroom or kithcen), but it beats the hell out of this place otherwise.”
I would still say that comp supports this place at $1800 or $1900. To my point, you can’t rent a place like the subject property in that area for $1500.
Clio: “HD – I’ll tell you what I told my kids (when they were in grade school) – “just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean that they are wrong. Try to figure out what they are trying to say and then think about it for awhile. Then, see if you can learn anything…..” – but then, of course, that type of teaching gets you into Yale, not some tenth tier school…… (cue Groove with the false info that I went to UIC…..you know, because the internet is NEVER wrong….)”
Honest question: when you tell that to your kids, do you go on angry rants which you pepper with IDIOT, MORON and clueless?
If so, I feel sorry for your kids. If not, maybe that’ll give you a clue as to why no one on the interwebz listens to you.
anon: ““How about 5% down with a second mortgage?”
That’s still $0 down. Excluded.”
I’ll give you “dumb.” I’ll give you “risky.” But it is decidedly NOT $0 down.
“I would still say that comp supports this place at $1800 or $1900.”
Peg for every hole or always a sucker or something, I guess. Keeping in mind that it’s really a 2 bedrrom, as is.
“Honest question: when you tell that to your kids, do you go on angry rants which you pepper with IDIOT, MORON and clueless?”
Of course not – because my kids AREN’T idiots/morons – they are actually very good looking…..
“means “owing more than you can sell it for”, not “selling for less than you paid”.”
I personally would clarify when using that expression. I would think anyone not specifically familiar with R/E vernacular would possibly see underwater=in the red. I could understand and excuse someone assuming underwater as either side. Personally underwater to me makes sense as “in the red” based off of “all- in” asset price.
i.e, If you and I are neighbors, paid the same amount, have done the same $$ amt of work… But you put in much more equity. Our losses will still be the same but from the argument of “owing more than you can sell for” I would be underwater and you would not be. Thus clearly suggesting your position is advantageous. Which it is not. They are identical.
“They are identical.”
$-wise.. before some smart ass tells me about short sales..
“I’ll give you “dumb.” I’ll give you “risky.” But it is decidedly NOT $0 down.”
Oh, you meant 80/15. Didn’t get that. Still would have paid down ~20% of the mortgages (assuming 2d is amortizing) in the intervening decade+. Still would have 25%+ “equity” based on purchase price. Still need the price to have declined by 25%+ to be “underwater”.
btw, not dumb or risky if you were reasonably certain you’d stay for 15+ years; at least not in 99, 00, 01. Much more questionable in 06, 07.
“Our losses will still be the same but from the argument of “owing more than you can sell for” I would be underwater and you would not be. Thus clearly suggesting your position is advantageous. Which it is not. They are identical”
Financially, perhaps – but in the big picture, the person who is not underwater has a much greater advantage, more opportunities, and is definitely in a better position.
I just don’t see the market (rental or otherwise) for a 3/1. The single person or couple buying or renting is much more likely to want a second bathroom than a third bedroom. I just don’t see the value going up and up by number of bedrooms unless the bathroom number also goes up. Adding a bathroom would be a huge undertaking. I know I would rather just buy a 2/2 for the same price as this 3/1.
Admission to top tier universities when C/resMoron attended was easy. However, imo his types offspring, despite having every advantage higher income Tea Partiers provide their own (including invaluable tutoring on how to glean insight from unenlightened idiots) is destined to attend the likes of Miami of Ohio.
On a humorous note I met one of Jen McCarthy’s sisters years ago who at age 18 told me she was starting U of C that fall. Since that seemed unlikely I probed & sure enough Chicagoans periodically confuse these two esteemed places of higher learning.
” HD – I’ll tell you what I told my kids (when they were in grade school)…”
” I would think anyone not specifically familiar with R/E vernacular would possibly see underwater=in the red.”
But then serial refi or not is immaterial. And that qaulification was in the sentence in question. So it was stated that it was with respect to the mortgage.
And every discussion in the media of the percentage of homeowners who are “underwater” relates to the mortgage balance.
And we’re on a real estate blog, so basic knowledge of the jargon should be presumed until otherwise demonstrated (cof-cof).
ps: This:
“Thus clearly suggesting your position is advantageous. Which it is not. They are identical.”
is contrary to what you always say about real estate financing. Did you really expect that to slip by?
“Financially, perhaps – but in the big picture, the person who is not underwater has a much greater advantage, more opportunities, and is definitely in a better position.”
Really.. with *their* equity tied up in 1 iliquid asset while I have *mine* diversified liquid and available. Please tell me how they are ready to jump on tomorrows opportunity? Where is their cash? Better position, how?
I have said 100 times. There is a tangible value that can be assigned to the difference between liquid and iiiquid assets. Liquidity is ALWAYS premium, and Ze rarely speaks in absolutes.
ze – YOU are better off than them, but THEY are better off than the person underwater. I sold my palmolive condo for a loss and moved to an AWESOME apt a few blocks away that I am renting. There ARE opportunities out there – you just have to responsibly get out of your obligations…..
“is contrary to what you always say about real estate financing. Did you really expect that to slip by?”
You are now getting that sidewards head cocked confused puppy look from Ze. Must be the fact you expect clear sentence structure. I must have said something in an unclear manner or passed over somethng in order to make a point, or simply was not clear in that I may have been defining half of something…
As, for slip by? Heck, I don’t have $1 in debt outstanding.. how does that not slip by?????..ROFLMAO!!!
“You are now getting that sidewards head cocked confused puppy look from Ze.”
You’ve always said the person who can walk from their i/o mortgage is better off. So, not identical, advantage underwater borrower. RE with 0 equity is better than RE with 0 debt, bc you get the put.
“Admission to top tier universities when C/resMoron attended was easy”
hahahaha – there is always an excuse…….get over it
So then it is D) simply was not clear in that I may have been defining half of something… which the 12:31 would have been more on line with the 2nd half you would expect from me.
I was just trying to illustrate that if you were discussing 2 neighbors and described one as underwater, one would assume that person was in a worse p+l position. I believe it would be interpreted as such. The truth is they would be p+l equivalent. That is the reason I do not like the general term w/o clarification. Yes, my fullest argument has the “underwater” guy *undefined* as better off. But that’s Nobel shit. I gotta save that write-up for one day that I am not stoned. Maybe one day in 2008?
“Maybe one day in 2008?”
You working on a time machine? Don’t let Biff get the Sports Almanac!
Ha ha – certainly your postings demonstrate the real value of the education you received (cost of which btw largely subsidized by us taxpayers) & my point (which always eludes you or is ignored) is no auto admission today for offspring of legacies like yourself. What, silence now??
I don’t think the college one attends matters much in the grand scheme of things. I would rather attend a state school and not have student loans than a private school and end up with loans. I went to Northwestern and I think a state school would have been just fine too. College is what one makes of it. Who cares where Clio went to school?
At any rate, people who can’t figure out the difference between UIC and U of C makes me want to scream. I want to U of C lab for high school and automatically get my hackles up whenever anyone asks where I want to high school because it takes too much time to explain the difference not only between UIC and U of C, but that U of C also has a high school.
“You working on a time machine? Don’t let Biff get the Sports Almanac!”
and like that this thread is now closed….Hats off to you on that one
“automatically get my hackles up whenever anyone asks where I want to high school because it takes too much time to explain”
Just tell them you went to Lane. You knew people who did, and its a big enough school to say “I’ve heard of him/her, but didn’t really known em” plausibly if they ask.
“cost of which btw largely subsidized by us taxpayers” –
ROFLMAO! We had a newspaper advertisement hung on the office wall. “Never have so few, taken so much, from so many…” That was way before this mess though. Only Sr. Cinza and his cadre of leftist fools keep me from being able to disagree with you completely. As you have witnessed, there are no shortage of willing participants that wish to share “vonnegut” moments with me. Lacking your eloquence I simply choose other means to resolve disagreements.
“which always eludes you or is ignored”
The biff thing was funny.
Sorry anon.. i didn’t even look and see it wasn’t you that responded.
Southbound. I am anything but a legacy. Can’t take anything away from my parents by not saying they didn’t give me everything they could, and that I did not benefit from it, but legacy, nope.
and southbound.. sorry I did not realize you were talking to clio.. nevermind.. I’m going to go watch TV.
“Ha ha – certainly your postings demonstrate the real value of the education you received (cost of which btw largely subsidized by us taxpayers) & my point (which always eludes you or is ignored) is no auto admission today for offspring of legacies like yourself. What, silence now??”
I don’t understand what you are saying, but my son goes to Yale and my daughter goes to the chadwick school – neither of which I attended. If my kids went to U OF C, Harvard, or Stanford – now that would be a different story….
“no auto admission today for offspring of legacies like yourself”
There’s such a thing as a uic legacy?
“Never have so few, taken so much, from so many…”
Heh:
“The multi-talented Michael Crichton not only wrote the screenplay based on his own 1975 novel, but he also served as the film’s director. Did I mention he also was a graduate of Harvard Medical School?”
It looks like even 2/1s go for more than 200k in this area, so given the time on market something must be wrong with this particular unit/building. If there isn’t then this is a good price and it will sell.
I don’t think this condo is representative at all for the neighborhood. Estate sale two flats go for 450-550k last year and this year. Most likely more than they sold for in 2001.
I’ve noticed that many of the distressed properties in desirable neighborhoods tend to be on really busy streets like Western, Ashland and IPR.
” But we have seen people who have bought in the late 1990s that are STILL underwater (and not from serial refinancing either.) ”
if we really want to dissect this, we should define or agree on what is meant my “the late 1990s” and “serial refinancing”. Theoretically anything after 1996 is late 1990s and serial refinancing means to me refi every chance you got and taking cash out.
I’d love to see an example or two of one of those people Sabrina is referring to
getting back to this place, likely rent would be around 1600, i’d say.
i’m assuming there’s a 50% chance it does have the garage parking
“i’m assuming there’s a 50% chance it does have the garage parking”
From the aerial, it’s hard to tell, but I doubt it, with teh location of the tree. Probably parking, but no garage.
I think good space in a good location will hold up very well in 2012, and the “GZ” as used here, will be the outliers on the CSI bell curve.
This place for example, will probably end up closing at or above its 2004 price (http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1827-N-Sheffield-Ave-60614/unit-B/home/13350872). I’m pretty sure the deal will close above the ask given the volume of traffic at the open house last weekend and the fact that it went under contract within hours (possibly even before the OH was over).
My 2c – location is back as the driving force and good locations will hold up in 2012. For a while there it was SF and finishings, and locations was dismissed because everywhere was “up and coming.” Decent space with decent schools will hold within 10% of 2006 levels, if not better. Money’s just too cheap right now and the last wave of buyers have had a couple of years to brace themselves for a loss on their last place and are ready to upgrade.
“I don’t think this condo is representative at all for the neighborhood.”
Not of the neighborhood, but pretty representiative of the block, at least for distressed properties. Check out this recent sale:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1925-W-Irving-Park-Rd-60613/unit-2/home/18936084
I’m a new home owner near Lincoln Square and I’ve been reading this site for just the last couple of months – so relatively new to CC. I do not work in real estate and have no conflict of interest here, but while I find many posts here informative (such as Gary Lucido’s first post in this thread) I have stopped reading any of clio’s posts – he is hostile to most if not all other posters and contributes nothing of value to the daily discussion. Why doesn’t someone ban him from the site?
“Are Property Price Declines Mirroring Case-Shiller?”
Yes imho price declines are mirroring the CS index.
Consider the opposite. If the CS index did *not* mirror the prices paid/received for Chicagoland re, then — theoretically — there’d be an arbitrage opportunity: arbs could buy or sell futures on the CSI and buy or short that same exposure in the spot market, eliminating the price difference between the two.
But the problem is — and this probably accounts for why futures trading on the CSI has been such a bust — since arbs can’t easily buy/short the underlying asset (Chicago re) to offset their futures position, it’s conceivable that the CS index value could differ from its underlying components.
But I’d guess that difference is small, that the price trend of both is identical, and if anything that the CSI understates the decline of spot market values.
College totally matters. You don’t find as many high income white collared professionals from lower tiered state schools, and especially not in larger urban areas. If there are two grads for the same job in Chicago – one went to a Big 10 and the other went to western michigan state, or Western IL, guess who gets the job? It is unfortunately a pedigree driven world out there. People don’t want to believe that, but it’s true.
“College totally matters. You don’t find as many high income white collared professionals from lower tiered state schools, and especially not in larger urban areas.”
Yeah but if you look at one percenters I’d bet there’s a bigger distribution of colleges. E.g. nobody, esp. from “flagship” state schools thinks the guy who went to a regional who starts out selling cars or working for Enterprise will amount to much. Some of them wind up owning their own car dealership one day.
When I think of flagship state schoolers with great grades I think of prime middle mgt material. Yeah they can work their way up and live in Schaumburg, or even on the North Shore if their spouse has a career too, but they’ll top out at 110k or so. Never to hit the big bucks of 200k+.
Talk down all you want about people that went to regionals: one of my friends owns his own plumbing company who went to one of the schools you listed. He has an awesome house, a new truck every few years and is putting four kids through private school and college won’t put a severe strain on him.
I got a family member who went Ivy, did well, who just got into a top 15 law school. They’d better pray they get one of those coveted “big law” jobs with the amount of cumulative debt they’ll be in. Doesn’t seem like a very calculated gamble to me, despite their parents obviously having block bragging rights at the get togethers.
Pedigree, whether in school or even social standing in line of work, is something the upper middle class uses to placate them that despite doing everything right/they were supposed to do, they never wound up at the top of the food chain because they never took risks/never developed the right skillsets.
RE: colleges
Bob is totally correct. Many of my classmates at U. of (yes, OF) C thought that all they had to do was just get accepted and attend class and their life would be set. Boy were they shocked after senior year……
Clio – Nice example on how Case-Shiller Index works but maybe you should actually read up on it before you incorrectly inform the world of your Intelligence. There is a weighting mechanism in the methodology, which prevents a $100K house averaged in with $1M home. The weighting is not perfect but does try to account for differences in home values. The index, is however, very broad and covers more than Chicago proper.
clio (February 1, 2012, 8:30 am)
Follow-up questions: Does anyone here really understand what an “average” is? I thought so…. OK – let me explain by example. Let’s say you have 100 homes – 50 are worth 1,000,000 and 50 are worth 100,000. The average of those homes is 550,000 (now this does NOT mean the 1,000,000 homes are worth 550,000). Still with me? OK….. Now let’s say we are in an average market and 5 of the 100,000 homes sell and 4 of the 1,000,000 homes sell. The average would be 500,000. Now let’s say the market gets worse and 7 of the 100,000 homes sell but only 3 of the 1,000,000 homes sell. The average would be 370,000. OK now let’s say the economy is still bad and 8 of the 100,000 homes sell and only 2 of the 1,000,000 homes sell. The average would be 280,000. You can see that the “average” (like the Case Shiller Index) keeps decreases while the prices of the INDIVIDUAL homes stay the same. This parallels what is happening out there right now. Sabrina doesn’t showcase the many houses that actually sold for higher than what they were bought. She is more interested in the 2/2s in less than desirable areas that were bought in the bubble (2004-2008) and are struggling to sell right now.
“if we really want to dissect this, we should define or agree on what is meant my “the late 1990s” and “serial refinancing”. Theoretically anything after 1996 is late 1990s and serial refinancing means to me refi every chance you got and taking cash out.
I’d love to see an example or two of one of those people Sabrina is referring to”
Oh my- what did I start?
I could find many examples in the non-GZ neighborhoods where someone bought in 1998/1999 and they have to sell for less than they bought it for. Much less. Prices have come down that much in many neighborhoods. If your neighbors are selling at 60% off the 2003 price- what do you think the 1999 buyer is going to sell for? Also, don’t forget with transaction costs of about 8% it doesn’t take much to find some homeowners STILL underwater.
Granted, it’s not going to be a lot of them (as long as they didn’t take money out of the house.) You’d THINK they were paying the mortgage down and would be ahead after all those years. But it’s just been complete devestation in many neighborhoods. When your neighbor is selling for $20,000- that doesn’t leave much hope for you.
““Sabrina doesn’t showcase the many houses that actually sold for higher than what they were bought.”
Like what? Send me some in the city of Chicago. And I’m not talking about the flipper/renovators.”
Took me a few minutes of searching to find half a dozen properties that closed above what they last sold for. And that is just within a couple blocks of me that have closed in the past three months.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2111-N-Kenmore-Ave-60614/unit-D/home/13352155
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1853-N-Fremont-St-60614/home/13350808
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1130-W-Armitage-Ave-60614/unit-3/home/13351467
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1648-N-Bissell-St-60614/home/40100103
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1646-N-Bissell-St-60614/home/13351349
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1701-N-Halsted-St-60614/unit-D2/home/13346861
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1857-N-Orchard-St-60614/unit-C/home/13346960
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1857-N-Orchard-St-60614/unit-B/home/13347792
Yes- as I thought. Most of these are NOT examples of properties that sold for more than they last sold for.
1. Last sold in 1999. Sure- there are some LP properties that will sell for more than it did 13 years ago.
2. This house was renovated. Not an apple to apples comp at all.
3. Sold for $7,000 more than the last sale. Pay the realtors and transfer taxes and you have a big loss.
4. Loss of $28,000
5. Loss of $28,000 (are #4 and #5 the same unit?)
6. This is the only true example. The Halsted townhouse sold in 2004 for $527,500 and in 2011 for $564,000. But take out realtors fees and transfer taxes- did they see a loss anyway?
7. I can’t tell on these orchard listings. Is this new construction? There are multiple entries with the same PIN so the records aren’t correct.
Like I said- it’s not that common to have a property sell for more than what the seller last paid for it. We’ve chattered about some houses that were bought 20 years ago in Sauganash or Edgebrook. Those will sell for more. But the reason I feature condos that continually sell for less is because that’s what’s happening out there.
Sabrina, what can I say – you are using only a few examples from your crappy neighborhood and applying it to the rest of chicagoland. Idiotic at best/
LPN – maybe if you studied harder, you could have been an RN – don’t talk to me about CSI or intelligence….
I think grad school matters, but undergrad matters a lot less. My friend went to Indiana University in Bloomington and then Harvard Law… he did well on the LSAT. An exboyfriend of mine dropped out of high school his freshman year, but he liked computers so taught himself to program as a kid and was making over $100k in his early 20s. We fell out of touch, but he was very intelligent and I’m guessing he’s still successful now.
My gut tells me it’s a person’s drive/ambition that matters more than school. A higher percent of those who go to top school are driven/ambitious compared to those attending lower tier schools. In other words, people self select into those top schools.
“despite having every advantage higher income Tea Partiers provide their own”
relative to their population numbers, kids of Tea Partiers are the most discriminated against members at the elite schools. The prevailing wisdom is that a campus full of smart white kids is not diverse, so what happens is some of these kids end up at non-elite universities, and like Bob infers the cream-rises-to-the-top and they blow away the affirm-action types (from the elite schools) once real life hits. Who owns all the successful companies outside Cook County and all those nice houses out in St. Charles and Geneva? and have all those great looking-kids?
Dan: clio owned property in st Charles.
Bob: I’m not saying pedigree is everything, it is most certainty not, but it does mean something, and definitely more weight than you want to give it.
I disagree H. Hofer. The most discriminated against would be members of elite colleges are high achieving students of Asian heritage because people like you would start a revolution if college admission was strictly based on actual accomplishment and cream rising to top. Your kids will (as did mine) benefit by a perverse reverse discrimination. And I don’t need to egg you on by pointing out which also discriminated against class of white kids will likely out perform yours
Not to interrupt what will soon be an AWESOME discussion on race and colleges (not!), but I’m not feeling well so there will only be two posts tomorrow instead of the normal 3 or 4 posts.
Okay. Carry on.
And please play nice.
“I could find many examples in the non-GZ neighborhoods where someone bought in 1998/1999 and they have to sell for less than they bought it for.”
You are confused. Selling for less than they bought it for and being underwater are two different things.
“The most discriminated against would be members of elite colleges are high achieving students of Asian heritage”
I agree they are discriminated against, but not to the level white kids of Tea Partiers are, esp. those not from the coasts (i.e. Midwest). Sure there are “white” kids in the elite school stats, that’s misleading however, they are in reality disproportionately jews (1/2 of the “whites” classification) or liberal whites. The most discriminated kids are those born to Tea Party parents, moreso than Asians, I think.
A valedictorian with top scores, who is white, from for instance downstate IL, etc. has little chance getting into an Ivy, they aren’t even recruited, offered academic scholarships, etc.
Blacks and Hispanics are admitted to elite schools in numbers approaching their share of the population. Who are the most underrepresented?
White Christians and ethnic Catholics. Though two-thirds of the U.S. population then, they are now one-fourth of the student body.
“ethnic Catholics”
You mean Mexicans?
What about Poles? Should we specify the number of crucifixes and saints and pictures of Mary in the household 🙂
“Should we specify the number of crucifixes and saints and pictures of Mary”
None of Justinian. I mean the guy kills just a few tens of thousands of his own people and next thing you know those dirty Catholics don’t want him Sainted you can’t catch a break with those dirty Catholics.
“You mean Mexicans?”
It doesn’t work that way. Hispanics and blacks are eight to 10 times more likely to get in with the same scores than white kids (that are non-rich liberal whites or jews).
“What about Poles? Should we specify the number of crucifixes and saints and pictures of Mary in the household”
They are discriminated against, when compared to a Jew that has a mezuzah, shofar, menorah, golden calf, etc. in their home, or an Asian or Hindu or Nepalese that has any similar weirdo cultural bizarre kitschy claptrap.
Ryan Bingham: [on getting through airport security] Never get behind old people. Their bodies are littered with hidden metal and they never seem to appreciate how little time they have left. Bingo, Asians. They pack light, travel efficiently, and they have a thing for slip on shoes. Gotta love ’em.
Natalie Keener: That’s racist.
Ryan Bingham: I’m like my mother, I stereotype. It’s faster.
“Sure there are “white” kids in the elite school stats, that’s misleading however, they are in reality disproportionately jews (1/2 of the “whites” classification) or liberal whites.”
That’s because we don’t see the influx of asians and indians as discrimination. We see it as competition and simply rise to the occasion. You, expect things handed to you as a gift for your being born into such “whiteness”. Keep waiting! It’s fun watching you whine like a lil bitch, while we make ourselves masters of our fates. It is fun watching you peep about to find yourself your dishonorable grave. Your failure is your own, your disappointment in your position in life is yours as well. I told you a year ago. You are stuck in a box. The genesis of your failure is obvious to me. Equally obvious when you were giving me a lesson in HFT, telling me my thoughts are what others want me to believe, until I asked a simple question and you ran from it, never to respond. A coward!! You ran again when i illustrated the ridiculousness of your parking idea. A total Pussy!! This is what you are. One afraid of failing. One that thinks that being classically trained in the status quo of his profession (Mr. Keating) and being of the old status quo should be sufficient for having rewards heaped upon them. Sorry bro’ but all us dot heads, slanty eyes, and kikes have blinders on to these external distractions that so pre-occupy you, and we will run you over again and again because we are simply more focused
Then we go back to our nice homes on E. LSD or our theater rooms in Highland Park, or Great Neck, or Scarsdale, or Alpine, or Manhattan, or … (insert any desirable area) and get along incredibly well with our gentile neighbors who have met with similar success and have no animosity of our presence.
In short.. you would be better off worrying about yourself. That is where the answer is anyway. But you won’t look there. You won’t like what you see. So you make up shit to define away your failure. It is absolutely hilarious! That is why I go immediately and click on your posts. You are my favorite on here. It’s fun watching you. It’s in a strange way pleasurable to see what has become of your brand of thought. From 3rd Reich to a bunch of people without a 3rd tooth. That truly is pretty much all that is left of you.
…and Dan.. please enjoy the fact that while you are reading this, I will be out kitesurfing… Peace!
If Harvard and Princeton are DISCRIMINATING against ASIANS they might need to pay up BIG TIME.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/harvard-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe.html
“It doesn’t work that way.”
But theyre ethnic and theyre catholic, so how using plain language, theyre in your most descriminated against category. Especially since it is a group that requires distinction from white christians.
“You are confused. Selling for less than they bought it for and being underwater are two different things.”
No- I’m not. There are certainly those who will sell for less than they bought it for who are NOT underwater (that happens every single day all over the GZ.) That may be because they bought for all cash or actually bothered to put down 25% or more 10 years ago. AND then they paid down the remaining mortgage.
But there are quite a few people in many, many neighborhoods who, despite paying down the mortgage for over 10 years, are STILL underwater due to price declines in their neighborhood. People need to get in their cars and drive around. Look at what’s happening in 2/3rds of Chicago neighborhoods right now. There are houses for sale for $7000. $20,000. $50,000. It crushes down the rest of the property values in the neighborhood.
I would love to buy a $70,000 house. However there are none in neighborhoods where I want to live. And those $70,000 homes need a lot of work. It’s often better to buy a $300,000 house that is somewhat outdated but has newer/better systems (hvac, plumbing, etc) than to buy a cheaper house where everything is old. Unless of course the land is valuable.
“Look at what’s happening in 2/3rds of Chicago neighborhoods right now. There are houses for sale for $7000. $20,000. $50,000. It crushes down the rest of the property values in the neighborhood.”
What is happening in these areas really does not affect 99.999999999% of your readers, Sabrina. When you talk about 7000 houses, you are talking neighborhoods where none of your readers will move (let alone visit). It is similar to telling your children to eat their dinner because “there are starving kids in Africa” (100% true, but 100% useless/irrelevant to the situation at hand).
Thanks for translating anon. BTW, where in the college application, you specify the religion?
Also Dan could you enlighten us how W got into Yale?
“ethnic Catholics”
You mean Mexicans?
“No- I’m not.”
Yes, you are.
“But there are quite a few people in many, many neighborhoods who, despite paying down the mortgage for over 10 years, are STILL underwater due to price declines in their neighborhood. ”
But that’s not what you said. What you said is:
“I could find many examples in the non-GZ neighborhoods where someone bought in 1998/1999 and they have to sell for less than they bought it for.”
Note the word “bought”. What you should have said was “sell for less than what they owe on it”. Two totally different concepts.
This thread keeps getting dumber and dumber, my posts included.
“There are houses for sale for $7000. $20,000. $50,000.”
yeah, we call them “tear-downs” 99% of those POS’s are selling for land value, and most are in war zones or awful locations, or were formerly occupied by hoarders
that isn’t 2/3’s of chicago… no way in hell!!!! maybe 2-3% of a percent of all the homes for sale in the area but its not as bad as you are saying
Dec 2011 Chicago detached SFH sales:
675 Total Sales
less than or equal/sales/%
$7,000 6 1%
$20,000 49 7%
$50,000 146 22%
Current Chicago detached SFH listings:
6,070 Total Listings
less than or equal/sales/%
$7,000 34 1%
$20,000 255 4%
$50,000 784 13%
Shocking G, almost 1/3rd! is there a way to see how they were sold?
I would not be surprised to see some ‘insider deal’ REO transactions being the largest percentage of those sales
“Shocking G, almost 1/3rd!”
Those are cumulative. If it’s under $7k, it’s also in the under $50k %age.
I’ve added the REO/short sales.
Dec 2011 Chicago detached SFH sales:
675 Total Sales
less than or equal/sales/%/distress/%
$7,000 6 1% 5 83%
$20,000 49 7% 42 86%
$50,000 146 22% 120 82%
Forgot to add that 308 of the 675 total (46%) detached sfh sales in December were REO/short sales.
“$7,000 6 1% 5 83%”
So, the one property that sold for under $7k, and wasn’t REO and didn’t have a mortgage was located where?
Oh, right…
perhaps that historic home on the south side that was for sale for $1 and needed to be moved, was sold?
Was it 8331 S Buffalo, which appears to have sold for $1, with all of the mortgages (totalling about $120k, based on a $35,000 purchase price in 2005) having been release last July?
I’ve seen cases where Citi will actually file a release of mortgage against the property, so as not to be dragged into housing court, and then pursue the debt as unsecured. I’ve also seen cases where the bank will not even foreclose because the cost to foreclosure is greater than the vale of the property. I’ve also seen closings of REO’s around here where the buy purchases the property (usually vacant land) for nothing, or next to nothing, $1, and then receives a 100% tax proration, so the buyer actually walks away from the closing with money. crazy times we live in. It’s $300,000 for a 50×150 lot in my neighborhood but 12 miles to the south it’s $300 for the same piece of land. I could see 50 miles away, or 120 miles away in teh desert it selling for $300, but 12 measly miles? What a waste of land, it’s just a waste of urban planing.
“Was it 8331 S Buffalo”
Yes.
““Was it 8331 S Buffalo”
Yes.”
Well, that hardly counts as “not distressed” as it was soooooo short (how short? shorter than Groove’s hobbit legs) that they gave ’em the releases *before* it sold. That’s major distress!
“I’ve added the REO/short sales.”
Yeah, I typically stay away from the term distress. Not good shorthand for REO/short sales.
Buffalo Soldier…
I know a woman who had a $20,000 line of credit, as her primary mortgage, and the bank just charged it off. She still lives in the house. No debt collect calls as of late, eitehr. I know another lady with a $70,000 mortgage, and here she is, four years later, no payments, and nothing more than a phone call every now and again. I wonder if they’re even payign the taxes anymore. She should look into that.
Actually buying up tons of lots on buffalo and that other street there might not be a bad idea if you are willing to wait a while, they are doing a redevelopment there called Harborside on that huge site near the lake so there will be a huge new developed area, with a small chance of being nice and in demand, I dunno stranger things have happened
““I’ve added the REO/short sales.”
Yeah, I typically stay away from the term distress. Not good shorthand for REO/short sales.”
Yeah, but: “less than or equal/sales/%/distress/%”
And, really, when the lender just records releases, it’s a pre-approved short sale. 100% short.
Yeah, but, I thought starting off with “I’ve added the REO/short sales” would indicate what “distress” meant. Apparently not. To me, distress is arbitrary unless defined.
And, really, if the lender records releases it is yours. Not a short sale. What if the seller held for years after the releases? Still a short sale to you?
Nice rant Ze, don’t let stats/reality affect your narrow worldview. It’s laughable that you are trying to say you guys have never played the discrimination card or used other assorted sob stories ad infinitum for centuries. LOL!!! How do you think I$rael weasels all it’s foreign aid and subsidies, those shysters still working on lawsuits and reparations, etc.? Nobody has ever played the whiner card so extensively. You are a full blown idiot.