San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#21

Post by mountaineer22 » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 2:59 PM UTC

djb_hackernews wrote: post #16

epimetheus wrote: post #14

A bit of an anecdote because the article mentions my town specifically - Tacoma: We put our house on the market Friday, April 8th, a bit below the "redfin estimate" - I saw it had gone live by 11am and we already had an interested party set up a viewing by 12pm. We showed the house 11 times by Monday morning and had 5 offers, some 12k above asking price. We accepted an offer by Tuesday (April 12). My head is still sp…

This plays out daily in hot real estate markets. I've been casually observing the Boston/Cambridge market and I have to scratch my head when I see properties on the market for only a few days and agents demanding offers by 2 days after the open house. Typically, I see listed on Thursday, OH Sat/Sun, offers due Tuesday evening. If I were a seller I'd think that we priced the property too low, then again I can imagine…

I have observed the strategy of the listing agent slightly under-pricing the home to cause a bidding war among willing buyers.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#22

Post by kyleblarson » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:04 PM UTC

epimetheus wrote: post #14

A bit of an anecdote because the article mentions my town specifically - Tacoma: We put our house on the market Friday, April 8th, a bit below the "redfin estimate" - I saw it had gone live by 11am and we already had an interested party set up a viewing by 12pm. We showed the house 11 times by Monday morning and had 5 offers, some 12k above asking price. We accepted an offer by Tuesday (April 12). My head is still sp…

Out of curiosity did you list it with Redfin? I've always been interested to hear how that experience compares with a traditional agent.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#23

Post by refurb » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:06 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #19

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a foreigner, I don't understand this attitude. Why would you want all your wealth to be invested in a single leveraged asset that's also depreciating, requires your constant attention and ties you to a single locale?

Because it means you don't have to pay rent after you retire.

But you're not paying rent because you have hundreds of thousands of dollars locked up in tye house?

The real question is, how much money would you have made if all that equity was in the stock market? Sometimes that can be more than what rent would be.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#24

Post by reverend_gonzo » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #18

chadlavi wrote: post #13

As a Brooklyn resident (who rents), I hope this trend picks up steam and continues. Maybe I could be a homeowner some day after all!

As a foreigner, I don't understand this attitude. Why would you want all your wealth to be invested in a single leveraged asset that's also depreciating, requires your constant attention and ties you to a single locale?

A number of reasons:

1) You don't pay rent. Once you own the place free and clear, it's yours and you always have a home.

2) While the house depreciates, property may may still appreciate, especially if you live in a nice area, and even more so if you own the land beneath you.

3) There are tax benefits to owning your own house.

4) When you start out, it's usually not that much wealth, since you're taking a loan on it, though it is highly leveraged. As you pay more of it down, if you're smart, you'll have diversified your assets, so it's not all in one spot.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#25

Post by epimetheus » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

kyleblarson wrote: post #22

epimetheus wrote: post #14

A bit of an anecdote because the article mentions my town specifically - Tacoma: We put our house on the market Friday, April 8th, a bit below the "redfin estimate" - I saw it had gone live by 11am and we already had an interested party set up a viewing by 12pm. We showed the house 11 times by Monday morning and had 5 offers, some 12k above asking price. We accepted an offer by Tuesday (April 12). My head is still sp…

Out of curiosity did you list it with Redfin? I've always been interested to hear how that experience compares with a traditional agent.

I did. I went that route mostly due to the free consultation button. The agent assigned to us was fairly good, but was probably overwhelmed with multiple houses for sale, and communication was somewhat lacking. I went with a different realtor, one I knew personally, for buying; I should have gone with him for both sides, he's very good, friendly, and calls multiple times a day when needed. Our house wasn't expensive enough for the area for redfin to be involved, which is why we got a partner agent.

Overall, I like Redfin for looking at potential houses, but it needs something more, IMO. Like offers and other details on their website (account dashboard right now just links to your listing, nothing else). Maybe even an electronic signature feature for offers, etc.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#26

Post by reverend_gonzo » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #23

jschwartzi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it means you don't have to pay rent after you retire.

But you're not paying rent because you have hundreds of thousands of dollars locked up in tye house? The real question is, how much money would you have made if all that equity was in the stock market? Sometimes that can be more than what rent would be.

And sometimes the stock market crashes and takes everything with it.

See: every ten years.

At least with a house, even if the value goes down, you still have a home.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#27

Post by surfmike » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:11 PM UTC

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #18

chadlavi wrote: post #13

As a Brooklyn resident (who rents), I hope this trend picks up steam and continues. Maybe I could be a homeowner some day after all!

As a foreigner, I don't understand this attitude. Why would you want all your wealth to be invested in a single leveraged asset that's also depreciating, requires your constant attention and ties you to a single locale?

Most of the value is in the land. And historically the prices have gone up over the long term, so your leveraged investment allows you to get more returns.

Also, unlike stocks, if housing falls, at least you get utility from it-- you live in it.

Finally, there are many neighborhoods in the US where the rental options are pretty limited. You need to buy to live a lot of places.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#28

Post by kspaans » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:11 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #5

mdorazio wrote: post #2

The article seems to imply some meltdown in housing is around the corner, but it seems more like the housing market is just leveling off as a result of market forces. You can only drive home prices so high before there aren't enough people who can afford them anymore. Hopefully that means that rent prices will also level off in the area in the near future.

That's not exactly true. A lot of REIs are built on complex structures. The SF estate market might be fueling other investments. Once one starts to collapse it can have a domino effect. Basically if investors were expecting 10% annual return and you tell them this year might be 1-2% they'll take that money and move it elsewhere. Now you have to raise money or sell. When I used to live in downtown Miami there were hig…

REI means Real Estate Index? Or do you mean REIT (RE Investment Trust)?

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#29

Post by pimlottc » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:12 PM UTC

epimetheus wrote: post #25

kyleblarson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity did you list it with Redfin? I've always been interested to hear how that experience compares with a traditional agent.

I did. I went that route mostly due to the free consultation button. The agent assigned to us was fairly good, but was probably overwhelmed with multiple houses for sale, and communication was somewhat lacking. I went with a different realtor, one I knew personally, for buying; I should have gone with him for both sides, he's very good, friendly, and calls multiple times a day when needed. Our house wasn't expensive…

I had a similar experience with Redfin. I wanted to use a particular agent my friends had used and recommended but because my home was not expensive enough/in a hot enough neighborhood, I got pawned off to a partner agent. I can understand their reasons for doing this but it really doesn't make you feel like a valued customer.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#30

Post by jseliger » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 3:12 PM UTC

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #18

chadlavi wrote: post #13

As a Brooklyn resident (who rents), I hope this trend picks up steam and continues. Maybe I could be a homeowner some day after all!

As a foreigner, I don't understand this attitude. Why would you want all your wealth to be invested in a single leveraged asset that's also depreciating, requires your constant attention and ties you to a single locale?

1. People don't understand the time value of money, or how the alternative to owning a house is owning stocks / bonds.

2. Buying a house is a form of forced savings. This can be useful because people are irrational, per Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.

3. Cultural brainwashing (I think this is the biggest factor).