Listing prices down $130K from peak

Median listing prices in Greater Los Angeles fell another $5,000 in the past week, and have now declined $130,000 from their bubble peak, according to Housing Tracker's analysis of MLS listings. Highlights:

--Median listing price fell to $450,000, a decline of 17.4% over the past year and 22.4% from the April 2006 peak of $579,666.
--The inventory of unsold houses and condos dipped to 42,428, which is 19.6% ahead of last year's levels. This is a trend worth noting: Inventory has declined slightly since mid-February. It could be that the weak market is discouraging would-be sellers from listing their properties.

Date               Median listing price                      Inventory
4/06               $579,666                                         27,251
4/07               $545,000                                         35,489
5/07               $545,000                                         38,297
6/07               $540,000                                         40,766 (up 20.4% y/y)
7/07               $535,000                                         42,685 (up 14.5% y/y)
8/07               $529,000                                         44,483 (up 13.6% y/y)
9/07               $520,000                                         46,414 (up 16.9% y/y)
10/07             $510,000                                         46,603 (up 15.6% y/y)
11/07             $499,900                                         46,503 (up 19.0% y/y)
12/07             $495,000 (down 10.0% y/y)         43,174 (up 28.2% y/y)
1/08               $479,900 (down 12.6%)               40,850 (up 33.3% y/y)
2/08               $475,000 (down 13.5%)               43,625 (Up 38.3%)
3/08               $464,900 (down 15.5%)               42,098 (Up 31.4%)
3/31/08         $459,900 (down 16.2%)               42,038 (Up 27.6%)
4/7/08           $455,000 (down 16.7%)                42,482 (Up 23.3%)
4/14/08         $450,000 (down 17.4%)                42,428 (Up 19.6%)

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com

Comments

[shockg]

Someone let me know when inventory is going to go through the roof like so many had planned/hoped. Its been flat all year.

[Fred]

Pop!

[keith]

Who cares about inventory? Prices are what matter!

[tflg]

I have noticed the inventory dip and I think you are right on about the reason. It's not sales. I track about 20 to 30 houses that I like. In the last month or two at least 1/2 of those have been pulled. Only a couple of them sold. The rest of them gave up. I'm wondering how many of those will be back as REO's in a few months. I've even seen a few bank owned homes drop off. They did not go pending, I checked. What's the deal with that??

[IToldu2CashOut]

Not only are people holding off selling and delisting property, but also people are giving rediculously high asking prices. I think in some cases so they can accept a lowball offer making buyers think they are getting a deal. Ultimately these strategy's will not work, and neither will denial.

All you have to do is take in some of the houses you see on your commute. I drive down Crenshaw near Wilshire, and I ask myself are these million dollar houses? Of course they aren't. I'm not even sure there worth 300k most of them. Reality will eventually have to take over. With no more bubble action people are going to want to get something nice for an investment they will be paying off for the next 30 years. Either that or get it so cheap it will leave them with enough money to fix the place up. Thats going to mean 150k-200k for a house that needs work, not 1.3 million.

[GDC]

I noticed the same thing in the SFV. About 1/3rd of the listings just disappeared. When I checked Zillow, it didn't have them as sold. The sellers have given up. The ones that don't need to sell are staying put.

[Joseph...The Real Estate Guy]

Peter,

Some Sellers are on-hold listing their properties and lots of buyers have come out of the woods.

It's amazing how the Westside, Culver City, Westchester, South Bay is holding it's value.

[pugtv]

Hey shockg,

Just curious, why do you read and post on this blog often. You've made it clear what you think of the people on this blog. Doesn't it annoy you to read their repeated comments over and over?

Imho, I agree with you to some extent. There are a lot of angry, self serving people on this blog who want the real estate market to drop, in order to benefit (nothing wrong with that). Some of their comments are brainless and can get annoying. But, there's also a few tidbits of good analysis here which I appreciate (thanks Cal).

Now getting back to you ... so what's your deal? Are you a real estate agent trying to offer a varying opinion to the moderate readers?

[Hugh Jorgan]

The decline in prices is accelerating.
2nd Qtr 07 $ 5,000 decline
3rd Qtr 07 $20,000
4th Qtr 07 $25,000
1st Qtr 08 $30,100
2nd Qtr 08 $14,900 so far this month!

That's $95000 off the avg price from less than 12 months ago. A lot of pain is being felt across the Southland, and it will increase until the prices become attractive again. If you're a buyer, stay on the sidelines because this has not come close to reaching bottom.

[Laker]

Peter wrote: ..."It could be that the weak market is discouraging would-be sellers from listing their properties...."

Could be, but those that need to sell are making huge mistake. Selling today by lowering the asking price enough is a winner for sellers as prices drop, and today low ball acceptance is tomorrow "wish i accepted that offer" price.

Remember, the last to leave the room, please turn off the lights!

[sandiegan]

According to housingtracker, in the last month:

SDO up .5%
SFO up 1.7%
Las Vegas up 3.3%

and.....

DETROIT UP 3.8%!!!

Who could have guessed that?

[Bill]

I've heard the same from a number of my wife's patients in the last few months. They've decided to pull their listing because prices have gone down.

Personally, this reminds me of when I lost money in the internet bubble. The first leg down on my stocks I lost 20%. I was pissed and thought about selling BUT I'd be selling at 20% less than what I bought it for! I deserved to sell at the top!

Eight months later I was sitting on a 40% loss. Damn was I fuming! But the market must be at the bottom, so I'll hold on just a little bit longer just to get some of that back.

At the peak, my stocks lost 60%. At that point I was so pissed I didn't care any more. Darn, just take it all!! There's not much left. So by the time I sold, my actual loss was @50% because the market did bounce back over the next year.

So where are we? We are at that first 20% just the timeframe is different. Two years from now, the same people that pulled listings will be screaming they should have sold when the could get it sold at 20% of peak instead of 30% to 40%, IMO.

[left of lefty]

like tflg, i've also seen some reos taken off the market. if i put myself in the lender's shoes, this might be what i'm thinking...

if i, as the lender, dumps my reos right now, i will actually hurt myself. dumping lowers the property value of the neighborhood, which will affect other loans i have in the area. those loans may become upside down. so if i dump my reos, i'll just turn my current good loans into more bad loans.

on the other hand, if i were to hold on to the reo, what is my cost? assuming the property is last assessed at 800k, it costs me less than 20k a year for taxes, insurance, and the occasional repair and upkeep. why should i dump the 800k property at a 100k discount (or worse) if it costs less than 20k a year to hold? it will take me 5 years to 'use up' that 100k. and in 5 years, the market may have recovered. even the bearish of bears say housing will recover by 2013.

hmmm. but if someone offers me $780k, then it would make sense to sell.

in the mean time, as long as i hold on to that 800k reo, it's an 800k asset on my books. if i sell it for 700k, i will have to immediately recognize a 100k loss. that can't be good for my stock price. besides, i don't need to sell these properties to get cash to meet my daily operating expenses. even though i can no longer borrow from other banks, i can still borrow from the fed.

finally, it appears that the fed will continue to lower rates, and congress is talking about some type of bailout package. so why not just pay a few more months (or even years) of taxes and insurance and see where things go from here?

now, i have no idea if the lenders think like this. but if i were the bank, i would hold. it just makes sense.

[Bill]

Peter, I'm not so convinced by your belief that the top end of the market will fare noticeably better than the bottom end.

Yes, the subprime crisis hit first, but that's because subprime rates started to reset first. All those option ARMS are just starting to reset en masse.

AND remember this. When a poor person doesn't pay their mortgage, the bank forecloses on them in 3 to maybe 5 months. When a wealthy, and usually more educated person, doesn't pay their mortgage, they hire a lawyer and figure out how to live in the house without paying the mortgage for at least 12 to 15 months by tying it up in bankruptcy court.

That said the top end will start to feel it shortly and possibly even worse because it is more leveraged.

The rate of price decline has slowed lately but historical figures show that prices resume their decline by mid July. Hence we have 3 months before we start to see the beginning of what will certainly be a historic plunge in prices.

[sb10]

I question the assumption whether the South Bay is holding its value. In Redondo Beach, for instance, there are too few sales to do any decent analysis, and the composition of sales has definitely changed. To compare sales now to those of a year ago is comparing apples to oranges. Short sales have been going for 2004 and 2005 prices.

In late 2006 you could check Redondo Beach in Zip Realty and there would be no listings less than $600,000. Today you'll get several pages worth.

[John T Watts]

It looks like in about July we may begin to see the word "down" in the year on year for inventory.

[Anonymous]

Nothing against home owners that want to maintain high prices, but it sure would be nice if we could attract new business to Southern California again.

[Ragnar]

Keep them coming. We may see a slow in the acceleration of declining home prices this summer, but once fall hits, look out!

At least Wisconsin is sort of warm for some of the summer...but, we'll have to deal with a couple more winters while my wife and I finish school. LaLa Land 2011 here we come!

[tealeaf]

now, i have no idea if the lenders think like this. but if i were the bank, i would hold. it just makes sense.

Posted by: left of lefty

Left: the loss is greater than the figures you are quoting. Reason? Capital is tied up on a non-performing asset. If that same principal went to work on 2 performing assets, there would be a profit. So the actual "loss" is much greater. Banks are in the business of making money, not speculating.

[keith]

Left of Lefty

No, banks don't think like that. Holding too much real estate impairs their ability to borrow more money to lend to others because their balance sheet gets too junked up with non-liquid assets. Stock price suffers a hit anyway because investors factor in where they think that bundle of homes on asset side of balance sheet will sell for. Banks might hold for a year or two, but then they gotta convert to cash. Like Laker said, once the cycle gets going it'll be a rush to the door to get out.

[brettdl]

Peter, do the inventory numbers include foreclosures and REOs? Seems like it's hard to get a handle on true inventory if those numbers are not included.

[tew]

Hugh - sometimes the simplest observations right in front of us are most telling. Good post.

[tew]

It's a grind. 22% off peak two years ago. Add in around 6% of inflation and you're now down nearly 30% real. If you take another 20% off nominal from here in 2010 and give inflation another 3%/yr you'll get that real decline of about 50% peak-trough 2006-2010. That'll about do it as prices were about 2x too high at the peak of the bubble.

However between government action, dollar decline foreign bargain hunting, and structural buying in general we may only have another 10% down nominal if the recession is only a mild post-1993 style. If the economic contraction is more ordinary (not as mild as the past two very mild recessions) 50% real will look like a best case scenario.

[desmo]

I sold my Valencia house (10/2005) in the Northbridge community for $397/sq. ft. Homes in that same community are now "asking" $245/sq. ft. That is 40% off the peak.

[jake]

Listing prices in Hancock Park / Larchmont Village have continued to move up, even from the 2005 levels. Though not huge increases, 3-5% is not uncommon.

On top of that, the homes are selling. We've had 9 homes sell in the last 2 months, all for close to asking. 3 of them had multiple offers.

I'm still waiting for this big bust...and NO, I'm not a realtor and have no affliation with one. I'm simply a buyer waiting for the bargains to happen in an area that I can't find a deal in!

[Ace]

Hugh Jordan 'That's $95000 off the avg price from less than 12 months ago. A lot of pain is being felt across the Southland'

Actually, I have not seen much pain at all... unless you count the banks. Everytime something in my area (east SFV) sells, I look at the what the seller bought it for and when they bought it. There are really only two types of sellers right now:

1. People who bought more than 5 years ago. They are still cleaning up... many of them are still doubling their money.
2. Short sales and foreclosures. It is hard to tell the down payment, but almost every short sale and foreclosure had at least 2 mortgages so the down payment must have been less than 20 percent. In most cases, the owners losses apppear minimal.

That is the great thing about all of the people who bought in the last 5 years. They put down an average of 2 percent down so they have very little to lose. As the prices continue to decrease, the short sales will really start to build up. Today's short sale was last month's overpriced listing and next month's forclosure.

[PadSan]

I agree w/ Left of Lefty's thinking about how lenders might start pulling their REOs off the market. My question: would that stiffen prices? SHould lenders rent out the homes to cover their monthly carrying costs?

[Truth2Pwr]

It's amazing to me the pervasiveness of wishful thinking amongst owners/sellers that I speak with. I hear over and over how they "believe" that prices won't drop much more and will start going back up soon. When I ask them why they "believe" this when all data points against it, they all seem to respond with some blah blah about how great their house/neighborhood/city/California is and how everybody in the world will always want to live there.

It actually makes me really happy to hear this from these folks because it makes me realize that there is a massive pent up wave of capitulation still to come from the non-distressed sellers who are either sitting out, or artificially propping up median listing prices. Believe it or not folks, the bloodbath has only just begun.

$250K median sales price in CA by 2010 or 2011. You heard it here first. Well maybe not, but anyway, that's what the hard data supports.

[Playa Jim]

Think the Westside is not hurting??

Check out how many multi-million $ Foreclosures are in this Marina Del Rey bldg alone. It looks like close to 9 or so.

Marina Point Drive...it is the huge tower at the end of the 90 Freeway.

[Keith - letitsink.blogspot.com]

There is a misconception that homes in the Westside and Beach areas are holding their values. They are not. In Hermosa beach I saw one house listing price cut from $1.6M to $1.1M. That's $500k and it was still on the market. Others have been cut by many hundreds of thousands only to be pulled from the market.

Here is the reason that prices seem to be holding up - the Median is a bad measure in this case. Throughout the Westside/Beach, for 5 years or more, the cheapest smallest homes have been bought, torn down, and replaced with big expensive homes. What does that do to the median? The median is not calculated mathematically. The median is the midpoint of a list of numbers. Take all of the house prices and line them up from smallest to biggest, and go to the middle of the line. The value in the middle is the median. It is a place holder in the middle of the list.
What happens to the median (middlepoint of the line) if you take the lowest value off of the list, add $1Million to it, and put it back toward the top of the list? The median has to move up one place. So even if none of the homes on the list have increased in value, the median increases if a cheap house is torn down and replaced with an expensive house.

Now consider that probably 1/3 of all of the home sales in the Westside/Beach areas have been tear downs, and you can see that even if the value of all of the homes is decreasing, the teardown/replacement pattern will make it look like home prices are going up.

I have NEVER read about this from any of the brilliant reporters from the LATimes, NYTimes, CNN/Money, or anywhere else. I had to come up with this myself when I saw that the official numbers had no connection with the reality that I saw on the ground.

[RZ]

Glad they are dropping, but the prices are still way too high...

[Cal]

The official DQ report should be out later today but here a some stats to hold everyone over:

http://www.socalmls-homes.com/Content/
Content.aspx?CategoryID=527326

http://www.socalmls-homes.com/Content/
Content.aspx?CategoryID=527325

No YoY or long term context but it is something.

[Natalie Longurl]

The decline in prices/values barely reflect the hype that resulted in this unparalleled (national) binge of pure greed expecting consumers to accept value created today where none existed yesterday. Just ask any lender. Prices will have to fall a lot more than a paltry 17% to reflect true values - that home that you THINK is worth $450K isn't. When it gets back to it's true value of $275K, then the real estate market will get back on track, buyers appear, and inventory decline. Not until. Oh, and too bad you owe more on it than you can sell it for - that;s the way it ga-ga-goes. You should have sold when you knew you should have.

[puckhead]

“in the mean time, as long as i hold on to that 800k reo, it's an 800k asset on my books. if i sell it for 700k, i will have to immediately recognize a 100k loss. that can't be good for my stock price”

In accounting you have “mark to market” adjustments that the banks must take with their quarterly reporting. The value of investments and assets have to be adjusted to reflect the market value, not what the bank paid for it. That’s why you see so many banks taking write offs. Putting their heads in the sand won’t prevent them from having to write down their balance sheets.

[kat]

If median home prices fell 100% in CA in the next week they would still be up 100% from five years ago. The rest of us are happy for a 5% annual increase in our property values.

I heard a report on the radio this morning that realtytrac designated Las Vegas as the area with the highest foreclosure rate ( and this statistic was based on how many households received foreclosure notices, not actual foreclosure) and the rate was 1 in 158. Nationally the foreclosure rate is 1 in 538. A 100% increase in foreclosures would be 1 in 270 households - a 99% compliance rate.

I would appreciate it if Mr. Viles would explain to me just exactly how these figures support this foreclosure hysteria. But he won't.

Mr. Viles and the rest of the chicken littles think that a bunch of wage slaves getting tossed from half million dollar homes is a crisis. It's not.

I really hate the irresponsibility of the media. They are going to have this country talked into an economic depression before it's all over. All this media hype has people in a panic. The panic will cause the economy to worsen and the whole thing will turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.

I am also perplexed as to why the media is so intent on creating a false economic crises. When people stop buying , businesses won't have enough extra money to advertize and the dead tree media as well as the internet media will suffer - the result will be (and is) massive staff cuts at places like the LA Times.

And spare me the talk about inflation and gas prices and the price of food, blah, blah. Gas was far more expensive in the 80s (when adjusted) than it is now. Gold too. Products have never been cheaper. If you want to see how much cheaper things are now, watch an old episode of Let's Make a Deal. When products were American made, 30% of the price of the goods went to pay unskilled laborers exorbitant wages to work in union factories (not to mention health care and retirement). A stove cost less now, in actual number of dollars, than it did in the 70s.

And food! Don't tell me that you can't feed a family when you can buy a can of vegatables for 79 cents and a pound of hamburger for 2.99 and bunch of banannas all the way from South America for 69 cents a pound. Explain to me how anyone can make a living selling eggs for $1.89 a dozen? I myself marvel at the luxuries of American life everytime I set foot in a grocery store. I witnessed a hog killing and dressing as a child and if you ever went through that to put food on the table you'd know what a piece of meat is worth. We have it better in this country now that we ever have. Stupid people running up stupid debt is a crisis of stupidity and not the fault of the greatest economy on the face of the Earth.

People need to be careful what they believe and use a little common sense.

[save your ammo]

Left of Lefty.

Even if banks did think like you, they would have
to also think beyond holding the homes to a point
where they might sell them. That has nothing to
do with a date. If 2013 comes along and prices
have not fallen then buying will not have increase
by anything but the inflationary absorbtion against
nominal price (which is also part of a bank's real loss
in asset value). THE ONLY THING WHICH MAKES
SALES INCREASE IS AFFORDIBILITY. Prices need
to drop substantially for this to happen. There is no
way to prop-up prices unless banks again offer
no risk money to buyers. Thay's the ONLY REASON
prices IN ALL NEIGHBORHOODS are where they
currently sit. This very foundation of price-support
is gone. FINI. KAPUT. Sellers who must sell will
eventually realize they are standing on nothing which
supports their price demands. Forget 2013 as a
date. Price action will determine the bottom and that
has a long way to go.

[E]

Kat Said...

"If median home prices fell 100% in CA in the next week they would still be up 100% from five years ago. The rest of us are happy for a 5% annual increase in our property values."

I would recommend studying economics to most people here. For Kat however....I think remedial math would be a good start.

[Corntrollio]

kat, you really don't know what you're talking about with the foreclosure rate.

In February, there were 2428 sales in LA County (http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Monthly-Charts/
LA-Times-Charts/ZIPLAT0802.aspx). If normally 100 of the sales in LA County every month are foreclosures, and suddenly it becomes 200, then you've gone from 4% of the sales being foreclosures to 8% of the sales being foreclosures. Don't you think 2 in 25 sales being foreclosures would have a huge effect? The overall foreclosure rate of the population that you quote is completely irrelevant.

Houses aren't like the stock market. You only mark to market upon sales, so a sudden increase in foreclosure sales has a big effect when only a small number of houses are sold every month.

[Tex]

I know you will all call me crazy, but I've been out there looking at short sales & REO's and have made some offers. The offers I've made are bargains compared to 2006 prices, but still high compared to 2000-2003 prices. Nevertheless, you'd think the banks would be jumping at the opportunity to have qualified buyers willing to take these properties off their hands at 20-30% off 2006 prices rather than risk a bigger loss in the future.

Not so. I think the banks are holding out because they expect to get a big handout from the federal government, so why sell at a loss? With Congress talking about giving billions to LA County to buy up REO's at inflated prices, why sell at true market value to a real live buyer?

I made an offer on one REO in View Park earlier this year. Someone bought it in 2006 for $650K, immediately tried to flip it for over $800K, reduced the price to $725K and then $675K, and finally it got repo'd in October 2007 for around $590K. The bank then listed it for $610K, and reduced it to $590K. I offered $485K; the bank countered, alleging it had "multiple offers" and wanted my best & final. I went up to $505K, but the bank decided to go with someone who offered more (regardless of ability to pay, I surmise). Well guess what, it fell out of escrow, and is now back on the market at $559K.

I currently have an offer on a house in Leimert Park. It was listed in December 2007 for $610K, but is now down to $420K. Seller owes approximately $530K and is trying to short sell. I submitted an offer at list price ($420K) and the bank's been sitting on it for weeks. We have not heard a peep. The trustee sale is scheduled for the end of the month, so you'd think the bank would be anxious to approve the transaction rather than foreclose. Apparently not.

Very puzzling behavior by the banks. The only explanations I can think of are incompetence and the expectation of a bailout from the feds.

[Jim-Bob Jones]

Kat -- that makes no sense. If you look at the latest dataquick numbers, foreclosures are 28.8% of LA County sales this month, so it's a heavy part of the sales market. The overall percentage relative to the general population doesn't matter -- it's the ratio relative to sales that matters:

http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/
Southern-CA/RRSCA080415.aspx

"Foreclosure resales - houses sold after being foreclosed on - continue to dominate many inland neighborhoods. More than one out of three Southland homes that resold last month, nearly 38 percent, had been foreclosed on at some point in the prior year. This time last year such sales were only 8 percent of the market. At the county level, foreclosure resales ranged from 28.8 percent in Los Angeles County to 56.4 percent in Riverside County."

[matmasters]

Truth2Pwr seems to have the right psychology. Non distressed sellers don’t have sell (either fully paid for, have equity, and or place is rented),
In the start of a bear market the first people to sell are forced due to leverage. In the stock market, people who bot on margin see their stock portfolio go down and are forced to sell to meet margin requirements. A bunch of sellers (who have to sell) will drive market prices down.
In the real-estate market, the first to sell are people who bot at the peak using lots of leverage (100% financing). It doesn’t make too much sense to hold on to an upside down mortgage since prices seem to be going down when you didn’t even put a down payment. Now banks take possession of the house and have to sell the house. Do the banks all dump foreclosed houses thus driving down prices or to the banks (as some have alleged above) keep some foreclosures off the market (for fear of driving down other properties they have in the same area).
Sooner or later banks have to get real-estate off the books especially if they are getting more foreclosures on the books every month. If they have lots of properties in close proximity, then that is bad geographical diversification on their part. If they couldn’t foresee a scenario that they get bunch of foreclosures in one area than that is bad decision making.
If prices continue to go down then holding costs + depreciation will be factored in and banks will have to sell. Left of Lefty's assumes no more depreciation. How realistic is that? Also say you have many banks with inventory. If they all hold foreclosures and foreclosures continue to increase at some point one bank will have to sell (inability to take on more foreclosures). Once one bank lowers prices then the value of the inventory of all rest will decrease.
With an unlimited amount of liquidity, technically holding the foreclosures until prices rebound is a good strategy.
Ask yourself this; if your bank is taking on foreclosures and not selling, would you want your money in that bank?
If distressed sellers drive prices down far enough non distressed sellers will enter a wave of capitulation. If you are an investor and own real-estate, your carrying cost + price depreciation will lead you to sell.
Prices could very well go down 50% peak-trough. That sounds like a lot but crazier things have happened.
Back in 1999 I was putting together a muni bond portfolio for this bond manager. This person kept making me diversify the muni bonds throughout the state and counties. THE ONE THAT REALLY BUGGED ME IS I HAD TO DIVERSIFY THE MUNI BOND INSURERS. I always thought that was such a waste of time. How could a muni bond insurer go out of business.....

[the problemwithcaring]

And food! Don't tell me that you can't feed a family when you can buy a can of vegatables for 79 cents and a pound of hamburger for 2.99 and bunch of banannas all the way from South America for 69 cents a pound.
Posted by: kat |

Kat, that was breathtaking. I happened to agree with you on one point. Some things are relatively cheaper. But the things that are cheaper aren't what low income working people need to buy. And, Low income working people usually don’t have the transportation, information and resources to capitalize on whatever relative cheapness there is of the things they do NEED to buy - food, shelter, clothes food and medicine.

You may not see (refuse to) their struggles, but having access to food all month long is a hit or miss phenomenon for many fellow Americans.

From the LA Times (Jan. 2008): http://tinyurl.com/6h4teq

"The problem [of food shortage] is acute in Los Angeles, where housing and transportation costs, both of which rose sharply over the past year, gobble up much of a low-income family's budget.

"The number of Los Angeles County households whose food supply is shaky increased 17% between 2002 and 2005; hungry families with children grew at an even faster clip, according to a report released last fall by the county department of public health. The report measured "food insecurity," or people's inability to dependably obtain adequate or nutritious food.."

From the NY Times (March 2008): http://tinyurl.com/5eay6s

"Another important federal nutrition program known as WIC, for women, infants and children, is struggling with rising prices of milk and cheese, and growing enrollment.

"The program, for households with incomes no higher than 185 percent of the federal poverty level, provides healthy food and nutrition counseling to 8.5 million pregnant women, and children through the age of 4. WIC is not an entitlement like food stamps, and for the fiscal year starting in October, Congress may have to approve a large increase over its current budget of $6 billion if states are to avoid waiting lists for needy mothers and babies."

...ok sorry..continue tirade against California and all it holds dear...

[pathetic]

Pete, in understanding the change in inventory, it would be nice if you included another column for comparative sales figures.

[GDC]

I don't know about you guys, but I switched my entire 401k money into a commodities fund. (Trust me, it's not a lot of money.)

Some here have been talking about the commodity market as the next bubble (Cal?) so I took a chance. I got out of my other stock and bond funds. Well, it's up almost 20% in two months!!! Oil and other natural resources have been hitting record highs. Meanwhile, the general stock market have been going sideways.

I missed out on the early tech bubble, then the early housing bubble. I hope I got in at the right time on the commodities bubble. I've been reading that many others have been doing this recently and the inflows to natural resources funds are at record levels. I also hear that China is buying up metals, oil futures, and other commodities now because they fear huge inflation on these goods.

If you guys are not buying a house in the near future, why not invest in commodities? Hopefully, this bubble will last as long as the dotcom and housing bubble (5 years?).

[Chris]

Average home prices LA County
1997 176,517
2001 249,700
2002 295,150
2003 382,190
2004 446,380

[Laker]

Ace wrote: "....2. Short sales and foreclosures. It is hard to tell the down payment,...."

Ace, about 90-95% of sales during 2004-2007 are ZERO Money down....I repeat 0 down, 80/20 loans.
From this you can infer the incentive to keep the house vs walking away....(actually running away)

Tex, every bank behaves differently. Please post which bank was stupid not to accept you offer. I do know that HSBC is pretty aggressive and is relatively fast in liquidating REOs. Country wide is very stubborn. Washington Mutual is slow too. Morgan Stanley is slow, Merrill Lynch is sometimes very aggressive.

[JohnnyB]

Truthtopwr wrote;
"...there is a massive pent up wave of capitulation still to come from the non-distressed sellers who are either sitting out, or artificially propping up median listing prices. Believe it or not folks, the bloodbath has only just begun."

Yes, indeed.

Kat wrote;
"I am also perplexed..."

That sums it up.

[puckhead]

“don't know about you guys, but I switched my entire 401k money into a commodities fund. (Trust me, it's not a lot of money.)”

Dude, I don’t know how to break this to you, but the smart money has been buying into commodities for months. When people start buying commodities with 401K money…………………………….it’s kind of late in the game. Please, set tight stop loses in your account and make sure your not the last one holding the bag. Oi Vey.

[Tex]

Laker: according to Property Shark, the bank that owns the REO in View Park appears to be EMC Mortgage.

I don't know which bank holds the mortgage for the short sale in Leimert Park. Property Shark shows the owner transfered an interest in the property to New Century Mortgage back in 2005, but as New Century is kaput, who knows who owns that mortgage now.

[shockg]

Ace, about 90-95% of sales during 2004-2007 are ZERO Money down....I repeat 0 down, 80/20 loans.
From this you can infer the incentive to keep the house vs walking away....(actually running away)

Laker, Where did you get that 90-95% figure from?

[Ace]

shockg,

Here are the nationwide numbers:

'43% of first-time home buyers put no money down. The median first-time home buyer scraped together a down payment of only 2% on a $150,000 home in 2005, the NAR found.'

[Cal]

kat:"I heard a report on the radio this morning that realtytrac designated Las Vegas as the area with the highest foreclosure rate ( and this statistic was based on how many households received foreclosure notices, not actual foreclosure) and the rate was 1 in 158. Nationally the foreclosure rate is 1 in 538. A 100% increase in foreclosures would be 1 in 270 households - a 99% compliance rate."

You just don't listen or want to listen lol. And we've been over this exact territory many times now. You simply do not understand the statistics, you should stop quoting them.

[GDC]

Puckhead,

Considering the last two bubbles, I think this one has a way to go. I'll be sure to get out if there is a 10% drop though and EVERYONE (like the tech and housing bubble) knows about it. So far, I think only about 15% of the people I talk to even know about it. I think the bubble still has a lot of inflating to do. Read the business section in today's LA Times about commodity prices.

[Laker]

shockg wrote: "...Laker, Where did you get that 90-95% figure from?..."

Ace, thanks for the help here. But this is national levels. I've see an article about CA, once i find it, i'll let you know.
However, from looking at property shark about 9 out of 10 houses i see now have 80/20 100% financing....on the 2004,2005,2006, early 2007 houses.

Tex, thanks for the info on EMC mortgage. I'll research on that.