May median sold price, units, DOM, and $/sq.ft.

62 comments

1. 

   June 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM

   BanteringBear

   “For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, May’s combined median sold price was $165,500.”

   Oh, the pain! This market is taking an absolute throttling, and it doesn’t look like prices will be increasing anytime soon. I remember, last year, suggesting a median of $135k and getting laughed at. People couldn’t comprehend such a thing. Why? Because they were fixated on where prices went, instead of where they came from. Reno never was a high dollar area. Like Reno Ignoramus says, there are only so many cardiologists. Reno is not a million dollar market.

   With record foreclosures in the pipeline, the price trend is down. This isn’t good news for those waiting for a “turnaround”. Even worse, interest rates are inching up, and that just means even lower prices as it directly affects affordability. The fed is out of ammo when it comes to providing cheap $ through reckless rate cuts. With a weak job market, higher fuel prices, and an uneasy populace, the near term future for Reno real estate remains dire.

2. 

   June 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM

   Reno Ignoramus

   Bear, not only is Reno not a million dollar market (it never was), it is not even a $500K market. It was only the Voodoo loans that created the illusion that Reno could be a high end market. Once the Voodoo witchdoctors stopped making nothing down, I/0, stated income $500K liar loans to keno runners, we saw what was real. What is real is that households cannot afford to buy a house 10 times their income. And with about 75%, or more, or all sales today producing no “move-up” buyer, the $500K and up market is dead. Actually, the market over $400K is dead. Because people cannot afford to buy a house that is 8 times their income, either.
   Actually, people cannot afford to buy a house that is 6 times their income either. Which may be why there are so few sales now even over $300K.
   Welcome to reality.

3. 

   June 10, 2009 at 10:13 PM

   BanteringBear

   You’re right, RI, Reno is not even a $500k market. Sure, a few people can afford that here and there, but they are statistical outliers. Pre-bubble, as I have mentioned a handful of times before, one could buy one of the nicest homes in town for half a million dollars. What’s changed since then in terms of the local’s financial fortunes? Nothing! So, we are going right back to the days of old, where homes like 3 Newlands Circle, complete with guest house, sell in the half million dollar range.

   I know Congress is hell bent against that, and is now looking to increase the tax credit for homebuyers from $8k to $15k, while gutting the requirements to qualify, but that will only, if anything, serve to slow down what’s coming- which is affordability based on local wages. It’s about incomes!!

4. 

   June 11, 2009 at 8:15 AM

   SmartMoney

   The question now is what is fair value for median sold price? And what median sold price would constitute a well-below fair value level? Once we find this out, we will have a better idea when the bottom is here.

5. 

   June 11, 2009 at 11:20 AM

   antoine

   So in theory, how much home could one afford if he had an after tax income of 40k, with 150k for a down payment?

   anyone?

6. 

   June 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM

   antoine

   *correction* after tax income of 50k

7. 

   June 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM

   billddrummer

   To SmartMoney,

   To me, fair value is whatever someone wants to pay for a property.

   And it looks like the median will overcorrect to the downside (that’s happened in every other bubble I’m aware of) before it begins to reverse.

   Reversion to the mean is a mean business.

   And to BB,

   That’s the same thing I’ve been saying for more than a year (although not on this blog):

   http://seekingalpha.com/user/156354/comment/133008

   The fundamentals have now become paramount. The exotic mortgage products succeeded in unlinking income from home prices, and as a consequence, the fallout has been tremendous. Now, incomes, credit and reserves are driving loan availabilty.

   Just the way it should have been all along.

8. 

   June 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM

   billddrummer

   To antoine,

   Depends on the deal you want. And if your after tax income is 50k, let’s assume that your before tax income is $65k.

   At $5,416/month and a 28% front end ratio, your income can ‘buy’ a $1,516 monthly payment. At prevailing rates (6%), that translates to a $219,000 loan, or if you’re putting $150,000 down, a $369,000 house.

   You probably could do better on the rate with a down that high, but I question the wisdom of using that much cash right now. It’s almost a given that prices (here anyway) have further to fall, and every month prices drop after you buy, you’ll see a portion of your down payment vanish.

   I’d wait awhile.

9. 

   June 11, 2009 at 11:49 AM

   antoine

   thank you billdrummer. I am prepared to wait another 6 months or so.

   In the meantime mortgage rates continue to climb!?!?

10. 

    June 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM

    billddrummer

    Well, that’s just the way it is. For every 1% rise in mortgage rates, your buying power decreases by $21,000. So if rates move to 7%, the maximum mortgage you can get falls to $198,000.

    If there’s good news, you get to write off more interest on your taxes. But you can’t get as nice a house.

11. 

    June 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM

    Sully

    antoine, I agree that the mortgage rates will continue to climb. I’m thinking similar to the mid 70’s and 80’s. As its been said before, the FED has run out of bullets; the deficit is to high. Another balloon (bubble) in the works for debt.

    So what to do? If you need a house that badly soon, try to find one in the 200K range. You probably won’t need to use all your down payment money, which can be used for emergency, if necessary.

    I would not, under any circumstance, buy into a house that I could barely afford to live in, as it will become more unaffordable later! It’s very important to maintain some sort of financial independence right now, as this recession/depression could and will go on longer than you expect it to. 🙂

12. 

    June 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM

    billddrummer

    To Sully,

    Amen, and Amen.

13. 

    June 11, 2009 at 12:18 PM

    billddrummer

    As a codicil,

    Sully, you’re absolutely right about houses becoming more unaffordable in the years to come. Just look at the tax grab the Legislature sneaked in this year, virtually guaranteeing that all property owners will have higher tax bills to contend with in the future–whether their property has appreciated or not.

    Add to that utilities, maintenance, and upkeep, and you can see that home ownership can easily become a burden that many people couldn’t afford, and many people still can’t.

    I’m one of the ones that can’t, and won’t. As I’ve said before, I like being able to call the super when something breaks. I don’t have to go to Home Depot–I let them do it.

14. 

    June 11, 2009 at 12:25 PM

    smarten

    A couple of comments.

    1. The median is now about where it was 7 years ago.

    2. Unit sales have been increasing for several months now while the median sales price has been dropping. This tells me we’re getting close to a bottom [at least median sales pricewise], and not a recovery, because as sales volume increases it will eventually bring up median sales prices with it.

    3. Also heard on the news today that new foreclosures, nationwide, dropped last month for the first time in [I can’t remember the number of] months. Still a high number but maybe, just maybe, the numbers are starting to level off.

    4. Mortgage interest rates are indeed increasing. In fact the week before last, they went up 3/4% [on conforming 30 year fixed rate loans] in a matter of only two days. Some think this increase was only because originators are being overwhelmed with new applications and the rate increase is intended to stem the tide. But I and some others I know think it’s really the first salvo in what will become inflation driven price increases.

    5. I disagree the Feds have no more tools to play. One of the problems with loans in excess of the conforming loan amount limit [$417K] is that there are essentially no secondary market buyers for them. Given I don’t see that changing in the near term, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Feds increase the conforming loan amount limit [it’s already nearly $730K in a handful of “high cost” housing markets] after which FNMA and Freddie Mac will become buyers [with out taxpayer moneys] for such loans.

    I realize that in Reno/Sparks there aren’t that many new jumbo mortgage borrowers out there, but if the conforming loan amount were increased, a number of sideline buyers could actually secure reasonably priced financing [right now they’re essentially removed from the marketplace] to make more expensive housing purchases which might jump start the mid to high end of the residential sales market.

    6. Finally, I haven’t heard that Congress is considering increasing the first time homebuyer’s income tax credit from/to $8K/$15K. BB, could you please expand upon what you know?

    Again, just my two cents.

15. 

    June 11, 2009 at 12:49 PM

    BanteringBear

    Smarten posted:

    “Unit sales have been increasing for several months now while the median sales price has been dropping. This tells me we’re getting close to a bottom [at least median sales pricewise]”

    HAHAHAHA! You keep calling bottom as prices keep falling, and falling, and falling. C’mon, buddy, give it up! Seriously, Smarten, I’m not being mean, but you’re losing credibility. The median price has dropped nearly $50k since you started this bottom calling business. You’re way premature.

    Do you just ignore inventories? I don’t. I don’t care what the national numbers say, there are record foreclosures in the pipeline for Washoe County. This means lower and lower prices. In the world I live in, people need stable, gainful employment to buy houses. That’s not looking so hot right now. Weak demand and again, we have lower prices. I just don’t buy into those green shoots you’re smoking.

    Further:

    “Some think this increase was only because originators are being overwhelmed with new applications and the rate increase is intended to stem the tide. But I and some others I know think it’s really the first salvo in what will become inflation driven price increases.”

    BZZZZZT, WRONG! Unless there is massive wage inflation, which is virtually impossible given the labor market, house prices CANNOT increase as they are driven by INCOMES. Price inflation is due to too many dollars chasing too few goods. Where is this money, huh? Lay OFF those green shoots!

    Here’s the link regarding the bill to boost the tax credit:

    http://www.inman.com/news/2009/06/11/bill-would-boost-tax-credit-15000

16. 

    June 11, 2009 at 12:59 PM

    3niner

    Antoine, as billddrummer pointed out, you could afford $369,000 (or thereabouts), but that doesn’t mean that you should spend that much.

    First, if the $150,000 is all of your liquid assets, I would advise that you hold back at least $30,000, as a general cash cushion.

    Next, you could make payments of 28% of your gross, but your finances would be a bit tight. You would probably be less stressed, if you were a bit more conservative.

    Then there’s the question of how much house you need. Don’t buy a more expensive house just because you can. Houses cost money to own, and it does not make sense to buy more house than can be expected to fit you for the next several years.

    With a good down payment, you should be able to choose from among many good houses, at a non-stressful price. Just make sure that you get a good deal, there is tremendous price variation right now.

17. 

    June 11, 2009 at 1:18 PM

    CommercialLender

    Antoine,

    Don’t forget to add HOA dues, property taxes, insurance and some regularly recurring ‘upkeep’ to your affordability calculation. Far too many home buyers in the past cycle did not, they only focused on how much “payment” they could afford, and now look where they ended up.

    Also, I encourage you and anyone NOT to include bonuses and heavy commissions into your safe income number. For that matter, many relied on 2 incomes and did not have enough cash in the bank to weather a storm if one or both of the jobs were lost.

    I echo others, too: watch out that your ‘after tax’ calculation is both correct and that you’ve built in a reasonable increase to your taxes be they sales, income or property.

    BillD and I will diverage a bit here. If you have his theorical $65K gross income, then consider using a reasonable level of housing price being ~3.5 x gross demonstrable income, that = $228K. Here’s a suggestion: limit yourself to a $228K home and instead of adding your downpayment on top of that, instead put 20% down ($46K) on that level. Now you have a payment of $1,093/mo P&I based on an 80% loan of $182,000 and BDD’s 6% at 30 year fixed rate. Add around 1.2% tax or $228/mo, say around $60/mo insurance, maybe HOA. All-in, you do the math, but $16,572 per annum if no HOA. That’s 25.5% of gross, leaving you decent room for any upkeep, unexpected expenses, increase in taxes, etc.

    You are also left with $100K in the bank which gives you opportunistic investment capital, fall-back money, rehab cash, etc. Just don’t blow the cash! But also don’t feel you must buy “the most house you can” which is another major mistake many before you made. Keep in mind that if values have dropped, say 45% from the peak, your $228K home was ‘valued’ at $415K at the peak. That bought you plenty then and now. So, you get big bang for your buck today even still at conservative levels of debt.

    With this $228K home, you face far less risk than BDD’s suggested $369K home, which is 5.7x gross annual income, far and away higher than historical levels. (Not picking on BDD, but offering a different solution.)

    You should consult with your tax person, too, to get a feel for the tax benefits of deductible interest and property tax.

    I went overboard here beyond the scope of your question, but hopefully you find this of some help. Best of luck and let us all know how it turns out!

18. 

    June 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM

    3niner

    Smarten, you said: “Unit sales have been increasing for several months now while the median sales price has been dropping. This tells me we’re getting close to a bottom…”

    It tells me that we are still in the midst of the correction. When we reach the point where unit sales start falling, while prices continue to drop, it will mean that the bottom is near.

    Of course, it would be easy to get fooled by seasonal fluctuations. We could see a volume peak this Fall, followed by further increases in the Spring.

    The median SFR price dropped from $200,000, in March, to $175,000, in May. This does not suggest that a bottom is near.

    Many condos have dropped to price levels of 20 – 30 years ago. SFR prices may not overshoot quite as much, but it suggests that we are still far from the bottom.

19. 

    June 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM

    Otto

    Talking about median prices at this stage of the game is meaningless, as the market has become heavily stratified. This is typical during periods of transition.
    Eg. houses that once sold for 600K, and are now selling for 250K are pretty much at the bottom.
    However, houses in Arrowcreek and Montreaux which are not selling distort the median. When they do start to sell(at 30-50 cents on the dollar)it will lead to an ironic increase in median prices.

20. 

    June 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM

    BanteringBear

    Not so fast, Otto. What you’re overlooking, is that since the median price is made up largely of bottom end housing, it’s still inflated. The last time the median was this low, it was more representative of a healthy, balanced market. What that means is people are overpaying for low end homes right now, and these are most surely going to fall even more as the higher end craters. I’ve seen no $600k houses selling for $250k yet, but I have seen $350k houses selling for $165k. We’ve got a LONG way to go, and no, talking about median prices is NOT meaningless.

21. 

    June 11, 2009 at 2:51 PM

    billddrummer

    To CL,

    You’re right. I used the $369K number as the maximum house antoine could purchase, not the ‘optimum’ house he should purchase. Clearly, the willingness of buyers and lenders to ‘stretch the envelope’ to get into the dream home turned into a nightmare for many.

    Much better, as you say, to live well within your means, and have a cash cushion in case life happens. Which it does to all of us.

    If I were in his situation ($150K in reserves and $65K in income), I’d look for a $175,000 house, put 20% down, and bank the rest. That would mean a $140,000 mortgage, with a payment of $840 before taxes and insurance.

    That would leave a reasonable cushion both for regular expenses (a 17% front end ratio) and $115k cash for exceptional expenses(water heater goes out, roof needs fixing, special assessments by the greedy HOA).

    Well put, CL. I value your contributions greatly.

22. 

    June 11, 2009 at 2:54 PM

    billddrummer

    Another thing:

    If you look back in the history of this blog, there have been calls of a bottom nearly every month for the past 18 months.

    Now, I’m not pointing fingers, but it’s clear (to me anyway) that we suck at predictions.

    Let’s just see how this plays out. At some point, the market will heal. It hasn’t yet, and it may not for years.

23. 

    June 11, 2009 at 4:12 PM

    CommercialLender

    Totally new thread, but have at it, anyone:

    I bought a single family rental home in NW Reno for $245K in 2004, at $155 psf. I have a $192K mortgage on it that just reset at 3.38% for another year. I have a $25K HELOC that has $0 balance but would be priced if it had a balance at 3.75% (prime – 0.25). Never refi’d, so the debt is original purchase money, owner occupied loan (now rented, but originaly owner occ). Its rented, and net of all expenses including allowance for repairs, I’m $70/mo upside down. But after adding back principal payment, I am $340/mo positive. Given market conditions, I will offer my tenants a $100 break for the next year in rent to keep the unit full, I’d be $160/mo upside down, or $250/mo positive after principal.

    I guess the value today is around $102 psf, $82K upside down, despite marginally cash flowing / breaking even. It might be 10 years to sell and get any cash out.

    Who would say to walk away? Who would say lever the HELOC and invest that $25K elsewhere? Would anyone say to stick it out another 10 years to eventually get out?

    I’ll be neutral; just wanted to see what you local experts would suggest (there are a bazillion others like me).

24. 

    June 11, 2009 at 6:07 PM

    bondstevenbond

    These peaked at $223 per square foot in Oct 2005. And now they are selling at $102 per square foot. Let’s not sugarcoat it. Housing prices are down 54%. Period. And if you think that is bad, try December 2009.

25. 

    June 11, 2009 at 6:28 PM

    billddrummer

    To CL,

    I’d say lever the HELOC, give the tenants a break for a year, and see what the market looks like when their lease is up. If they’re good tenants, you might be able to raise the rent back to the original amount, meanwhile keeping the place occupied for the time being and having the cash to invest elsewhere.

    Just my take. But understand, this is a person with a net worth of , and a crappy credit score.

26. 

    June 11, 2009 at 6:36 PM

    bondstevenbond

    reflecting on BB’s comment to Smarten about greenshoots….i read this a few weeks ago by an insightful Wall Street analyst…

    Greenshoots,aren’t those what you smoke before you get brownshoots???

27. 

    June 11, 2009 at 6:56 PM

    GreenNV

    Ok, a few observations as me rather than the dude on the blog.

    NOD filings are WAY up over the last few months (TICOR may be restating their filings based on new and inconsistent data). I can tell you imperially that these filings are proportionately skewed to the lower end. The mid to upper end isn’t flinching or capitulating except in cases of dire straights.

    I think loan issues have given way to employment issues in driving the lower end even lower. I don’t see any backstop to that phenomenon right now. When you break back from the Q1 2003 medians that are typical these days, mid 1998 medians are just next door. Look at the recently listed long time owners listing right now that are competing with the foreclosures. Granny got the picture, in a lot of cases. Limbo down.

    From my seat,I see a couple of groups buying foreclosures successfully, and may flip them at a profit. I see more that may break even, and some that will eat sand. A lot will probably eat sand.

    I wish I was a bitter renter.

28. 

    June 11, 2009 at 7:00 PM

    smarten

    Thanks for the link BB.

    BTW, my reference to the recent spike in long term mortgage rates was not intended to predict that housing prices would increase. Rather, it was that interest rates would rise because of the inflationary actions the Fed has taken in the name of stimulus.

    Of course you don’t think we’re in for massive inflation but if interest rates rise as unemployment has, I think even you will see it.

29. 

    June 11, 2009 at 7:17 PM

    BanteringBear

    You’re welcome, Smarten. I do wonder, how is your loan in Sun Valley performing? Remember when I was talking about houses in that area selling for well below $100k, and that I thought the valuation you were using was crazy? Check out prices in that area now. Ugly.

30. 

    June 11, 2009 at 7:49 PM

    smarten

    Didn’t fund the loan BB. But thanks for asking. Believe it or not, I followed your advice.

31. 

    June 11, 2009 at 7:56 PM

    antoine

    The 150k down payment I referred to was only a starting point. Also in respect to the other comments I am NOT trying to buy the most house possible, while leaving myself vulnerable to all the costs that come with owning a house. I’m not trying to buy a house I can’t afford!

    150k is NOT all the liquid assets I have.

    All the comments/suggestion are welcomed!

32. 

    June 11, 2009 at 8:37 PM

    BanteringBear

    That’s great news, Smarten, as I suspect the borrower would have walked away. The peripheral areas are getting hammered. To add insult to injury, we’re already witnessing another speculative bubble develop in regards to oil, crimping the budgets of all who are slaves to the long commutes. These areas will fall even further out of favor as a result.

33. 

    June 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM

    Reno Ignoramus

    Guy, of the 416 houses that sold last month, I am wondering if you might tell us what the distribution was among price bands. We know that 208 sold below $175K, and 208 above $175K. But I am wondering how many sold
    below $100K?
    between $100K and $200K?
    between $200K and $300K?
    over $300K?
    over $400K?
    over $500K?
    This info is helpful and gives a little insight beyond only knowing what the median is.
    Clearly we now have a tale of two markets within the overall market. One where all the foreclosures and sales are, and one where there are few foreclosures and essentially no sales.
    Thanks.

34. 

    June 12, 2009 at 8:10 AM

    billddrummer

    To RI and Guy,

    Good ideas. Also be interested in seeing where the ‘traditional equity sales’ fall in the price bands.

    I know it’s a lot of work to put these stats together, and I appreciate all the effort you put into this data for us.

35. 

    June 12, 2009 at 10:08 AM

    CommercialLender

    As for GreenNVs post/Mike that tons of NODs continue and are largely skewed in the lower end strata… One of 2 things will happen in the short to near term before a stabilization of the housing market can happen: 1) you’ll have a permanently steeper delta between lower end and higher end home values/prices until stabilization, or 2) the continued pain in the low end will serve to pull the higher end downward in value until the whole market stabilizes and eventually goes upward.

    I think heretofore we’ve seen #1 in action, namely the low end of the market is the strata unable to withstand the stress of the economy and therefore falls in value while the high end can withstand temporarily. No new ground here. Many posters here think #2 is now happening demonstrably, which ties in to Alt-A, OptionARMs and Prime defaults.

    Again, no new ground here, but more anecdotal support for a continued crash in housing values in the coming months/years.

    So, investors, you’d better cash flow and cash flow well, because future inflation in housing values just ain’t happenin’ anytime soon.

    My crystal ball says in the next year there’s exactly zero chance values will increase, OK chance values will stay flat from here, and a great chance values will continue to fall. If you are renting now or otherwise looking to buy, there’s simply no rush, IMO.

36. 

    June 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM

    BanteringBear

    “So, investors, you’d better cash flow and cash flow well, because future inflation in housing values just ain’t happenin’ anytime soon.”

    Forget appreciation, rents are going to be falling for the foreseeable future. The rental market in Reno, though weak already, is living on borrowed time as the vacant housing situation works itself out. A lot of the people buying right now are “investors”, and they will need to rent these newly purchased properties. With a glut of rentals in the pipeline, rents will be going down, down, down.

37. 

    June 12, 2009 at 1:01 PM

    3niner

    CL said: “Who would say to walk away? Who would say lever the HELOC and invest that $25K elsewhere? Would anyone say to stick it out another 10 years to eventually get out?”

    I would say “stick it out”.

    I would never “walk away” in a situation like this, because it is dishonest. You made the purchase, borrowed the money to do so, and agreed to repay the money that you borrowed.

    I simply think it would be a mistake to lever the HELOC.

    To elaborate on the first point, I have always thought that character is underweighted in FICO scores. This is a classic situation where character counts. You can make the payments, but it is not a good deal for you financially. The only thing that keeps you from dumping your losses on the lender is character.

38. 

    June 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM

    dpman

    HA! that’s basically what diane did..

    the deal wasn’t good for HER anymore.

39. 

    June 12, 2009 at 3:36 PM

    billddrummer

    To dpman,

    Lay off Diane, please. She did what was the proper thing for her situation. Not to say that you aren’t allowed to disagree with her, but step off the attacks on her character, even if thinly veiled.

40. 

    June 12, 2009 at 3:37 PM

    billddrummer

    Back to the topic:

    It’s funny how the chart showing the average listing price in Reno is stubbornly above $400K, when the median sale price is $175K.

    There are still a lot of Kool-aid drinkers out there.

41. 

    June 12, 2009 at 7:15 PM

    Reno Ignoramus

    Through the 12th day of this month there have been 151 trustee’s deeds recorded. All of last month, there were 210.
    If this pace holds, we may well see more trustees’s deeds recorded in June than REOs and short sales that close escrow.

42. 

    June 12, 2009 at 7:30 PM

    Reno Ignoramus

    Here’s something to ponder. Since January 1, 2008 to today, there have been 4,092 trustee’s deeds recorded. Now not 100% of these foreclosures were residential properties of course, and not all of them that were residential properties were occupied. But still, where did all the people go?
    Leave town?
    Move in with friends/family?
    Move into the Palladio?

43. 

    June 12, 2009 at 8:06 PM

    Otto

    Hey Billdrummer, why exactly are we supposed to lay off Dianne?
    “She did the proper thing for her situation”. What absolute BS. She reneged on a contract, that now I the taxpayer have to foot.
    It’s irrelevant who she is. What she’s doing is reprehensible and inexcusable. If that’s an attack on her character so be it.

44. 

    June 12, 2009 at 8:07 PM

    BanteringBear

    “But still, where did all the people go? Leave town?
    Move in with friends/family?”

    Perhaps, nowhere. The majority of these people were speculators, and it stands to reason that a fair number never even occupied the places. What’s so remarkable about this bubble, is that we were building an insane amount of houses for a population that never existed. The majority of purchases, regardless of what the mortgage contracts said, were not primary residences, and if they were, the previous residence was to be “rented out” or “sold”. We have too many houses, period.

45. 

    June 12, 2009 at 8:08 PM

    BanteringBear

    Hey, Otto. Do you go to a party and insult the host? My suggestion to you is to get the hell off this blog if you can’t respect it’s creator.

46. 

    June 12, 2009 at 9:09 PM

    Otto

    BB,
    I have no problems getting the hell off this blog, if that’s the consensus around here.
    With respect to your question, I will voice my opinion at any event I’m invited to. Just as I expect people to do when I invite them to my house. And if I feel someone’s behaviour is tantamount to say pedophilia, I will say so. And in return I would expect no less.
    Where I come from it’s called free speech. It’s part of a process some call democracy.
    Have you ever considered emigrating to North Korea? I think you might be quite happy there.

47. 

    June 12, 2009 at 9:25 PM

    Reno Ignoramus

    It’s unfortunate we have to digress off the topic of the thread to deal with another misrepresentation of Diane’s actions.

    Diane is not “walking away”. She is attemtping to conclude a short sale with the consent of her lender. Diane has not reneged on anything. She is attemtping to negotiate, in effect, an accord and satisfaction with her lender. Maybe her lender will accept her proposal, maybe not. If not, then what Diane might do in such case is no more than baseless speculation at this point.

    I don’t know if Otto is derrick in guise, or just someone who bears an uncanny resemblance. But the tenor and tone of the comments are all too familiar. As someone said on this blog quite a while ago, if you don’t give the monkey any attention, he will go away. But if you throw the monkey a morsel, he will unleash all his tricks.

48. 

    June 12, 2009 at 9:42 PM

    BanteringBear

    This isn’t about free speech, it’s about respect. Somebody provides you a platform to voice your opinions, and you turn around and sh!t on them. Were it not for Diane, there wouldn’t even be such a place for your utterances.

    The idea that you’re OK with somebody voicing their opinions in your house as long as they fall short of pedophilia is ludicrous. I’m sure if I showed up for a dinner party and told you how cheap your wife looked, and how disgusting the food tasted, I’d probably not be asked back on the grounds of disrespect. Showing up on Diane’s blog to assassinate her character simply because she’s short selling her house is BS. It’s obvious who here needs to take a trip to North Korea. You could finally learn the definition “reprehensible” behavior. Don’t let the door hit you in the @ss.

49. 

    June 12, 2009 at 9:53 PM

    Otto

    RI,,
    I am not anyone in disguise. I am someone who is “underwater” on my mortgage but intend to honor the contract I signed.
    This will be my last comment, but let me just say this.
    I lived in Zimbabwe during the 90’s. During that time very little opposition was voiced against President Mugabe. Anyone who did got the standard response of “if you don’t like it here, piss off”. Much like BB’s comment above.
    I have watched that beautiful country sink into the basket case it is today. It need not have happened. But people were afraid to voice their opposition. I can’t tell you how many times I was told not to offend my “host”. And look at the result.
    When I left Zimbabwe, I resolved to speak my mind, no matter what. If that offends people, fine, I’ll be on my way. As my comments have seemed to offend my host, this will be my last posting. I was not aware that Diane, like President Mugabe was above reproach.

50. 

    June 12, 2009 at 10:25 PM

    smarten

    Notwithstanding my great respect and affection for Diane, I think it would be a mistake for Otto to leave. He is entitled to think what he wants to think, and to speak his mind. And I don’t think he’s Derrick in stealth mode. Otto has too firm a grasp of the language to be mistaken for Derrick.

    RI, we have no idea if Diane has negotiated an accord and satisfaction. The satisfaction part of the equation would mean that Diane’s lender has agreed to release her [and her husband] from what could mature into a deficiency judgment. We just don’t know that her lender has agreed to such an arrangement. And if it hasn’t, Otto’s right; we taxpayers are picking up the tab.

    Don’t we recall how Wayne Caputo opined in the RGJ that walking away from mortgage indebtedness was a savvy business move when the security is worth less? Remember he came on this blog and attempted to justify his advice? Now how is this different, in principle, from what Diane is attempting to accomplish other than Diane is at least attempting to procure her lender’s consent to the arrangement?

    By chastizing Otto haven’t you fed the monkey the very morsels which guarantee he will be back for more?