N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
awgee said:
What has proven to be true is stabilization. We're not discussing Perris.
"4 weeks and then all hell breaks loose"
- Thread starter Geotpf_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
What has proven to be true is stabilization. We're not discussing Perris.
I had this same discussion with my Real Estate Agent about 6 months ago. She spent an hour showing me her selected data that supported her
opinions. Since then she has had 3 Arizona properties go to foreclosure that were part of her investment portfolio. We still keep in touch.
These days she is doing modifications. But still has her eye open for the property I will eventually purchase when my judgement
tells me we really have reached some type of bottom to these falling prices.
I am not disregarding the "cherry picked" data points you present. I am telling you to go do the "Cheerleader" act to somebody that will buy the BS.
IMO. The Theatre is on fire and you want to sell more tickets. I say NO THANKS. I will watch it burn from the outside safely.
Your opinion is tainted because you want/need a commission check. If your really good you can sell with out the "Cheerleader Act" bytheway.
A real sales guy can sell ice to eskimo`s.
Which data? Where? Links, sources, cites, graphs? Anything other than your assertion? I saw this:
But there aren't any facts in there, just supposition that isn't supported by any cite, source, link or attribution. Hardly rock solid and irrefutable. I went through all your posts and you refused to provide any of the sources for your "facts" (not even a screen shot), which means that you haven't proven anything, merely asserted some statement to bootstrap your own point of view. That kind of argument will get you nowhere here, even if you are correct in your assertions, because no one on the internet is just going to take your word for it.
I was going to call you Malibu Barbie but Mattel has some vicious lawyers. You jumped into this thread on the attack, involving yourself in a debate that had sprung up between graphrix and RL, with the apparent intent of taking cracker cakes down a notch. You were admonished by two different mods on multiple occasions, you even acknowledged you were being an ass, and still... you persisted in the name calling, the personal attacks, and the derogatory language. Until you settle down and act like you deserve the respect you are demanding, I will call you whatever I deem appropriate, Skipper Dan.
Totally uncalled-for.
Nice try, but there are dozens and dozens of rock solid, irrefutable facts in these threads provided by me. I don't see anything other than personal attacks from you, which is apparently why you slithered away at some point (alienate people much?). I anxiously await that happening again soon. If you open your eyes, you will also see that I provided the information that there are many REOs on MLS, which Rob validated were not counted in the 8,000. But nooooo, that is too much for you to digest.
Ok, here's a quick and easy way to shut you down: I provided rock solid, irrefutable evidence that several REOs on Foreclosure Radar in fact closed escrow last year. This was confirmed by Robert and (graciously) by Graphrix.
Your turn.
Just so we are clear (and this is the last time I am doing your homework, Skipper Dan) what Graphrix actually said was:
See there? That was a link and a quote, you should try it
However, you didn't technically prove anything; you made an assertion and left it to others to provide the evidence and/or independent confirmation.
You can forget about shutting me down. If they haven't banned you, they certainly aren't banning me which means you can count on me to be your personal heckler from now until you start treating others with the kind of respect you are demanding.
You proved SOME of the REOs I posted had changed hands, not ALL the REOs. Why? Because they haven't changed hands. All that says is you have to scrub the data carefully, which I had asked Robert to do, but that would require work. In conclusion of that whole debate, it proved that regardless of a few changing hands, Robert was still under-counting the total amount of REOs out there.
And Nude has a very good point, cite your sources to prove your point. Otherwise... they are just words of Kool-Aid blown air.
I didn't say this before because I don't want to get preachy, but I didn't post beyond dates and doc numbers because I would be infringing on the user agreements I accepted with the services I use. I don't have the right to disseminate their data any more than I have the right to steal music online. And it was more than three properties. And even if it weren't, they still constitute rock solid, irrefutable facts.
Wrong! It was up to Robert to go through my data of 188 properties, or go through the data of 70 some properties that awgee gave him. He took the easy route, and he didn't want to scrub the data, therefore he is lazy. If Robert or you would like for me to scrub the data for you, I would be happy to do that. Just let me know where to send the bill, er... for people in the RE industry I only take credit cards now, and there will be an up front retainer fee of 50% of the estimated hourly rate. Let me know if you are interested in my services... until then, Robert can scrub the data himself when he asks for it.
WRONG!
Awgee was the original person I was talking to about getting the list, so I used his list. I looked at your list and it was clearly a bad list, with more than 50% of the properties inaccurately listed as REOs. Talk about lazy, your list was half-assed. You might as well have just sent me a list of every address in 92656...
NewportSkipper and I clearly showed that there are far less REOs unlisted than what was being stated.
Yes.. our data points are "cherry picked," but yours are undeniable, rock solid facts?
You my friend are ignorant, and that's not name calling because your statements are clearly showing that you have no time for another opinion that does not coincide with your own. So go ahead and ignorantly label facts as "cheerleading." I'll continue to support my opinion with facts and you can continue covering your ears and yelling blah blah blah, to anything that you don't agree with. Believe it or not, you might not know everything.
Agreed.
What has proven to be true is stabilization. We're not discussing Perris.
bltserv_IHB
New member
RoLar_USC said:
I had this same discussion with my Real Estate Agent about 6 months ago. She spent an hour showing me her selected data that supported her
opinions. Since then she has had 3 Arizona properties go to foreclosure that were part of her investment portfolio. We still keep in touch.
These days she is doing modifications. But still has her eye open for the property I will eventually purchase when my judgement
tells me we really have reached some type of bottom to these falling prices.
I am not disregarding the "cherry picked" data points you present. I am telling you to go do the "Cheerleader" act to somebody that will buy the BS.
IMO. The Theatre is on fire and you want to sell more tickets. I say NO THANKS. I will watch it burn from the outside safely.
Your opinion is tainted because you want/need a commission check. If your really good you can sell with out the "Cheerleader Act" bytheway.
A real sales guy can sell ice to eskimo`s.
Nude_IHB
New member
Of course you aren't. That would require work, research, effort, and the ability post links. It was too much to ask of you, I know. I'll keep your handicaps in mind from now on.NewportSkipper said:
Which data? Where? Links, sources, cites, graphs? Anything other than your assertion? I saw this:
But there aren't any facts in there, just supposition that isn't supported by any cite, source, link or attribution. Hardly rock solid and irrefutable. I went through all your posts and you refused to provide any of the sources for your "facts" (not even a screen shot), which means that you haven't proven anything, merely asserted some statement to bootstrap your own point of view. That kind of argument will get you nowhere here, even if you are correct in your assertions, because no one on the internet is just going to take your word for it.
I was going to call you Malibu Barbie but Mattel has some vicious lawyers. You jumped into this thread on the attack, involving yourself in a debate that had sprung up between graphrix and RL, with the apparent intent of taking cracker cakes down a notch. You were admonished by two different mods on multiple occasions, you even acknowledged you were being an ass, and still... you persisted in the name calling, the personal attacks, and the derogatory language. Until you settle down and act like you deserve the respect you are demanding, I will call you whatever I deem appropriate, Skipper Dan.
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
bltserv said:
Totally uncalled-for.
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
Nude said:
Nice try, but there are dozens and dozens of rock solid, irrefutable facts in these threads provided by me. I don't see anything other than personal attacks from you, which is apparently why you slithered away at some point (alienate people much?). I anxiously await that happening again soon. If you open your eyes, you will also see that I provided the information that there are many REOs on MLS, which Rob validated were not counted in the 8,000. But nooooo, that is too much for you to digest.
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
"you persisted in the name calling"
Put up or shut up.
Put up or shut up.
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
Nude said:
Ok, here's a quick and easy way to shut you down: I provided rock solid, irrefutable evidence that several REOs on Foreclosure Radar in fact closed escrow last year. This was confirmed by Robert and (graciously) by Graphrix.
Your turn.
Nude_IHB
New member
NewportSkipper said:
Just so we are clear (and this is the last time I am doing your homework, Skipper Dan) what Graphrix actually said was:
See there? That was a link and a quote, you should try it
However, you didn't technically prove anything; you made an assertion and left it to others to provide the evidence and/or independent confirmation.
You can forget about shutting me down. If they haven't banned you, they certainly aren't banning me which means you can count on me to be your personal heckler from now until you start treating others with the kind of respect you are demanding.
graphrix_IHB
New member
NewportSkipper said:
You proved SOME of the REOs I posted had changed hands, not ALL the REOs. Why? Because they haven't changed hands. All that says is you have to scrub the data carefully, which I had asked Robert to do, but that would require work. In conclusion of that whole debate, it proved that regardless of a few changing hands, Robert was still under-counting the total amount of REOs out there.
And Nude has a very good point, cite your sources to prove your point. Otherwise... they are just words of Kool-Aid blown air.
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
graphrix said:
I didn't say this before because I don't want to get preachy, but I didn't post beyond dates and doc numbers because I would be infringing on the user agreements I accepted with the services I use. I don't have the right to disseminate their data any more than I have the right to steal music online. And it was more than three properties. And even if it weren't, they still constitute rock solid, irrefutable facts.
N
NewportSkipper_IHB
Guest
"All that says is you have to scrub the data carefully..."
It was your data that needed scrubbing and it was up to you to do it. That's not Robert being lazy.
It was your data that needed scrubbing and it was up to you to do it. That's not Robert being lazy.
graphrix_IHB
New member
NewportSkipper said:
Wrong! It was up to Robert to go through my data of 188 properties, or go through the data of 70 some properties that awgee gave him. He took the easy route, and he didn't want to scrub the data, therefore he is lazy. If Robert or you would like for me to scrub the data for you, I would be happy to do that. Just let me know where to send the bill, er... for people in the RE industry I only take credit cards now, and there will be an up front retainer fee of 50% of the estimated hourly rate. Let me know if you are interested in my services... until then, Robert can scrub the data himself when he asks for it.
RobertLarsen_IHB
New member
graphrix said:
WRONG!
Awgee was the original person I was talking to about getting the list, so I used his list. I looked at your list and it was clearly a bad list, with more than 50% of the properties inaccurately listed as REOs. Talk about lazy, your list was half-assed. You might as well have just sent me a list of every address in 92656...
NewportSkipper and I clearly showed that there are far less REOs unlisted than what was being stated.
RobertLarsen_IHB
New member
bltserv said:
Yes.. our data points are "cherry picked," but yours are undeniable, rock solid facts?
You my friend are ignorant, and that's not name calling because your statements are clearly showing that you have no time for another opinion that does not coincide with your own. So go ahead and ignorantly label facts as "cheerleading." I'll continue to support my opinion with facts and you can continue covering your ears and yelling blah blah blah, to anything that you don't agree with. Believe it or not, you might not know everything.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
Only one thing will solve this dispute.
April 2010.
April 2010.
RobertLarsen_IHB
New member
No_Such_Reality said:
Agreed.
awgee_IHB
New member
A little something from Doctor Housing Bubble:
"I want to focus our attention on housing valuation. For those calling a bottom, it is also implied that they believe that incomes have stabilized and that prices rightfully reflect the economic situation of the potential buyers. Why else would you call it a bottom? Yet very little analysis is done regarding housing valuation. There is much yelling and punditry about a bottom but little long-term analysis is given to support this argument. Given the amount of Alt-A and option ARM products in California, we have unique exogenous factors that will play a role in housing prices for years to come. We also need to examine the state budget deficit and the state unemployment rate that is now at 11.9 percent but most likely is over 12 percent and if we look at the more encompassing figure of U-6, the state is well over 20 percent."
... ...
"What you’ll notice in the chart above is during the 1970s, Californians saw strong per capita income growth. A large part of this was due to inflation. Home prices went up but so did incomes. In our current bubble, home prices shot up while per capita income was stagnant. Much of the growth was completely dependent on housing alchemy including Alt-A and option ARM toxic waste financing the housing mania in the state. As the chart above clearly highlights, once the elixir was removed so was the artificial price gains.
That is the question that very few seem willing to explore. Without these toxic products, the buying power of Californians is largely diminished. For the entire decade, easy credit loans allowed the bubble to take on a wild uncharted path of growth. Yet as we deflate, what should a California home sell for? Let us run some current numbers."
... ...
"Someone screaming that this is the bottom with no evidence is no better than the person saying the bubble prices were justified. In fact, it may be the same person."
"I want to focus our attention on housing valuation. For those calling a bottom, it is also implied that they believe that incomes have stabilized and that prices rightfully reflect the economic situation of the potential buyers. Why else would you call it a bottom? Yet very little analysis is done regarding housing valuation. There is much yelling and punditry about a bottom but little long-term analysis is given to support this argument. Given the amount of Alt-A and option ARM products in California, we have unique exogenous factors that will play a role in housing prices for years to come. We also need to examine the state budget deficit and the state unemployment rate that is now at 11.9 percent but most likely is over 12 percent and if we look at the more encompassing figure of U-6, the state is well over 20 percent."
... ...
"What you’ll notice in the chart above is during the 1970s, Californians saw strong per capita income growth. A large part of this was due to inflation. Home prices went up but so did incomes. In our current bubble, home prices shot up while per capita income was stagnant. Much of the growth was completely dependent on housing alchemy including Alt-A and option ARM toxic waste financing the housing mania in the state. As the chart above clearly highlights, once the elixir was removed so was the artificial price gains.
That is the question that very few seem willing to explore. Without these toxic products, the buying power of Californians is largely diminished. For the entire decade, easy credit loans allowed the bubble to take on a wild uncharted path of growth. Yet as we deflate, what should a California home sell for? Let us run some current numbers."
... ...
"Someone screaming that this is the bottom with no evidence is no better than the person saying the bubble prices were justified. In fact, it may be the same person."