Angry comment from a recent seller

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
IrvineRenter_IHB

IrvineRenter_IHB

New member
Do you get the sense from the comment below that this seller was trying to rub our noses in their gain, or were they trying to get revenge because they were angry about lowering their price 20% to make a sale (or both)?

You decide...

From the The Reservoir of Schadenfreude:

briansthreadedcomments.php
Comment by sui generis

2007-07-18 12:18:45

bought our house in 01 for $700K, put about $100K into it, listed it for $1.895M in February, dropped the price and sold it for $1.535M in May. Poor us.

Can you eat schadenfreude? Do you need ketchup to get it down your gullet?

Reply to this comment

briansthreadedcomments.php
Comment by IrvineRenter http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=editcomment&c=9739

2007-07-18 12:55:51

Come back in a few years and tell us how much you lose on your next purchase.

BTW, did you feel good about that $350K price reduction? Tastes good to me…

Reply to this comment
 
A very common theme from the housing bulls are that they bought 4-6 years ago, made tons of money, and the bears are losers because they didn’t get in. It’s a very easy way to shoot down the bears, but a bit misguided. I think many in this and other forums/blogs agree that it was the right time to buy anywhere from mid-90’s through 2002 or so, although many (including me) were starting to talk bubble beginning in ’02. In fact, many bears also bought at that time period and sold in the past couple of years for a tidy profit. The bulls make it sound as if we have always been down on housing, and this simply isn’t the case. I, for one, began talking about froth in ’04, when prices had sufficiently shot up to unsustainable levels. I wasn’t a bear until then, but have done quite a bit of research to conclude my current assertions since. I’m sure many have done the same. Maybe it’s that these perma-bulls who laugh and flash their cash just don’t understand what we’re trying to tell them, that the houses are overpriced NOW and beginning just 3-4 years ago, not since the beginning of time.
 
Darin,

Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that one.

In a book I am reading now, the author comments at length on the people who get lucky and make fortunes in the financial markets. His contention (or observation) is that few of these people have the acumen to keep their windfall. Mr. and Mrs. D confirm what he is saying.
 
How much did the $350K eat into there profit...they never once mentioned any of that.

Also, why aren't they thanking us for telling them repeatedly that if you want to sell your house in this market undercut all other comps and cross your fingers. It quite certainly looks like that is what they did here. However, good for them and I think we all should give them a kudos for actually getting out....regardless of how much they heeded our wisdom.
 
"However, good for them and I think we all should give them a kudos for actually getting out"

But it sounds like they jumped right back in, dumping their "profits" back into another inflated asset. So, what did they gain (or "win" as they termed it)?

(Didn't mean to bold this post. Not sure how to fix it as the Bold button indicates it is not bold).
 
Yes, 2001 was a great time to buy re. What does that have to do with now?

I am failing to see the posters point. It seems the poster is saying, "I made money, so hah!"

I doubt there is anyone who posts here who does not think there are some great times to buy a home. Are there any re perma bears in here?

Personally, a part of me very much looks forward to the day when we buy a home again, and a part of me really enjoys leasing and the decrease in responsibility and expense.
 
I didn't start looking at RE until 1998, and would say that from 1998-2002, it was still possible to buy condos in OC and rent it out at near break-even point with 30 year fixed rate loan. After 2002 the prices jumped too high for income property, though you could still play the high-risk flipping game for few years.

Many people who receive a large chunk of money (inheritance, lottery, RE sale) become very stupid with their money. I recall reading a news article that said some 70% of all lotto jackpot winners blew their winnings within few years, many end up divorced and in poverty. Even if you're in the other 30% category, there's a saying that "wealth doesn't last 3 generations", which is true 90% of the time with "new money". It'd be interesting if someone can compile statistics on "flipper millionaires" and see what % of them actually retain their wealth and millionaire status after 5 years.
 
I agree with awgee. What is the point? So what you made money on RE. So have I and so many others here. The difference is we will continue to make money and our returns could be a lot higher because of our patience. Hello did anyone read the Reg today and see how foreclosures increased 2292.3% from last June? No that isn't a typo and the average increased by 865.5% compared to last year?

Why is it that the bitter ones are coming out of the woodwork?
 
>>>Many people who receive a large chunk of money (inheritance, lottery, RE sale) become very stupid with their money. I recall reading a news article that said some 70% of all lotto jackpot winners blew their winnings within few years, many end up divorced and in poverty. Even if you're in the other 30% category, there's a saying that "wealth doesn't last 3 generations", which is true 90% of the time with "new money". It'd be interesting if someone can compile statistics on "flipper millionaires" and see what % of them actually retain their wealth and millionaire status after 5 years.<<<

I think that you have to view it using the law of averages.

The average Lotto player, hence winner, (I'm going to stereotype here so I could easily be wrong but I don't care) is probably in debt and not highly educated. So over their lifetime, they are mostly in debt and bad with money. So one of them happens to win the lottery, but most of the time it's not enough to offset a lifetime of debt and bad decision making.

Same thing with flipping. If they are flipping regularly and not timing the market a whole lot, they will make money in up cycles, and lose money unexpectedly in bad cycles.

It's funny - I was watching one of those flipping shows on HGTV and it showed a flipper with a planned profit of $200k. I turned to my wife after the commercial and asked her, I wonder where the location is because I'm skeptical of the $200k profit to be made on any property in the last 1 1/2 years. What about carrying costs if they can't sell because nobody is selling right now, and if they lower the price to sell, I doubt they will make that $200k profit. It turns out, after commercial, that the flipper was in Las Vegas (right away I'm thinking bad ending), and he had to move into the home and make additional renovations because he couldn't sell and carrying costs were eating into his profit.

By then his projected profit was around $80k. He was optimistic, he said, because he still had a high profit cushion. The show ended, so who knows how the story ends. Nice remodel, though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top