NewportSkipper

[quote author="TR_Esq" date=1252672494]To be clear, I have no skin in this game. I am not a realtor nor do I work in real estate. I come to this blog to read the various posts and threads in hopes of learning something. The blog and the majority of its regulars tend to be bearish on the real estate market. The market has proven them correct. The exchange of views between these bears and those that are more bullish is educational for many of us who don't follow the RE market as closely as others. For that I am grateful.



That being said, whenever those regulars are questioned, like IR, they support their positions with facts/data. Reasonable minds may disagree with what the data means, but the data is there to be debated. Newport Skipper, I must say, I have read many of your posts. But I must agree trr and others here because I can't recall seeing factual support for your arguments. If you have provided objective facts and date, and I have missed them, I apologize. perhaps you could provide them again? If you have not posted your support, you should. if for no other reason than to humor many and educate some, like me, who don't know. It may even lead some to adjust assumptions or admit they were incorrect in previous analyses.



From my perspective, however, it seems that rather than provide this support, you're content with attacking those who question you. thus far you have failed to support your positions. I'm sure you'll call me some name for pointing this out and accuse me of towing the party line. Fine. But I'd ask that after the name calling you supply data -- which should speak for itself.



It would seem to me that failing to do so is tantamount to admitting that there is no objective support for your positions.</blockquote>


Unfortunately, you won't get a real response. Many have tried, many have been ignored or insulted.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1252720480][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252720146]Seven active and 4 in backup offers under $150,000:



15500 Tustin Village Way 111? $125,000?

16625 Townhouse Dr? $129,900?

15500 Tustin Village? $130,000?

1192 E Mitchell Ave 67? $130,000?

675 W 6th St D? $140,000?

655 W 6th St C? $142,000?

1881 Mitchell Ave 127? $150,000?

1181 E Packers Cir 115? $124,700?

1192 Mitchell Ave 2? $135,000?

15512 Williams St K? $149,000?

652 W Main St B? $150,000?</blockquote>


Can we get the MLS numbers so we can make sure we are comparing apples to apples and not to oranges? Just the actives will do.</blockquote>


P693575

S588894

P670502

P702787

S588740

P701712

P653486
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252719110]

You are the most intectually-dishonest person I have ever met.

</blockquote>
I'm honored... you must not meet a lot of people.

<blockquote>

For the last time: the 25 were active, backup or pending. It doesn't matter if all 25 are active because the data gleaned is the values (which was the first half of the data needed to compare to rents). This is not hard to understand, except apparently, to you. Seeing you continue to beat this to death is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

</blockquote>
So you can accurately define current price points based on non-active homes? Good luck with that.

<blockquote>

And here is my actual comment:



"These comments have no basis in reality. Tustin rents range from $1,200 to $2,800 for 2-3 bedrooms and there are many units that have sold at (and below) $150,000. It?s a fact that a $150,000 condo rents for around $1,400."



Do you see the word "many"? Is "many" the same or different than the word "25"? In fact, the many was used in relation to sold units. The 25 came later and in relation to the number on the market in some way or another.</blockquote>
Slow down Skip... I didn't say you said 25 in the first post. You did mention it later... but it isn't until now you are emphasizing this "on the market in some way or another". Honestly, do you consider backup/pending homes still "on the market"? And as I recall... I think I only found 14 in active/backup/pending status back then. Did you have some "shadow inventory" I was not aware of.



And let's get to the truth, this is actually what you wrote:

<blockquote>

It?s a fact that a $150,000 condo rents for $1,500.

</blockquote>
No "around". One of your absolutes you like to flash. You didn't change it until 15 minutes later once you started realizing the rentals didn't quite track at $1500. You even admitted this yourself:

<blockquote>

And I also changed the $1,500 to $1,400 on my own, after seeing more weight there.

</blockquote>
The fact remains, you CANNOT find TWO available $150k Tustin props that can rent easily for $1500 (or even $1400) can you? So the initial responses in that thread were appropriate. Yours was only misleading and would take the original poster down a road that would be rather unfruitful. And this still doesn't take into account how difficult it would be to find renters and upkeep (oh yeah... that's right old condos require little maintenance according to you) for the next few years. Again, are you even familiar with that area in Tustin? I would think not because you said that those condos don't compare with apartments without realizing that those condos are almost exactly like apartments.

<blockquote>

Seeing you continue to beat this to death is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

</blockquote>
Seeing you continue to sidestep is worth it. I only do this to illustrate that even when the data and yourself disagrees with you... you still can't admit it.



Again... it's okay to be wrong... none of us know you.
 
Once you do the slightest bit of real research beyond your tiny RE world. And your NAR Listings.



Just 10 minutes of surfing yielded the following.



1192 Mitchell. On Craigslist for $ 1260.00

<a href="http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1359901955.html">http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1359901955.html</a>

1192 Mitchell On Craigslist for $ 1200.00

<a href="http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1355168778.html">http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1355168778.html</a>



Spend a few minutes on Craigslist. Use keywords like Tustin. These "Rat Hole" tiny 2 bedroom places are going as low as

$1000.00 a month. And free rent for a month to move in.



Also lets look at Tustin Village on Apartment Ratings shall we ?

<a href="http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/CA-Tustin-Tustin-Village.html">http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/CA-Tustin-Tustin-Village.html</a>



"Do not move here! Number one, it isn't safe. There are hookers, drug dealers and gang bangers living in here. Just a month or so ago there was a rival gang stabbing that went on inside the gates. The apartments are old and dirty. The walls are paper thin. You can hear the people upstairs. The floors are paper thin. There is constant noise. Parking rules are NOT ENFORCED inside the gates. There is no towing for cars that don't move. You can only have 2 cars yet the staff all has numerous cars and parks in other people's car port spots. Nobody in this place speaks English. It was horrible. Police there everyday for crime. Graffiti everywhere. Don't move here! It's like living in Mexico with gangs."
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1252722010][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252719110]

You are the most intectually-dishonest person I have ever met.

</blockquote>
I'm honored... you must not meet a lot of people.

<blockquote>

For the last time: the 25 were active, backup or pending. It doesn't matter if all 25 are active because the data gleaned is the values (which was the first half of the data needed to compare to rents). This is not hard to understand, except apparently, to you. Seeing you continue to beat this to death is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

</blockquote>
So you can accurately define current price points based on non-active homes? Good luck with that.

<blockquote>

And here is my actual comment:



"These comments have no basis in reality. Tustin rents range from $1,200 to $2,800 for 2-3 bedrooms and there are many units that have sold at (and below) $150,000. It?s a fact that a $150,000 condo rents for around $1,400."



Do you see the word "many"? Is "many" the same or different than the word "25"? In fact, the many was used in relation to sold units. The 25 came later and in relation to the number on the market in some way or another.</blockquote>
Slow down Skip... I didn't say you said 25 in the first post. You did mention it later... but it isn't until now you are emphasizing this "on the market in some way or another". Honestly, do you consider backup/pending homes still "on the market"? And as I recall... I think I only found 14 in active/backup/pending status back then. Did you have some "shadow inventory" I was not aware of.



And let's get to the truth, this is actually what you wrote:

<blockquote>

It?s a fact that a $150,000 condo rents for $1,500.

</blockquote>
No "around". One of your absolutes you like to flash. You didn't change it until 15 minutes later once you started realizing the rentals didn't quite track at $1500. You even admitted this yourself:

<blockquote>

And I also changed the $1,500 to $1,400 on my own, after seeing more weight there.

</blockquote>
The fact remains, you CANNOT find TWO available $150k Tustin props that can rent easily for $1500 (or even $1400) can you? So the initial responses in that thread were appropriate. Yours was only misleading and would take the original poster down a road that would be rather unfruitful. And this still doesn't take into account how difficult it would be to find renters and upkeep (oh yeah... that's right old condos require little maintenance according to you) for the next few years. Again, are you even familiar with that area in Tustin? I would think not because you said that those condos don't compare with apartments without realizing that those condos are almost exactly like apartments.

<blockquote>

Seeing you continue to beat this to death is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

</blockquote>
Seeing you continue to sidestep is worth it. I only do this to illustrate that even when the data and yourself disagrees with you... you still can't admit it.



Again... it's okay to be wrong... none of us know you.</blockquote>


Your fixation on minutia is hilarious.



"So you can accurately define current price points based on non-active homes? Good luck with that."



Of course I can, especially when such data are supported by active and CLOSED sales.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252722031]Once you do the slightest bit of real research beyond you tiny RE world. And your NAR Listings.



Just 10 minutes of surfing yeilded the following.



1192 Mitchell. On Craigslist for $ 1260.00

<a href="http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1359901955.html">http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1359901955.html</a>

1192 Mitchell On Craigslist for $ 1200.00

<a href="http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1355168778.html">http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1355168778.html</a>



Spend a few minutes on Craigslist. Use keywords like Tustin. These "Rat Hole" tiny 2 bedroom places are going as low as

$1000.00 a month. And free rent for a month to move in.



Also lets look at Tustin Village on Apartment Ratings shall we ?

<a href="http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/CA-Tustin-Tustin-Village.html">http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/CA-Tustin-Tustin-Village.html</a>



"Do not move here! Number one, it isn't safe. There are hookers, drug dealers and gang bangers living in here. Just a month or so ago there was a rival gang stabbing that went on inside the gates. The apartments are old and dirty. The walls are paper thin. You can hear the people upstairs. The floors are paper thin. There is constant noise. Parking rules are NOT ENFORCED inside the gates. There is no towing for cars that don't move. You can only have 2 cars yet the staff all has numerous cars and parks in other people's car port spots. Nobody in this place speaks English. It was horrible. Police there everyday for crime. Graffiti everywhere. Don't move here! It's like living in Mexico with gangs."</blockquote>




You can rely on Craigslist till the cows come home. The rents I posted are supported by closed leases in MLS.
 
"The fact remains, you CANNOT find TWO available $150k Tustin props that can rent easily for $1500 (or even $1400) can you? So the initial responses in that thread were appropriate. Yours was only misleading and would take the original poster down a road that would be rather unfruitful."



Hardly, if he can buy the same units for $130,000 and rent them for $1,300 the end result is the same (more or less). And no, there aren't TWO at $150,000. They are much less than $150,000.
 
<a href="http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1192-Mitchell-Ave-Unit-97_Tustin_CA_92780_1111023578">http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1192-Mitchell-Ave-Unit-97_Tustin_CA_92780_1111023578</a>

Here is your link at $ 1325.00



Exact same place on Craigslist. $ 1260.00. $ 500.00 off First months rent. Dated 9/5.

<a href="http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1359901955.html">http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1359901955.html</a>



And this is the CREAM off your list. Some of those places you could not force an "Undocumented Alien" to live

in for over $ 1000.00 a month.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252722211]

You can rely on Craigslist till the cows come home.

</blockquote>
Isn't that what you originally did in your first post?

<blockquote>

The rents I posted are supported by closed leases in MLS.</blockquote>
Post this information. I asked this before since IR2 has a similar list for Irvine of closed leases.



I'm sure we can cherry pick that list for rentals that fit what you're arguing for, but I think as advice to the OP, it's not a fairly accurate way to recommend these $150k condos to him as trying to find quality units that can "easily" rent for $1400 is not just looking up data on the MLS. It requires knowledge of the area, comparable rents and available inventory. I mentioned this in the original thread yet you never addressed it. To you... it's all about the data... and you can't seem to see the failings in that.
 
Thanks, RoLar.



It's kind of ironic that NewportSkipper used <a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Tustin/15500-Tustin-Village-Way-92780/unit-111/home/4491211">this property</a> as <a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/6044/#125225">his original post on the topic</a>:



[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1251764973]These comments have no basis in reality. Tustin rents range from $1,200 to $2,800 for 2-3 bedrooms and there are many units that have sold at (and below) $150,000. It's a fact that a $150,000 condo rents for around $1,400.



$1350 / 2br - Large Tustin Village Renovated Townhome



http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1351177380.html





Similar floorplans are closing at $130,000:



http://www.redfin.com/CA/Tustin/15500-Tustin-Village-Way-92780/unit-111/home/4491211</blockquote>


Considering his premise that everyone else was wrong about rents for what are essentially apartments, and specifically saying that "floorplans are closing", it's ironic that the property has not actually closed and is now being offered for less than it's 2001 purchase price.



<blockquote>

Aug 31, 2009 Change $125,000 -- SoCalMLS #P693575

Jul 02, 2009 Change $135,000 -- SoCalMLS #P693575

Jul 01, 2009 Listed $235,000 -- SoCalMLS #P693575

Jun 08, 2001 Sold $133,000 16.2%/yr Public Records

Sep 19, 1997 Sold $76,000 -46.2%/yr Public Records

May 15, 1996 Sold $175,199 6.4%/yr Public Records

Dec 05, 1990 Sold $125,000 -- Public Records</blockquote>


I'm amazed at what you can get for essentially 8 years worth of rent. However, that doesn't change much. In order to conclude the NewportSkipper is correct, you have to assume that his closing prices are correct and that landlords are actually getting their asking price for rent. At least one of those assumptions has been proven not to be rock solid, undeniable fact.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1252722031]Once you do the slightest bit of real research beyond your tiny RE world. And your NAR Listings.



Just 10 minutes of surfing yielded the following.



1192 Mitchell. On Craigslist for $ 1260.00

<a href="http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1359901955.html">http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1359901955.html</a>

1192 Mitchell On Craigslist for $ 1200.00

<a href="http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1355168778.html">http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/apa/1355168778.html</a>



Spend a few minutes on Craigslist. Use keywords like Tustin. These "Rat Hole" tiny 2 bedroom places are going as low as

$1000.00 a month. And free rent for a month to move in.



Also lets look at Tustin Village on Apartment Ratings shall we ?

<a href="http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/CA-Tustin-Tustin-Village.html">http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/CA-Tustin-Tustin-Village.html</a>



"Do not move here! Number one, it isn't safe. There are hookers, drug dealers and gang bangers living in here. Just a month or so ago there was a rival gang stabbing that went on inside the gates. The apartments are old and dirty. The walls are paper thin. You can hear the people upstairs. The floors are paper thin. There is constant noise. Parking rules are NOT ENFORCED inside the gates. There is no towing for cars that don't move. You can only have 2 cars yet the staff all has numerous cars and parks in other people's car port spots. Nobody in this place speaks English. It was horrible. Police there everyday for crime. Graffiti everywhere. Don't move here! It's like living in Mexico with gangs."</blockquote>


There is no way you are renting a 2bd place out in Tustin Village for $1500 or $1400 a month. What BLT posted above is true. It is a shite hole from hell. I would rather buy a condo off of 4th street and Broadway in Santa Ana than pay $100k+ for one of these dogs. And I can get the condo in SA for half the price. If you are getting $1500 a month in Tustin Village don't be surprised when the Tustin/SA police call to inform you the meth lab has exploded or the crack dealer was shot 25 times along with the hooker he was with, because those are the ONLY people dumb enough to pay $1500 a month for this cesspool. I'd go down there to take pictures, but even if IHO came as a body guard, the first gang banger I snap a pic of with an outstanding warrant is going to shoot at us both. I'll pass.
 
Here are the 20 cheapest sales in tustin with a minimum of 2 bedrooms over the past 3 months. <$150,000

<img src="http://occoastalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Sales.jpg" alt="" />



Here are the 17 cheapest leases in tustin over the past 3 months.



<img src="http://occoastalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Leases.jpg" alt="" />



Map of Sales:

<img src="http://occoastalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/SalesMap.jpg" alt="" />



Map of Lease:

<img src="http://occoastalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Leasesmap.jpg" alt="" />
 
Thanks Robert. Can you confirm the rents on 1722 Mitchell, units #34 ($1,400) and #35 ($1,550)?



I concede the $1,500 is rare (for the slums as you put it) and the $1,400 is even a tad high. However, considering these units do not cost $150,000 the point is moot.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252725881]Thanks Robert. Can you confirm the rents on 1722 Mitchell, units #34 ($1,400) and #35 ($1,550)?



I concede the $1,500 is rare (for the slums as you put it) and the $1,400 is even a tad high. However, considering these units do not cost $150,000 the point is moot.</blockquote>


Unit #34 - S566608 - Listed at $1600 and leased for $1400 5/6/2009.



Unit #35 - S566613 - Listed at $1550 and lease for $1550 on 5/1/2009.



A good estimate on monthly rent appears to be about 10% of the purchase price.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1252726228][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252725881]Thanks Robert. Can you confirm the rents on 1722 Mitchell, units #34 ($1,400) and #35 ($1,550)?



I concede the $1,500 is rare (for the slums as you put it) and the $1,400 is even a tad high. However, considering these units do not cost $150,000 the point is moot.</blockquote>


Unit #34 - S566608 - Listed at $1600 and leased for $1400 5/6/2009.



Unit #35 - S566613 - Listed at $1550 and lease for $1550 on 5/1/2009.



A good estimate on monthly rent appears to be about 10% of the purchase price.</blockquote>


10% monthly yield (call it 8.8% if including the average days on market) is pretty remarkable.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252725881]Thanks Robert.</blockquote>
Yeah... I guess NewSkip didn't want to post this because we would find his data points faulty.

<blockquote>

I concede the $1,500 is rare (for the slums as you put it) and the $1,400 is even a tad high.

</blockquote>
Finally.

<blockquote>

However, considering these units do not cost $150,000 the point is moot.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Not really.



If you look at that data as a whole (no cherry picking)... finding TWO $150k condos that will rent for $1400 is not very easy.



Most of the closed sales around $150k were built prior to 1970 and are in the same area with similar br/ba/sqft. If you look at the rentals, mostly everything similar to that (save for the 1929 lease) has not leased for more than $1400... and out of those 8 in the $1300 range, half were built AFTER 1970.



This also does not take into account that apartments in similar configurations are renting for about $1100.



Of course, those familiar with the area were trying to tell you that... and the DATA confirms it.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1252727713][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252725881]Thanks Robert.</blockquote>
Yeah... I guess NewSkip didn't want to post this because we would find his data points faulty.

<blockquote>

I concede the $1,500 is rare (for the slums as you put it) and the $1,400 is even a tad high.

</blockquote>
Finally.

<blockquote>

However, considering these units do not cost $150,000 the point is moot.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Not really.



If you look at that data as a whole (no cherry picking)... finding TWO $150k condos that will rent for $1400 is not very easy.



Most of the closed sales around $150k were built prior to 1970 and are in the same area with similar br/ba/sqft. If you look at the rentals, mostly everything similar to that (save for the 1929 lease) has not leased for more than $1400... and out of those 8 in the $1300 range, half were built AFTER 1970.



This also does not take into account that apartments in similar configurations are renting for about $1100.



Of course, those familiar with the area were trying to tell you that... and the DATA confirms it.</blockquote>


Skip's accuracy aside, the idea of buying condos for $150K that earn $1000 a month is remarkable. I
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1252727713][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252725881]Thanks Robert.</blockquote>
Yeah... I guess NewSkip didn't want to post this because we would find his data points faulty.

<blockquote>

I concede the $1,500 is rare (for the slums as you put it) and the $1,400 is even a tad high.

</blockquote>
Finally.

<blockquote>

However, considering these units do not cost $150,000 the point is moot.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Not really.



If you look at that data as a whole (no cherry picking)... finding TWO $150k condos that will rent for $1400 is not very easy.



Most of the closed sales around $150k were built prior to 1970 and are in the same area with similar br/ba/sqft. If you look at the rentals, mostly everything similar to that (save for the 1929 lease) has not leased for more than $1400... and out of those 8 in the $1300 range, half were built AFTER 1970.



This also does not take into account that apartments in similar configurations are renting for about $1100.



Of course, those familiar with the area were trying to tell you that... and the DATA confirms it.</blockquote>


My points are more than proven. You are arguing to argue....and all for nothing.
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252729407]My points are more than proven. You are arguing to argue....and all for nothing.</blockquote>


I think what IHO proved was that condos in the Tustin "shite" Village sell for $125k-$130k, and only one rents for $1300 according to the MLS data that Robert provided.



BTW, have you seen this complex? I have challenge for you, go down there and take 5 pictures during the day and 5 pictures during the night (after 10pm preferred) and post them here. Bring a gun, a bullet proof vest, a case of 40s, and a dozen blunts... and you might, just might come out of there alive.
 
Skippy.



I think you need to meet us down at Tustin Village.

Maybe back away from the keyboard and your lists of data and step out into the real world.



I cant stop laughing at you man. Your a riot. "Slums as we put it"



<blockquote>I concede the $1,500 is rare (for the slums as you put it) and the $1,400 is even a tad high. However, considering these units do not cost $150,000 the point is moot. </blockquote>


Like Graph says. Lets go down there. I got my Sig Sauer and its coming too. I got a thousand cash for you

if you can go door to door for a couple hours after dark doing your RE thing. You will get rolled quicker than

I can say Skippy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top