My kids would rather see Land Before Time XIX than Cinderella 2. Has Disney (not Pixar) even released any animation over the last three years that didn't have a number after it?
My kids certainly don't have the fondness or loyalty to Disney that my siblings and I had in the seventies...
So, if the price of the house is $150K and the buyer puts up a $30K downpayment and the bank's appraiser says the house is worth $140K, the bank will approve the loan. If there is a foreclosure, the buyer, not the bank, is out the difference.
Correct, except in the case of residential real estate, the reality is that when a home owner goes through foreclosure and loses considerable equity, he invariably trashes the property to "get even" with the bank. I have seen this too many times to count. The bank is almost always the one left holding the bag. Bank owned properties are nearly always fixer-uppers (the exception being estate sales). I could show you fifty in my area.
Also, in the several years that have passed between the sale and the foreclosure, appreciation will have boosted the price of the house so the bank actually can sell it for the previously inflated appraised value.
And the market may have just as easily gone in the other direction. I can show you areas where I live where property values are stagnant or have actually dropped. The national median price of homes has risen, but the number is skewed by the new construction of monster homes and McMansions everywhere. DINK couples are buying homes they can't afford to put furniture into. This raises the cost of new construction, making existing homes more attractive, thus raising demand and therefore prices.
If the value of only one house is inflated, buyers will be reluctant to buy that property. But when the inflated prices become wide spread, the buyers only alternative may be not to buy any house.
This is basic ECON 101. There is a limited supply of real estate. They are not making any more. If somebody wants a property more than you do and finds a higher price acceptable, they buy it. They may have to sacrifice in a way that you are not willing, (i.e. longer hours, miserable job, no computer toys) Their demand is higher than yours and you won't compete for income (office politics, no executive positions, ethical stands, etc.) in order to compete for a scarce resource. Unfortunately, you are ultimately forced to compete indirectly as rents rise along with property costs forcing you to sacrifice anyway. You and your competitors both find your area appealing, but only one of you can own it. You are left with two choices: compete harder for scarce resources or find a different living area with less demand.
I have sold things for less than the maximum I could get for them and I have bought things for more than the asking price if they were substantially undervalued.
I commend you on your altruism. One could argue, however, that you contribute to "inflation" if you pay more than asking price. The basic flaw in your entire premise is that you believe you are uniquely qualified to detirmine the "True Value" of something. Your neighbor -that paid too much for his house- also thinks HE is qualified to detirmine the value of his property. If most others disagree with your assessment, I would tend to follow their views. If your boom market busts and prices plummet, it may indicate the market was overvalued, but it may also indicate that demand has saturated or changed.
As for my mom's mortgage, the point was that she did get a better deal than she thought she did, or at least due to outside circumstances (runaway appreciation) she was better off with a deal that seemed unfair at the time than she would have been if the house had been liquidated and she had to buy or rent another house.
I still fail to understand why she would feel she got a bad deal. As I said before, half of nothing is still nothing and you can't just snap your fingers and expect a mortgage to go away.
It is actually quite reasonable for government to place some limits on unchecked supply and demand. It is also a mistake to assume that the "free market" in its current form is really free, let alone fair, in it
I did not say real estate agents are appraisers. I said appraisers are real estate agents. While that might not be true in some cases, I suspect it is in most. I.E. A person typically starts as a real estate agent and then gets certified as an appraiser.
You are correct in this one point. Most appraisers begin their carreer as a real estate agent. You can be both simultaneously, but not on the same property. Conflict of interest rules prevent this from happening.
Even if the apraiser is not and has never been a real estate agent, I think appraisers are usually hired by either the selling agent or in some cases by the city tax assessors office. In some cases the buyer or the bank may hire an appraiser for a second appraisal but I suspect the banks usually will take an "independent" appraiser hired by the seller at their word. Money tends to corrupt even when people are trying to be honest.
Here is where you go wrong. The appraiser does not work for you. The appraiser works for the lender. (or in some cases, tax auditor's office) The appraiser is hired by the lender to calculate the value of the collateral which secures their mortgage. The appraisal is used to make sure the bank does not risk more money than the value of the property. If the debtor defaults, the collateral is sold to repay the debt. It is NOT in the best interest of the lender to loan more than can be repaid with a foreclosure of the property.
Lenders hire a appraiser which they can trust. The buyer pays for the appraisal as part of the closing costs of the loan, but appraisal is property of the lender. Most lenders will provide a copy, but it belongs to them. The seller or any appraiser retained by the seller has no bearing on the value of the lender's appraisal. An appraiser who always calculates too high will find himself looking for new work when banks start eating too many overvalued foreclosures.
When you "re-fi" to cash out "equity", the lender gives you money over the purchase price of your home with the understanding that they will be able to sell your home in case of default for the newly appraised value. Again, the owner has no say on the matter.
If you are an appraiser try the following experiment>
I am not an appraiser. I have a real estate sales license.
For the first group, highball every estimate by $2500 and for the second group lowball every estimate by $2500. At the end of one year, are you still getting the same amount of business from each group? Not likely. Consciously or subconsciously, they are going to favor the appraiser who gives them the results they like. Now if your price is way to high and the houses don't sell, then it will bite you in the ass.
You almost get it, here. Appraisers do not set the price of a home, buyers and sellers do. If the price is too high, the property will not sell. If the property sells, then by definition THAT IS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY!!!! It is the real estate agent's job to find a buyer for the seller willing to pay market value. Agency law is very specific in my state. Coaxing an owner to sell at less than market value to "get a sale" and collect commission is illegal. The seller is owed the duty to place his interests above that of the agent.
It sounds to me like you are dislike the basic laws of economics. If there is no demand at "high" prices, properties will not sell and prices will fall. If the "bubble bursts", it will be because buyers decide property is overvalued and demand will drop. Right now, real estate is considered a good investment because of the appreciation which in turn drives demand. Your complaint is with investors, not with real estate professionals or appraisers.
Intellegence analysts who say there are WMDs in Iraq get promoted, those that say there aren't get passed over (actually, in that case there reportedly were explicit instructions to find intelligence that justified
Fortunately, appraisals are done by real estate agents; often not the agent selling the house but a buddy.
Bzzzzt. Sorry, but you are incorrect. Real estate agents are NOT appraisers. The training is different and the licensing is different. No lender in their right mind would ever consider using an appraisal from an agent or broker and put their money at risk.
Did the seller do any remodelling or redecorating? Add the cost of that (plus some) to the appraisal as well.
This is a major misconception. Many "improvements" add no value to the home and some may actually reduce the value. (i.e. swimming pool) Repairs and remodelling a home that is very dated can, however, add to value. Often, the cost of remodelling is more than the value added to the home. Many sellers get very upset when this happens.
You clearly live in an area where the market is in boom. Just remember this though, if there were no buyers who are willing to pay those outrageous prices, they would not exist. The real estate agent does not set the prices, the buyer does. Besides, it's the agent's job to get the seller his/her best price possible, not what YOU think it should be.
And yes, I am a licensee. And yes, I have seen my fair share if incompetent agents too.
I'm really hoping that Lucas has listned to the critics and will make this one a lot less for the kiddies than the last two. He's really come to rely upon the whiz-bang way too much and left a lot of the storytelling out. The money has gone to his head and at this point it's less about the film itself and more about the marketing opportunites.
Lucas is insane. I was suspicious after the first two movies, but I saw him on Charlie Rose justifying his DVD set abomination of the original movies and now I am completely convinced. I suspect that thing on his neck is some kind of mind control parasite or at least is cutting the blood supply off to his brain.
FuzzNutz
My experience is the same. I ONLY buy DVDs from Best Buy where they can't fsck it up too bad.
My last real purchase there went something like this:
Purchase high end Sony SVHS VCR. Take unit home and insert Blockbuster rental tape. Unit refuses to track. Adjustments are futile. Remove tape and insert in crappy $50 VCR. Tape plays fine. Box up whole thing and return.
I spent 45 minutes in line at the return desk. When I explained to the idiot in charge my complaint. She insisted I would have to step aside so their "tech" people could check it out. I spent another 15 minutes arguing that I would not step aside and that I wanted my money back for a unit that was not yet 24 hours old. Finally when she agreed to refund my money, I drove over to Circuit city where I purchased a Toshiba unit that I still use today. That was the last time I spent money on electronics at Best Buy.
Blessed are the days when the bad and nasty foreign manufacturers had an import quota of 6000 cars per class per year per manufacturer.
Blessed are the days when steel had an import duty of 30+%
Blessed are the days when... We can continue...
One minor problem though, the day these days return there will be the same measures everywhere else around the globe so no effing container is going out anywhere. Example - the recent spat over steel tariffs between US and EU.
Except as we are the largest consumer market in the world and we are a net importer in a major way, we have less to lose than the rest of the world.
I think we ought to provide free sterilization to anyone who wants it and mandatory sterilization for anyone convicted of a violent crime, especially juveniles. Such sterilization should be reversable and those subject to it should be able to petition the court to have it reversed. The main purpose of this is to try and create an environment where losers and thugs won't breed.
I have always advocated swapping food stamps and welfare checks for Norplants. If you want the state to give you you a free ride, don't be breeding children you can't care for. Welfare checks must be signed for in person and a spot check will be performed to make sure your Norplant is intact.
Don't want mandatory birth control? No problem. Just don't expect the state to pick up the tab.
I think this should be part of copyright reform, if you let a piece fall out of print then you lose copyright to it.
How about instead, we require everything to be registered for copyright at the nominal cost of $1 annually. Every year each copyright holder will have to decide if his precious intellectual property is worth a buck. If he can't or won't register, it becomes public domain.
If you can't earn a dollar from your copyright each year, it certainly can't be so valuable as to require 95 years to expire.
We could use the new influx of cash to fund the US PTO to hire people who actually knew what they were doing. Everybody's a winner!
Slashdot Mirror
I can tell you what spelled the death of Disney.
Direct to video
My kids would rather see Land Before Time XIX than Cinderella 2. Has Disney (not Pixar) even released any animation over the last three years that didn't have a number after it?
My kids certainly don't have the fondness or loyalty to Disney that my siblings and I had in the seventies...
So, if the price of the house is $150K and the buyer puts up a $30K downpayment and the bank's appraiser says the house is worth $140K, the bank will approve the loan. If there is a foreclosure, the buyer, not the bank, is out the difference.
Correct, except in the case of residential real estate, the reality is that when a home owner goes through foreclosure and loses considerable equity, he invariably trashes the property to "get even" with the bank. I have seen this too many times to count. The bank is almost always the one left holding the bag. Bank owned properties are nearly always fixer-uppers (the exception being estate sales). I could show you fifty in my area.
Also, in the several years that have passed between the sale and the foreclosure, appreciation will have boosted the price of the house so the bank actually can sell it for the previously inflated appraised value.
And the market may have just as easily gone in the other direction. I can show you areas where I live where property values are stagnant or have actually dropped. The national median price of homes has risen, but the number is skewed by the new construction of monster homes and McMansions everywhere. DINK couples are buying homes they can't afford to put furniture into. This raises the cost of new construction, making existing homes more attractive, thus raising demand and therefore prices.
If the value of only one house is inflated, buyers will be reluctant to buy that property. But when the inflated prices become wide spread, the buyers only alternative may be not to buy any house.
This is basic ECON 101. There is a limited supply of real estate. They are not making any more. If somebody wants a property more than you do and finds a higher price acceptable, they buy it. They may have to sacrifice in a way that you are not willing, (i.e. longer hours, miserable job, no computer toys) Their demand is higher than yours and you won't compete for income (office politics, no executive positions, ethical stands, etc.) in order to compete for a scarce resource. Unfortunately, you are ultimately forced to compete indirectly as rents rise along with property costs forcing you to sacrifice anyway. You and your competitors both find your area appealing, but only one of you can own it. You are left with two choices: compete harder for scarce resources or find a different living area with less demand.
I have sold things for less than the maximum I could get for them and I have bought things for more than the asking price if they were substantially undervalued.
I commend you on your altruism. One could argue, however, that you contribute to "inflation" if you pay more than asking price. The basic flaw in your entire premise is that you believe you are uniquely qualified to detirmine the "True Value" of something. Your neighbor -that paid too much for his house- also thinks HE is qualified to detirmine the value of his property. If most others disagree with your assessment, I would tend to follow their views. If your boom market busts and prices plummet, it may indicate the market was overvalued, but it may also indicate that demand has saturated or changed.
As for my mom's mortgage, the point was that she did get a better deal than she thought she did, or at least due to outside circumstances (runaway appreciation) she was better off with a deal that seemed unfair at the time than she would have been if the house had been liquidated and she had to buy or rent another house.
I still fail to understand why she would feel she got a bad deal. As I said before, half of nothing is still nothing and you can't just snap your fingers and expect a mortgage to go away.
It is actually quite reasonable for government to place some limits on unchecked supply and demand. It is also a mistake to assume that the "free market" in its current form is really free, let alone fair, in it
I did not say real estate agents are appraisers. I said appraisers are real estate agents. While that might not be true in some cases, I suspect it is in most. I.E. A person typically starts as a real estate agent and then gets certified as an appraiser.
You are correct in this one point. Most appraisers begin their carreer as a real estate agent. You can be both simultaneously, but not on the same property. Conflict of interest rules prevent this from happening.
Even if the apraiser is not and has never been a real estate agent, I think appraisers are usually hired by either the selling agent or in some cases by the city tax assessors office. In some cases the buyer or the bank may hire an appraiser for a second appraisal but I suspect the banks usually will take an "independent" appraiser hired by the seller at their word. Money tends to corrupt even when people are trying to be honest.
Here is where you go wrong. The appraiser does not work for you. The appraiser works for the lender. (or in some cases, tax auditor's office) The appraiser is hired by the lender to calculate the value of the collateral which secures their mortgage. The appraisal is used to make sure the bank does not risk more money than the value of the property. If the debtor defaults, the collateral is sold to repay the debt. It is NOT in the best interest of the lender to loan more than can be repaid with a foreclosure of the property.
Lenders hire a appraiser which they can trust. The buyer pays for the appraisal as part of the closing costs of the loan, but appraisal is property of the lender. Most lenders will provide a copy, but it belongs to them. The seller or any appraiser retained by the seller has no bearing on the value of the lender's appraisal. An appraiser who always calculates too high will find himself looking for new work when banks start eating too many overvalued foreclosures.
When you "re-fi" to cash out "equity", the lender gives you money over the purchase price of your home with the understanding that they will be able to sell your home in case of default for the newly appraised value. Again, the owner has no say on the matter.
If you are an appraiser try the following experiment>
I am not an appraiser. I have a real estate sales license.
For the first group, highball every estimate by $2500 and for the second group lowball every estimate by $2500. At the end of one year, are you still getting the same amount of business from each group? Not likely. Consciously or subconsciously, they are going to favor the appraiser who gives them the results they like. Now if your price is way to high and the houses don't sell, then it will bite you in the ass.
You almost get it, here. Appraisers do not set the price of a home, buyers and sellers do. If the price is too high, the property will not sell. If the property sells, then by definition THAT IS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY!!!! It is the real estate agent's job to find a buyer for the seller willing to pay market value. Agency law is very specific in my state. Coaxing an owner to sell at less than market value to "get a sale" and collect commission is illegal. The seller is owed the duty to place his interests above that of the agent.
It sounds to me like you are dislike the basic laws of economics. If there is no demand at "high" prices, properties will not sell and prices will fall. If the "bubble bursts", it will be because buyers decide property is overvalued and demand will drop. Right now, real estate is considered a good investment because of the appreciation which in turn drives demand. Your complaint is with investors, not with real estate professionals or appraisers.
Intellegence analysts who say there are WMDs in Iraq get promoted, those that say there aren't get passed over (actually, in that case there reportedly were explicit instructions to find intelligence that justified
Fortunately, appraisals are done by real estate agents; often not the agent selling the house but a buddy.
Bzzzzt. Sorry, but you are incorrect. Real estate agents are NOT appraisers. The training is different and the licensing is different. No lender in their right mind would ever consider using an appraisal from an agent or broker and put their money at risk.
Did the seller do any remodelling or redecorating? Add the cost of that (plus some) to the appraisal as well.
This is a major misconception. Many "improvements" add no value to the home and some may actually reduce the value. (i.e. swimming pool) Repairs and remodelling a home that is very dated can, however, add to value. Often, the cost of remodelling is more than the value added to the home. Many sellers get very upset when this happens.
You clearly live in an area where the market is in boom. Just remember this though, if there were no buyers who are willing to pay those outrageous prices, they would not exist. The real estate agent does not set the prices, the buyer does. Besides, it's the agent's job to get the seller his/her best price possible, not what YOU think it should be.
And yes, I am a licensee. And yes, I have seen my fair share if incompetent agents too.
the jaw-dropping Anakin/Obi Wan fight on Mustafar (where - after cutting his legs and arm off, Ben leaves Skywalker
Did he mention anything about it being merely a flesh wound?
I think you mean Miss Emily Litella. Rosanne Rosannadanna was the news anchor persona with the full hair.
I'm originally from Michigan. Right or wrong, we often mock people from Ohio. But at least Ohio isn't Indiana.
And here in Ohio we give out directions to Ann Arbor: North till you smell it, then west till you step in it.
Skyline is good, but Gold Star is better!
The last real winter I can remember is over 20 years ago when we had snow.
Send me your FexEx account number and I'll be glad to ship you some.
I'm really hoping that Lucas has listned to the critics and will make this one a lot less for the kiddies than the last two. He's really come to rely upon the whiz-bang way too much and left a lot of the storytelling out. The money has gone to his head and at this point it's less about the film itself and more about the marketing opportunites.
Lucas is insane. I was suspicious after the first two movies, but I saw him on Charlie Rose justifying his DVD set abomination of the original movies and now I am completely convinced. I suspect that thing on his neck is some kind of mind control parasite or at least is cutting the blood supply off to his brain. FuzzNutz
My experience is the same. I ONLY buy DVDs from Best Buy where they can't fsck it up too bad.
My last real purchase there went something like this:
Purchase high end Sony SVHS VCR. Take unit home and insert Blockbuster rental tape. Unit refuses to track. Adjustments are futile. Remove tape and insert in crappy $50 VCR. Tape plays fine. Box up whole thing and return.
I spent 45 minutes in line at the return desk. When I explained to the idiot in charge my complaint. She insisted I would have to step aside so their "tech" people could check it out. I spent another 15 minutes arguing that I would not step aside and that I wanted my money back for a unit that was not yet 24 hours old. Finally when she agreed to refund my money, I drove over to Circuit city where I purchased a Toshiba unit that I still use today. That was the last time I spent money on electronics at Best Buy.
Blessed are the days when the bad and nasty foreign manufacturers had an import quota of 6000 cars per class per year per manufacturer.
Blessed are the days when steel had an import duty of 30+%
Blessed are the days when... We can continue...
One minor problem though, the day these days return there will be the same measures everywhere else around the globe so no effing container is going out anywhere. Example - the recent spat over steel tariffs between US and EU.
Except as we are the largest consumer market in the world and we are a net importer in a major way, we have less to lose than the rest of the world.
I think we ought to provide free sterilization to anyone who wants it and mandatory sterilization for anyone convicted of a violent crime, especially juveniles. Such sterilization should be reversable and those subject to it should be able to petition the court to have it reversed. The main purpose of this is to try and create an environment where losers and thugs won't breed.
I have always advocated swapping food stamps and welfare checks for Norplants. If you want the state to give you you a free ride, don't be breeding children you can't care for. Welfare checks must be signed for in person and a spot check will be performed to make sure your Norplant is intact.
Don't want mandatory birth control? No problem. Just don't expect the state to pick up the tab.
I think this should be part of copyright reform, if you let a piece fall out of print then you lose copyright to it.
How about instead, we require everything to be registered for copyright at the nominal cost of $1 annually. Every year each copyright holder will have to decide if his precious intellectual property is worth a buck. If he can't or won't register, it becomes public domain.
If you can't earn a dollar from your copyright each year, it certainly can't be so valuable as to require 95 years to expire.
We could use the new influx of cash to fund the US PTO to hire people who actually knew what they were doing. Everybody's a winner!
JimBob Jumpback 1313 Mockingbird Ln. Anywhere, CA 90210 jimbob@jumpback.com 555-123-4567 Please feel free to use this for yourself.
Holy Shit! I live at 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Chicago, IL 60609
and my email address is abuse@aol.com
Let's see -- TR started the Forest Service and many national parks -- no Republican since has ever been so environmentally conscious.
Hello? Nixon? Clean Air Act... Clean Water Act...