| Author | Message | ||
     Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 5937 Registered: 1-2004  |
This is sad. One of the realtors sent out a mailing listing 14 house that (they?) have 'recently' sold in South Orange. Of the fourteen 7 sold below the asking price; four sold for asking price, and only three above asking price (and those were in the Newstead area). It also seems houses are sitting on the market longer then they were a few years ago. Seems to be a 'buyers market.' Is this good or bad? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3739 Registered: 5-2004  |
Unles you are planning on buying or selling in South Orange in the near future, it doesn't mean anything. If you're planning on selling, it's bad (unless you bought prior to about 2 months ago, in which case you've made quite a bit already). If you've recently made the decision to move here and are planning on buying soon, it's good. | ||
| Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 930 Registered: 10-2005  |
This might be good for the upcoming reval (benefiting homowners)? | ||
| Politicalmon Citizen Username: Politicalmon Post Number: 242 Registered: 9-2005  |
Well it's sad for all of those people who bought at the peak during the last 2 years. The June numbers were just released and housing sales for was down 16.3% in NJ. In addition, the first time since the curent real estate boom (12 years) that all 4 US regions all reported declines with the West coast leading the way. Though this is bad news across the board it is particuarly difficult for those on the west coast since over 50% of the mortgages in San Diego were Interest Only loans - which means those people who bought in the last couple years are in deep trouble. Locally we didn't do that bad - the Newark Metro Region had an increase of 7.1% but that includes all of Essex, Morris, Somerset and Hunterdon counties. But I will agree with you houses are sitting on the market much longer then last year and let's face it the peak buying season is in June. This would imply that the houses that are still sitting on the market today better drop their prices now if they want to close before the end of the year. | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 494 Registered: 8-2001 |
Measuring actual sale against asking price is meaningless. Asking prices are set arbitrarily and have no real meaning in the market. Many asking prices are intentionally loballed or hiballed. Could just mean a lot of recent listings had hiball asking prices. There's no way you can conclude anything about market trends based on this data alone. In a reval, higher selling prices favor existing owners. Lower selling prices favor the new buyers. Kind of, potentially. Keep in mind the reval attempts to compare like-to-like in assessing relative property values. It's actually meant to flatten out the market activity. So you can't say anything incredibly conclusive about this either. One thing you can say, pretty conclusively, is that the owners of the new houses up in the quarry are going to provide a favorable absorption of the tax burden from many of the existing properties in town. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3741 Registered: 5-2004 |
"Well it's sad for all of those people who bought at the peak during the last 2 years." Only if they own homes that have decreased in value and plan to sell soon. I can't imagine too many people fit that description. | ||
| Politicalmon Citizen Username: Politicalmon Post Number: 243 Registered: 9-2005 |
Rastro; Yes, you are correct - I should have been more specific - Their are people who speculated, put very little money down - took out a adjustable or Interest Only mortgage - based on pure speculation. Felt they needed to get into the market and planned to flip or sell due to relocation / or job loss after a couple years. Let's face it the average American is mired in debt and has an anemic savings rate. There will be fallout - not so much in SO but in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, San Diego, Indianapolis and Florida. A tell tale sign is the foreclosure rate - Indianapolis is rated #1 in the US where 1 of every 11 homes in foreclosure - now since the market is cyclical one can extrapolate the cycle and make an educated guess as to when the market will bottom - Moody Investors is saying 2 years - since the boom took 12 years I'm betting that we will be in down market for closer to 6 years at least. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3746 Registered: 5-2004 |
If people speculated, I say good riddens, and I hope they get burned. This is not hte kind of town that needs speculation. All it does it tend to drive up prices artificially. It introduces a middle man that no one needs. (I'm sure I'll get slammed for that) As for Indianapolis, are you sure it's 9% of all homes, and not 9% of those purchased in some time period? 9% seems awfully high for a city that size. ok, just checked the numbers. It's not 1 in 11. It's 1 in 101, or under 1%. That's still alarge number, but not the outrageous number of 1 in 11. http://www.realtytrac.com/news/press/pressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=126 | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1879 Registered: 3-2003 |
http://www.otteau.com http://www.otteau.com/The_Otteau_Report/the_otteau_report.html | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3754 Registered: 5-2004 |
Anyone know how these revals went (if that's what Otteau was hired for)? Branchburg Township East Brunswick Township Marlboro Township Middlesex County Improvement Authority Monroe Township Washington Township | ||
| Politicalmon Citizen Username: Politicalmon Post Number: 245 Registered: 9-2005 |
Rastro; Thanks for the clarification concerning Indianapolis - my information was based on a report from ABC's Nightline last Thursday evening - it was on the home forclosure market. I also thought the number was rather high but assummed ABC had insured the data was correct before going to broadcast. It seems like they misplaced a decimal point. | ||
| Politicalmon Citizen Username: Politicalmon Post Number: 246 Registered: 9-2005 |
Spitz; Thanks for that link - I didn't bookmark it last time you posted it. Great information! Looks like SO & Essex Fells inventories rose disproportionably over the last quarter. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 2164 Registered: 8-2002 |
Spitz thanks for posting the link (again) good info. the huge problem with these stats is that they do not take into account price elasticity (and the data points might be too small for that to be reliable anyway) -- but my hypothesis is that its a big deal in this market. that said - the data isn't all that bad In Maplewood -- avg # sales/month really hasn't changed much over the past few years, although there are more homes on the market for sure. In South Orange, avg # sales/month are down over previous quarters, and there are many more homes for sale. (note Q1, picture was better in SO, but the deterioration already evident in higher priced Livingston and Millburn/Short Hills) But look at Millburn/Short Hills and Livingston for Q2 -- similar stats to South Orange, and my hypothesis is that is hurting SO tremendously! I believe that suddenly 2 posher towns, with lower taxes, are more affordable -- then maybe SO does not seem like such a bargain anymore. In reality, however, much of this is hysteria driven by realtors. Houses, in all price ranges, are still selling. Just takes 1 - 2, maybe 3 months longer. Yet we see prices slashed -- not because it makes economic sense to cut so much. It doesn't. A homeowner reduceing the price of an $900k house to $800k will "lose" $100k. BUT the realtor loses relatively less -- they make $6,000 less in commission -- but STILL make $48k on the deal! Its not in their best interest to hold out for that. One other side note -- on realtor.com 6 of the 31 houses in SO for $899k or more are Pulte quarry homes. So while some may think their high prices helped the market in SO -- in reality they area adding to the market pressure in this price range. Pete | ||
| Joshmiller Citizen Username: Joshmiller Post Number: 1 Registered: 8-2006 |
what % increase in house inventory in SO since last year this time, any data? | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 2188 Registered: 8-2002 |
Actually, the number of offerings per month has been consistent (about 50/month). BUT sales are down -- from about ~30 a month to about ~20/month. That pushed the overall inventory up -- from generally 75 - 80 houses to 120 this quarter. Those stats are a bit misleading, I think. That would mean that this slowdown has been going on for at least 5 months, which the #'s don't support. In any case -- when you deal with average of averages, funky things happen. Bottom line -- it will take longer to sell right now, particularly in the upper end -- because the market in Millburn/Short Hills and Livingston has crashed, so their pricing is more attractive. /p | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10663 Registered: 4-1997  |
 | ||
| Dufus Citizen Username: Dufus Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2006 |
Are you sure the chart doesn't illustrate the number of car thefts, jackings, and break-in's in the South Orange area. It could also represent the number of wasteful projects the town has engaged in. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 329 Registered: 2-2003 |
There could be dozens of reasons that the chart is bogus. Did he adjust for tax effects? (Interest is deductible now. There was no income tax in 1900.) Size of population relative to housing stock? The emergence of the middle class in the 20th century? Differnces in real interest rates (which influences housing affordability)? The credibility of measures of inflation themselves? The relative purchasing power of citizens based on productivity gains? Chances are he should have been using inflation plus productivity rather than inflation only...and on top of that, gains in wages not tied to inflation have increased the percentage of the population that can afford a house to begin with. If he failed to capture the fact that productivity gains increase real wages and therefore housing purchasing power, then we should EXPECT an index of 200 now. The mystery is why housing costs were so LOW for the middle part of the century. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10681 Registered: 4-1997 |
It's not a graph of wages, but of home values. People allocate varying amounts of their incomes to housing, so looking at wages won't work in this instance. Similarly, tax effects would be reflected in sales prices, so I'm not clear on the relevance there either. | ||
| Cali6buff Citizen Username: Cali6buff Post Number: 75 Registered: 4-2006 |
People here on MOL don't like facts. It hinders the uneducated wild speculation. |
