Sales of previously owned U.S. homes rose in January to the highest level since 2010

Ayuh,.... As Hyperbole Spin,...

ya I guess any improvement from the depths of a recession is better than still bein' at the bottom....

If we've gotten to the bottom...


Btw,... Are ya practicin', Hopin' to become a speech writer for Obo,..??

 

What exactly is "hyperbole spin." The thread title is an objective statement of fact. There is nothing hyperbolic or "spin" about it.

 

What, about this concept, are you not able to understand?

I have done this very thing many times! In simple terms (for the liberals here), I buy a home cheap, because it needs work. I do the work myself. After getting it into excellent condition, I either sell it, or I rent it out until it's a better time to sell it.

For those of us who buy distressed homes and fix them up, the rent MORE THAN pay for the mortgage and all escrows. So if I have a 5-year mortgage on a house, and rent it out for 5 years, the mortgage is paid off. All the profits, on sale, are capital gains.

You can talk all you want about "no profit," but you're barking up the wrong tree. Investors are buying houses ALL THE TIME, and it's because we're relatively certain that - in the future - we can sell them for a significant profit.


What, about that, are you not understanding?

 

No it is not wrong, but as my post above shows the numbers the NAR frequently give are. With that in mind remember they revised down December sales by 5% from from 4.61 million to 4.38 million, they said January sales were 4.57 million, so if they would have been right about Decembers sales initially it would have been a decline. In fact this seems to be a trend by the NAR, revising down the former month when the new one comes out to show an uptrend. Look Here at their own press release

November was revised down 4.39 million, revised December was down 4.38 million, so Nov. to Dec. was actually a decline, but at least they got their press release in January showing December was an increase before the revisions.

 

ALL economic numbers get revised up and down. There is nothing in my posts that refutes that. The numbers are not "wrong." The are preliminary estimates and should be taken as such. Over the following months they are revised as necessary. It's been that way as long as I can remember.

 

Yes I understand this, but there is more to it then just that. The NAR has been completely incompetent in their numbers. As I posted earlier...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45659547/Realtors_We_Overcounted_Home_Sales_for_Five_Years

For five years they gave consistently bad information, from January 2007 through December 2011 they were wrong! That whole time! It instills no confidence in their reporting. I would take anything they say with a grain of salt. Just want to point that out to people who take the information in the OP as great news, this is relevant information regarding that.

 

Wow. Good to know. People have been saying the recession was substantially worse than anyone realized. I guess this is another data point that corroborates that theory. Oh and good job on the source.

 

Yeah I wish their original numbers were right and things were better then what they really are. This recession (I still consider it a recession even if it isn't technically) is not really getting any better we are limping along and things haven't changed that much.

One of the reasons we got into this mess is artificially low interest rates by the fed that helped fuel the housing boom. I think most would agree with that, yet the fed is continually keeping rates low to try and reinflate the market to get back to the 2008 housing level. It just seems stupid to me as the economy couldn't obviously handle that level and that is why it crashed. We need to stop this madness, a few unelected stooges at the federal reserve have essentially full control over our monetary system, it is something far to complex for even a group of geniuses to manage. I fear they are going to make things worse.

 

I doubt the 2008 level is a target. It is painfully obvious that those prices were too high. You would need a lot more than low interest rates to see those numbers again. The lending standards would have to be absurd... again. That is not to say all is well in the real estate market. Who knows as the economy gets better people may be tempted into moving into some of these distressed properties. Makes you wonder what that means for all the apartments that are flying up like crazy now. I suspect that market is going to overshoot.

Look at the situation with refineries. For years we were being told there was not enough refining capacity. With the last oil boom big oil added a bunch of refining capacity to their plants. Now people are using less gas and refineries are shutting down because their is a glut of refining capacity.

 

I bet you are right the 2008 level is probably not the intended target but their policies definitely point toward trying to increase the level of sales, but that leads to the question what is the ideal level of growth, setting a policy to try and reach some arbitrary number is likely to cause problems in the future one way or another. It all comes back to manipulation of monetary policy. The unintended consequences and the cycle of greater booms and busts are perpetuated by it.

I didn't see anything in your article about refineries being shut down, just that the US will be a net exporter of refined oil products for the first time in 62 years. Which I would consider a good thing. I just hope like the guy in the article talks about that the politicians don't actually start trying to cap exports in a futile attempt to "increase" the supply here at home to lower prices. On another note, its funny that as the fed continues to devalue our dollar it becomes more attractive for oil companies to sell gasoline overseas because they get more dollars in exchange for the other currencies they deal with, thus incentivizing export over selling here at home. Granted there will come a time when a smaller supply raises the price here at home that its once again beneficial to sell here. Wonder if that kind of thing is going on. But I digress, don't want to veer too off topic.

 

I'm missing the point here. During the Great Depression, many rich folks got into real estate and bought huge chunks of land. (Look at the Pew family in PA for example.) It didn't mean the economy was on the mend back then, and it doesn't now.

 

Banks are finally accepting low ball offers to dump the properties.

Home Depot and Lowes will benefit because many of the distressed homes need serious work.

It's now actually cost effective to buy a small house instead of paying for mulitple housing for college students. I just picked up one for 40% less than they wanted 8 months ago.

yes, I got it for a bargain and when my students are done, I'll either resell or rent to other college students. The good news is that I can do all the needed repairs myself including re-roof.

It's the folks who think they are going to get a nice move-in ready home at foreclosed prices who are sadly mistaken.

So, my primary residence has been drastically hurt but I bought low on the small house. It's somewhat dollar cost averaging but I wish it was my primary home I stole...........

 

I respectfully disagree. If the income from the rent keeps on growing faster than the selling price, don't sell. Take a collateral loan and buy more. Buy. Cash flow is the rule.

 

You have to be more persistant.

distressed homes needing serious work and homes in good condition do not make difference for banks in Obama's economy. How many banks did obama kill? Give me the #. How many banks and mortgages did he bail out?. Give me the #. Cash flow is the rule for them too. You have to look from their position. There is a lot more to it than basic rules of economy in Obama's economy.

 

read your comment in the opening post.

smart money, lay people following, ..............hmmm ?
Why would anyone think you were indicating a good investment opportunity was developing ?

Oh wait, I get it, you were trying to make a point without a point.
For a second time, .......good job.

save yourself the time and don't post if you can't make a point and stand behind it.

 

"smart money" is what institutional investors are sometimes called on Wall St. They usually lead the market only later to lay people start jumping in. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are never wrong. Sorry for the confusion.

 

No problem. i accept your apology. Next time don't be so confused, try to make a point when start a thread.

 

So you think that these investors are buying the properties to sit on them?

Why do you play games with your argument rather than back it up and defend your positions with logic like a man?