Existing-home prices fall for 1st time in 11 years

The homes I've been looking at are pretty old - built in the 50s mainly. A lot of town home communities have been built to address the issues you mentioned: more modernized, no hassle of updating, etc. I was looking at a townhome, but I've set my sights on a single-family. An additional $200/month is a lot of house you can get instead.
 
I guess Dano has not followed the lumber industrys intense lobbying efforets to keep cheaper Canadian lumber out of the USA has he ?
 
The homes I've been looking at are pretty old - built in the 50s mainly. A lot of town home communities have been built to address the issues you mentioned: more modernized, no hassle of updating, etc. I was looking at a townhome, but I've set my sights on a single-family. An additional $200/month is a lot of house you can get instead.
single family is much better LadyT. No maintenance costs that keep rising. umm well you will have maintenance costs though ;)
And those townhomes are just apts side by side instead of stacked.
 
I agree USC. The only reason I'd prefer a townhome over a SFH would be the availability of tennis courts.
 
Town homes are the best choice for some, esp those who don't want to have their own yard or little veggie garden and such. And not do maintenance, ie painting and mowing....
 
You can check for nearby parks with tennis courts. Definitely buy the house over the townhome.
 
Let me get this straight. In the second paragraph you claim that : " Local, state and federal governments have moved to protect old growth forests, cutting into an already dwindling lumber supply and spiking up lumber prices.


Then you claim this: "the number of trees has been increasing since the 1920's."

How could it be possible for the number of trees to be increasing and the amount of lumber available to be dwindling.
A few reasons :
A) You can't harvest (as much) lumber from small thin trees grown only decades ago compared to forests, especially old growth forests with thicker trees. Remember a trees rings are it's width and age.
B) Because a lot of the growth comes in more and more forests that are put off limits for logging by enviro-lefties.
C) Many trees are grown privately for looking nice on regular people's properties, obviously they have no interest in logging.

And do you have a web site or link that stipulates just how these things could be true and the number of trees could actually be increasinfg and by how much. Because from what I can see around me, many places that were forested forty years ago are no longer, and not only are they no longer forested but many of them are housing developments and they are not going to ever produce timber again. So prove this rather counter-intuitive statement, that, of course, flies in the face of your rather logical and previous argument.
We grow 36 percent more trees than we harvest every year.
http://www.cei.org/pages/eclass/q1answerfalse.html
http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/Environment.htm
http://woodscience.oregonstate.edu/woodfact.htm


And you are wrong, many homes in housing developments plant trees, who the fuck do you think is buying them at Home Depot and other stores?
I've planted 5 myself on my property.
 
I've planted 5 myself on my property.

Well, that certainly doesn't tell me much about anything. Sure some people have planted trees but we are not talking about miniture or bonzai Maples which some people in Townhouses have in their miniature yards we are talking about more trees than were available or existed in "the 1920s". Your anecdotal evidence while interesting hardly proves or even supports this wild claim. From what I see around me where I live, the number of old growth has disappeared so dramatically that if I think about it too long or deeply I will cry. In the late 60s when I returned from Vietnam, I could drive 20 miles, walk up into the woods for about a mile and touch trees so big that four or five of us holding hands couldn't get our arms completely around them. Now in spite of all the work of environmentalists, the only trees that big are in one small corner of the National Park. And what is left in trees that were planted at the turn of the Century and those are no longer nearly that big, in fact it is the actual lack of trees that big some of which were as old as two to four hundred years together with the exclusion or tariffs on Canadian timber that is driving up the price of lumber nation wide.
 
Last edited:
There is an adjustment going on .. plain and simple. Will there be a crash? I dont believe so, actually last month saw a rise in mortgage applications .. a good sign .., with the feds not moving on interest rates and many banks using their own rate formula's ... kick in energy prices moving down... I think we will see a flat line for a few more months and then some appreciation value.
Actually there is one more real good sign that Im not going to mention because I dont want to jinx it...
 
But what about those who bought and maxxed out mortgage and now their house might be worth less than their mortgage ?

In general it's a bad thing, in this specific case the housing market went to far to fast. People were buying as investments, affordability which had gotten really nice was starting to go out the window for first time buyers and the middle class. Personally I'm glad that investors are moving on back to the stock market. Homes are to be lived in, or had as seconds for vacations. Not for a quick bet with a 100% mortgage betting on a 20% gain in a year.
 
Well, that certainly doesn't tell me much about anything. Sure some people have planted trees but we are not talking about miniture or bonzai Maples which some people in Townhouses have in their miniature yards we are talking about more trees than were available or existed in "the 1920s". Your anecdotal evidence while interesting hardly proves or even supports this wild claim. From what I see around me where I live, the number of old growth has disappeared so dramatically that if I think about it too long or deeply I will cry. In the late 60s when I returned from Vietnam, I could drive 20 miles, walk up into the woods for about a mile and touch trees so big that four or five of us holding hands couldn't get our arms completely around them. Now in spite of all the work of environmentalists, the only trees that big are in one small corner of the National Park. And what is left in trees that were planted at the turn of the Century and those are no longer nearly that big, in fact it is the actual lack of trees that big some of which were as old as two to four hundred years together with the exclusion or tariffs on Canadian timber that is driving up the price of lumber nation wide.
Tariffs are one reason I agree, but lefties are generally more in favor of trade restrictions and the softwood lumber issue only really got resolved when a Conservative Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) came to power this year.

Setting that aside, it is the PROTECTION of larger trees (like in many forests) that keeps supply down and prices up.
All your anecdotal evidence shows is that their are less big trees, that's almost certainly true, but the number of trees is still growing as I have shown you.
What's really happening is trees are being grown to be harvested and there really is no need to preserve a LOT of forests with large trees because they will be replaced in the decades to come.

It's sort of like saying because you have a society with a lot more children than seniors, you are worse off; in reality you have a better future than any other scenario.
 
Lennar: Worst isn't over yet
No. 3 homebuilder's profits fall, cuts outlook, CEO says market still looking for a floor.
September 26 2006: 6:52 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Lennar Corp. Tuesday reported lower earnings, citing more weakness in the housing market, and warned about results in the fourth quarter.

The nation's third largest homebuilder said earnings for its third quarter ended Aug. 31 sank to $206.7 million, or $1.30 a share, from $337.3 million, or $2.06 a share, a year earlier. The results barely beat recently lowered forecasts by Wall Street analysts.

Lennar CEO Stuart Miller said in a statement said that the company was cutting its fourth-quarter earnings outlook "to a broad range of $1.00 to $1.30 per share." Wall Street analysts were looking for $1.60 a share for the quarter, on average.

"Although the economy remains strong and unemployment and interest rates remain relatively low, it is not clear that the homebuilding downturn has yet found a floor," Miller said in a the statement.

for complete story goto:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/26/news/companies/lennar/index.htm?cnn=yes
 
Homebuilders were hit because of the investments they made during the boom ... they over built and got caught with their pants down....add in the interest rates that went up, energy prices and cost of goods and services.. and are now taking it up the a$#.

Once again..they will need to ride out the ajustment period and live with less than anticipated earnings. We've all been hit by this in one way or another.
But things are not as bad as they seem.... the general economy is still strong enough to carry through an ajustment period and despite what that article is claiming the signs are now pointing back up... Who would have anticipated that energy prices were going to come tumbling down... or how about interest rates flatlining and possibly moving down again? Banks have designed some new financing options to make it easier to gain a longterm mortgage or refinance.
Another market that is going to be attractive is the Manufactured Housing Market... anyone ever look into these... pretty darn impressive these days... and you can get into a 2000 sq footer for quite a bit less than a traditional stick house. Watch for more of these communities... these days you can hardly distinguish between the two. Im thinking about having one built on a private lot.
 
Umm Klaatu, I think I forecast a drop in gas prices for the November election some months ago. Might have been on the other board, not sure.
As to why the drop for November.......
 
Back
Top