Again, I think one has to look at the data in the proper perspective.
We recently had a period of record low number of transactions. If there aren't any transactions in a period, then any transactions in the next period will be an increase.
Since there are always buyers in a market, at some point values will decline, to entice buyers to buy. As values continue to decline they reach prices that become more affordable to some and less of a risk to investors. So the number of potential buyers increase. Buyers either need a stable job and some savings or be independently wealthy to be buying now. Without job growth, the demand for housing stays flat, because the lack of jobs limits the number of people who can afford to buy a home.
Who decides which is the proper perspective?
Are you saying that an increase doesn't count because previously there were less? Are you saying that increases have to be sustained before they count? How long, in your proper perspective, is long enough to say that the increase in sales is indeed an increase in sales?
The press says that sales are down, but the numbers tell a different story.
No slicing or dicing of the numbers. This purely based on results.
I think you and I are making the same points, that housing is affordable and people are taking advantage of the market by purchasing homes at low prices and with low interest rates.
The difference is, I see that as good for the market and you see it as bad.
And you are correct, one must have a job or be wealthy to buy a home. I can honestly say that I've never sold a home to anyone who didn't have a job, and I've only sold one that I can remember, to a guy I'd call independently wealthy.
So for the 70 or so people who bought homes in May in Folsom and purchased them at a lower value, this may be good news for them, but for the other 25,000 existing homeowners the news isn't so good. Not only are their values declining, but the amount of revenue flowing into the citys coffers is declining, translating into less city services or higher fees to maintain the existing services.
Actually, the number of buyers for May was 88, not 70, and home sales are good for the entire community. Of the 88 sold, 43 were either short-sale or foreclosures, meaning that they were not adding to the city's coffers. Now that they have owners, their tax dollars will start coming in, and these new owners will be buying everything from paint to furniture and even insurance, spreading more money throughout the community.
For example, I sold a house for someone who hadn't made a payment in over a year, and he didn't pay his property taxes either. When it was purchased, taxes were paid, the new owner painted the place and had repairs made, and he bought insurance for the place. That home, which neighbors once complained about as an eyesore, is now producing tax revenue for the city, and other service providers made money, too. I think that's a good thing, and I don't see how you can't understand that.
By the way, the city of Folsom website says we have about 18,000 households, not 25,000, and I'm one of those home owners who has seen my property value decline. I want the distressed property to be sold as quickly as possible so we can start on the road back. It will take years, but as buyers continue to see value in purchasing homes, we're moving in the right direction.
It just seems....unusual, for someone to be spinning the positives of the market for few, when the other 99% are suffering losses, specially when the person doing the spinning is getting paid from sales from the few and is only disclosing a portion of the news about total transactions.
Robert, there is no spin here. That graph shows in plain fact with no alteration, the number of homes sold and reported through channels (the MLS).
As mentioned above, when homes sell, that is a positive for all of us, putting money back into the city's coffers to pay for the services you always say we don't have the money for. When those properties are sold, they are no longer competition for others who want to sell. When those properties are sold, the buyers spend money on their new homes.
On the contrary, if they sit on the market unsold, the drop in value each month, dragging down my home's value as well as yours and everyone else's.
I am neither disclosing nor withholding anything. I am presenting sales data as published and reported by MLS. If you have a better source, which will disclose the rest of the story, please let me know, as I'd love to see the data.
In January, 53 homes were sold in Folsom, 55 in February, 89 in March, 85 in April and 88 in May. When sales were on the rise last year, you warned us that it was only temporary and due to the government tax credits. Those credits are long gone, jobs haven't come back in significant numbers, but people are buying more homes.
Maybe they should have listned to you.
Let me ask you, if you wrote 30 more insurance policies per month for 3 months would you call that an increase or would it be spin?
Regardless, month after month I'll continue to report raw data on sales, and month after month, I'll expect you to chime in and explain why you don't think it's real, and how there's more to the story, and how until jobs come back prices will fall, and how things are bad and getting worse, and so on.
People should know me well enough by now to know I'm simply trying to add another perspective to comments. I simply believe that the more information people have, they will be better prepared to make better choices.
People should know me well enough to know that that's exactly what I'm doing. The news is full of bad news and outrageous claims about the housing market, and I am adding the perspective that every market is different, and that in Folsom, sales are increasing and inventory is decreasing, and if that continues, we'll start our recovery.
I don't expect recovery any time soon, but increased sales are good for everyone.
