I agree about what the candidate said, and pretty much the rest of your comment as well.

It’s been very difficult for me to post during the last few weeks. It’s one thing for me to feel confident that this person should buy this house “all things considered”. It’s quite another for me to contribute to the idea that people I don’t know who read blogs should get out there and buy something today. The article says we don’t have a crystal ball, as if buying tomorrow for less is “of no nevermind” and we should just ignore that aspect. I can’t do that.

On the street I am seeing resale homes that are “better than new” being offered at over $100,000 less than the builder is selling the same model new. The reality is that even if you have all of those common sense issues in place, that doesn’t mean it’s time ot pull the trigger on any given house that happens to be available.

It’s nice to say “have a stable job”, but what does that mean in today’s environment? Does it mean that anyone who is self-employed shouild never own a house? Does it mean anyone who works for a bank should consider their jobs to be “unstable”?

My thoughts today are quite different from that article and from your request. My thoughts are not in line with what the Presidential Candidates said in the debate as to stablilizing home values. My thoughts are where should prices be today? Is it really in everyone’s best interest for us to want home prices to stablize right here and right now.

Seems the biggest reason to buy a home today would be out of patriotic duty to shore up the economy. Even though I have some buyer clients who can improve their quality of life and meet all the common sense advices for “when” to buy a house, there really are very few choices out there. My confidence for them lies in buying something at less than current market value, in addition to all of those other things. There are very few properties that fit that bill. There are some, but very few, regardless of price range.

Being a “cautious buyer” has a whole lot more to do with what to buy, when to buy it and at what price you should buy it, than whether or not you might have the same job three years from now. Given the news that we may be on the verge of the big D word, who can honestly say that their job or income is “stable” for the bulk of a 30 year commitment?

I’m leaning towards everyone refusing to buy property based on a two income household. What would home prices be if people only purchased based on qualifying on one income? That long ago rule was broken not so long ago…but where would prices be if everyone said NO MORE! We will not buy a house based on two incomes ever again? Personally, that would be my old fashioned advice for young people who have children today. Is the world ready for that old fashioned-common sense advice?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2008226349_firsthome05.html

There are a lot of tips in there I heard growing up, but few people have been repeating them in recent years.
Things like have a stable job, be able to handle the worst case financing, have a budget and long term financial plan, consider maintenance costs, save some money, don’t spend more than 1/3 your income, consider whether you could handle if your spouse lost a job, got pregnant, or whatever.

How much time does it take to put three comps together? A whole neighborhood could walk in with the same three comps. What part of the process is “too cumbersome”?

Is there a good site that details the process for homeowners?

But let’s say someone paying $10,000 a year in taxes gets a 10% reduction in their assessment. Even if they were able to do the work themselves, that would hardly be worth their time to save $1,000.

It was definitely a Black Tuesday.