I want to give buyers something to talk about by investing their resources into getting their home into its best condition. This is time and money well spent but you’ll need to concentrate on the areas that will bring you the most return.
Focus on the areas that buyers notice and value – bathrooms, kitchens, and curb appeal. Make sure your rooms are spotlessly clean and free of clutter. A fresh coat of paint in a neutral color is one of the least costly investments that can go a long way towards making a good impression. De-personalize your rooms by packing away your nick-knacks and dust catchers. If possible. put extra furniture or belongings into storage so that your home appears open and spacious. Clean your windows so they sparkle – and don’t forget the window sills.

Trim your trees and hedges and keep the lawn mowed. Plant some colorful flowers in the garden. Drive by your home and try to look at it from an objective viewpoint. What’s the first thing you notice? Does your front door say, “Welcome”? If not, maybe a fresh coat of paint – or perhaps even a new front door – and some potted plants could help.
The way your house looks should not be your only concern. Is there a pet odor or other potentially offensive smell in the air? Be sure any odor producing agents are removed or controlled to keep your home fresh smelling at all times. When you live in a home you can become used to certain odors and they are easy to overlook. Be sure to ask others if your home passes the “sniff” test.
Be aware that certain investments you made for the personal enjoyment of your home will not necessarily raise the value of your home to prospective buyers. Don’t expect to add on to the price of your home all the money you paid to improve it.
In fact, some things, like swimming pools, can frequently be viewed as a liability. Generally, painting and improving your kitchen and bathrooms will be a good investment. The kitchen is viewed as the heart of a home – most family activities take place here so improving your kitchen can facilitate the sale of your home. Adding a bathroom usually generates a good return as well as adding decking outside.
The best return for your home improvement dollar comes from bathroom remodeling (80%), bathroom addition (81%), minor kitchen remodeling (87%), major kitchen remodeling (80%), and a second storyaddition (83%). The least profitable investments are a home office (54%), reroofing (60%), a sun room (60%), replacing windows (68%), and refinishing your basement (69%). In a slower market, it’s essential to pay attention to the presentation of your home. With so many homes on the market to choose from, you want to be sure you outshine the competition. You may even want to consider hiring a professional home stager to help you.

Wally Smith Anne Vaughan
Realty One Group
10161 Park Run
Las Vegas NV 89145
(800) 403-1808 toll free
(702) 375-2700
mailto:wallysmith@cox.net
http://www.lvrealty.com
http://noqualifying.com

Of note is the disconnect between OFHEO and S&P/Case-Shiller Index values from 2q06 to 3q06 (S&P/CSI showed steeper drops in general). With OFHEO putting a ceiling in at $417k for mortgages, the higher end of the market is not getting representation.

Of note is the disconnect between OFHEO and S&P/Case-Shiller Index values from 2q06 to 3q06 (S&P/CSI showed steeper drops in general). With OFHEO putting a ceiling in at $417k for mortgages, the higher end of the market is not getting representation.

To me, the real indicator is not really sales or price, but inventory. The market cannot be described as stablized unless the inventory starts to reduce significantly.

Don’t expect any sensational headlines.”

Florida is the exception:

Ft. Myers FL prices down 44% yoy
Sarasota, FL prices down 18% yoy

Don’t expect any sensational headlines.

The whole thing is here if you want to read it:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2006/20061128/default.htm

His discussions concerning: housing and the potentials for it to improve or worsen; the slowing pace of economic output that should moderate; and the impact of a, at least temporary, decline of productivity, all give both sides of the economic debate opportunities to reinforce their opinions.

However, in my opinion his most significant observations are in the passage reproduced below.

I’ll break it up merely for ease of reading and only disturb the flow with my own comments identified in this manner: [***comment]
—

Begin quoting Mr. Bernanke:

Potential Output

In my remarks today, I have alluded to the economy’s underlying productive capacity–in the jargon of economists, “potential output.” The growth rate of potential output is the rate of growth that the economy can sustain in the long run. I will briefly discuss the factors determining potential output and the implications that the growth rate of potential output has for the economy and monetary policy.

Growth in potential output is determined to a large extent by two factors: the trend growth rates of the labor force (that is, the number of individuals available to work) and of labor productivity (that is, the amount of output that each worker can produce).
With regard to the labor force, research by the Board’s staff highlights the role of demographic factors in determining the number of people available to work in the years just ahead.

Most notably, the impending retirement of the baby boomers and the fact that women are no longer increasing their participation in the labor force at the rate they were in the past will tend to restrain the future growth rate of the U.S. labor force.

***this is the primary reason that BLS data may not demonstrate significant increases in unemployment over the coming months and years, because the great demographic retirement process of the Boomers will continuously (marginally) work to shrink the employment base.

All else being equal, these developments translate into a slower rate of growth of potential output. Estimates of the magnitude of the likely slowdown in labor force growth, particularly in the longer run, are subject to significant uncertainty. For example, to a degree that is hard to predict, improved health and increased longevity may increase the interest of older workers in remaining in the labor force, perhaps on a part-time basis, and an increasing scarcity of labor may prompt changes in labor-market institutions and employer behavior that facilitate the participation of older workers.

But those adjustments are likely to take time, and some slowing in the growth of the labor force thus seems likely over the next few years at least.

***my opinion: 10 years minimum, maybe 15-20 maximum, depending on a number of factors. If you assume Boomer cut-off to be those born not later than 1960, then they’ll (we’ll!) all be between 60 and 75 by the year 2020.

With regard to productivity, I remain optimistic that the recent favorable trends will continue. The price of computing power continues to fall sharply, having declined by nearly half between 2000 and 2005. Increased computing power has contributed, in turn, to the development and growth of other commercially relevant technologies, such as biotechnology, and has led to improvements in efficiency, through better supply-chain management, for example.

***if you’ve read other comments I’ve made on this blog, I’ve claimed that the real objective (even if only subconsciously expressed) of all human economic endeavor is: ‘the marginal reduction of the costs of goods and services to zero.’ It is the great growth engine of increases in the standard of living, without a corresponding increase in the nominal costs of that standard of living.

Moreover, whatever the pace of future technological progress, further diffusion of already-existing technologies and applications to more firms and industries should continue to increase aggregate productivity for a time.

***oh, what an understatement!

That said, longer-run trends in the growth of productivity are very difficult to predict. During the first half of the decade, productivity in the nonfarm business sector increased at an unusually high average annual rate of about 3 percent. However, according to current estimates, productivity growth slowed in the second quarter of this year and came to a halt in the third quarter. Moreover, the strength of recent hiring raises the possibility of subpar productivity growth in the fourth quarter as well. When all is said and done, however, I expect that the latest numbers will turn out to have been a reflection of the typical volatility in the data and some cyclical response to the slowing in economic activity, not a signal of a sea change in the longer-run outlook for productivity growth.

Even if productivity growth is sustained at a reasonably good rate, the slower expansion of the labor force will imply some moderation in the rate of growth of potential output over the next few years. In the very near term, that slower growth in the labor force needs to be taken into consideration when assessing the sustainability of given rates of expansion in economic activity.

In the medium term, because the factors that affect potential output and thus aggregate supply also tend to affect aggregate demand, slower growth of potential output does not necessarily mean that inflation will be higher or that monetary policy will have to be tighter.

Rather, the implications for monetary policy of a possible slowing in the growth of potential output depend on the extent to which such a slowing alters the balance of supply and demand in the economy.

***lower GDP may or may not require monetary stimulus.

For example, as we saw in the second half of the 1990s, changes in expected productivity growth and potential output can significantly affect aggregate demand through their influences on income expectations and asset prices. The problem for policymakers is to identify, in real time, any changes in the prospective growth rate of potential output and to anticipate the accompanying effects on the balance of supply and demand.

We pulled up to this Ramada Inn with a ballroom. He
showed me to a seat, then leaped up on stage, in a
small town of farmers and poor retailers, like 1000′s of
other farm towns across America, dying on the vine.

My patron began his pitch:

“Ladies and gentlemen, tonight I’m going to show you
how to get wealthy beyond your wildest dreams!!”

Nothing. Tough crowd of farmers. Cheap Charlies.

The guy fished around in his hip pocket, took out his
wallet, and loudly snapped a $100 bill, twice, to get
everyone’s attention. (That’s be a $1000 bill today).

“I’m going to make you so rich, you can burn money!”

Which he did, to a huge collective aspiration of air that
sucked all the brains out of that room. You could have
heard a pin drop … just before the stampede to the
front of the stage, shoving with their checkbooks out.

He cleared $10 large easy that night, off one $100 bill.

Bernanke is doing it the old fashioned way. Helicopters
in the $100 bills, and lets the realtors skim the profits,
and municipalities jack the property taxes higher, at the
same time as utilities are going into a Low Earth Orbit,
while you are I are stuck with a $650K sugar shanty.