WHOOO-HOOOO!!
Best news I have read today. Also, no surprises here. As I have said before, Baltimore showed up at the housing orgy late, and will be one of the last to leave. 1997 prices are on the way!!

Baltimore real estate prices grew at such an unsustainable level for several years that it is no surprise that we would see such a large decline in home prices. The good news is that many first time home buyers that were priced out of the market will finally be able to enter it. I believe that we have seen the worst of it and could begin to see a turnaround in the next 6 - 12 months.

Sloppy research. Looks like 1st year analysts working for a lower-tier IB did most of the footwork.

It fails to examine standard deviations. If investors begin snaping up $5,000 row homes by the dozen it says nothing about house X.

Reminds me when I worked at an IB and churned out crap just like this...

And be sure to switch economists with analysts

The flip side of this decline in prices is that the people who don't NEED to sell will choose to just sit tight.

The number of properties available will be much smaller than the last time we had those 1997 prices and the market will have a much smaller number of qualified buyers as well; almost all being people who don't have a home to sell first.

And the variety of homes available will have the common theme of distress influenced condition.

Buyers: Caveat Emptor.
Sellers: Gay Kacken Afen Yam.

Does MSA refer to the city or the surrounding metro area as well?

There's that affordability word...

Hi, Kevin R: MSA always means "metropolitan statistical area." The Baltimore MSA is the city, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, Howard County and Queen Anne's County. (When I refer to "metro area," I'm always talking about the city and surrounding counties.)

----

Hi, name withheld (you can choose a cool Net name, you know!): I looked up the lead author for the report and found this bio: "Karen Weaver, CFA, is a Managing Director and the Global Head of Securitization Research, responsible worldwide for all of Deutsche Bank's research on securitized fixed-income products, i.e. including ABS, CDOs and MBS. Karen joined Deutsche Bank from Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), where she was most recently a Managing Director and the lead Asset Backed Research analyst. At CSFB, she also managed the Securitized Assets Research Group. Prior to joining CSFB in 1993, she was a portfolio manager, active in the ABS and MBS markets since 1984. Karen is a graduate of Temple University, where she studied Statistics and Economics as an undergraduate, and Finance at the graduate level."

Do you still think "economist" isn't the proper term? (That's not meant as a rhetorical question, by the way. Unless I'm missing something, "economist" is a little bit like "journalist" -- the label comes with the doing more than the training.)

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how standard deviation could be brought to bear on home-price forecasts, and if you've seen any you think are worthwhile.

Good luck waiting for those 1997 prices......You going to be waiting for a long time. Think about construction costs - If it costs 200K to build a home you are going to pay around that amount once all the forclosures are off the market.

We are in a period of deflation that is currently unstoppable. The Fed is running out of tricks. Inventory is piling up. Unemployement is on the rise. Contruction costs including materials and labor will decrease due to these factors. Already residential and commercial real estate purchases in many locales have been made below construction costs. (example: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/06/cre-office-building-sold-in-denver.html). Bottom line: the price bell shaped curve, accounting for deflationary forces, can easily bring prices to nominal 1997 levels. Of course, once hyperinlfation kicks in and the dollar crash occur, a run down rowhome will cost $3 million. Timing will be very important.

Darwin Rules......WOW.....I need some of whatever you are smoking

I don't smoke. I do drink some - but not the BRAC kool-aid

Yep. That's her bio. Pretty weak for Investment Banking with an outfit called DB known for getting the Wharton rejects until very recently. But that's beside the point: she could very well be correct in spite of CV weaknesses in her field. Her work on CDO's was stellar, I am sure. Only helped fuel a recession. (BTW: I worked in fixed income at a "good" IB back in the day... so I'm equally complicit.)

Nope. Economist doesn't sound correct, just as journalist might be better than writer for you.

Besides, she just signs off on things and has 1st and 2nd year analysts do the work.

Here were my brief thoughts after skimming it.

1. Why are "high cost" areas given 40% d/i vs. 28% for non-high cost? Better to even it out at first and then apply that corrective. And moreover, why are Baltimore/Towson included together when one has higher conforming limits (e.g. 494,500 or something)? That completely invalidates the methodology in my opinion.

2. It's assumptions: 4.5-5.0 is doubtful, and no "real" income increase over 18 months is ridiculous and ambiguous if best.

3. Because Baltimroe is not is the CS index, we are given the realtor.com index (or something like that) which would skew the median by counting the disproportionate number of $6,000 row homes. Without including standard deviations, that use of median income is worthless.

4. Further, there are various factors that determine one's disposable income after accounting for major living expenses. Let me get this straight: Baltimore can only bear a 28% d/i whereas CA can bear a 40% d/i even though people earn scarcely more, pay more for food, gas, have nicer cars, and taxes.... Doesn't resonate with me.

I'd take Darwin Rules' prognostications--which I disagree with--more seriously than a summer interns report signed off by her.

Ah, name withheld, I see you've picked your cool 'Net name. :-)

I'm no investment banker, but I can answer your question about why they went with "Baltimore-Towson." That's what the federal government calls the Baltimore metropolitan statistical area. If you're analyzing the nation's metro areas--as opposed to cities--then by definition you're looking at Baltimore-Towson.

As it happens, the conforming loan limit is the same throughout the Baltimore metro area: $560,000.

I thought that it was 560 until last year and it is now 494,500? At least in Baltimore County.

In any case, the methodology allowed for a 40% d/i ratio in high cost areas, (e.g. the full 729 limit or what I thought was now 625) but only 28% in 417 areas. (Or at least they didn't specify what high cost meant, but FNM guidelines seemed like what they implied, but didn't follow). If we are indeed at 494, then the affordability would be ~32-34 depending on how you anchor the ratios (e.g. off d/i ratios or loan size)

And what did you think about point #3?

I'm getting my stats about loan limits from this HUD site: https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicostlook.cfm.

Re: #3 -- doesn't the report use National Association of Realtors data for all the metro areas, not just places that don't appear on the Case-Shiller index? In any case, your point is that median prices are problematic. And I agree that they can be. (I don't think a lot of $6,000 rowhomes appear on the multiple-listing service -- if anything, I'll bet they're under-represented -- but medians and averages can skew high or low depending on what's happening in a particular market.)

Still, if you're trying to analyze prices in a lot of metro areas, there don't seem to be a lot of good options out there. When I analyze prices in local ZIP codes, I use average prices recorded by MRIS because that's what's available.

Darwin Rules, you'd be wise not to underestimate the BRAC.

Jamie, with all due respect, I believe that all that you have accomplished with this blog is to further scare off the few buyers that we have in the market. I don't disagree with the research with regard to Baltimore City and several depressed parts of the surrounding area, but many communities, including Towson, Timonium, Phoenix and several of the premier Baltimore neighborhoods have seen some downturn vs. the peak of the market, but not anywhere near the levels of the study that you reference. The key difference today vs. five years ago and, believe it or not, the peak was about 4 to 5 years ago, is that you could sell anything in any condition at top dollar in less than a week and now buyers have a chance to buy at the appropriate price and without the pressure to buy with only a quick glance at the property. For the most part, a buyer today should be buying their home for the next 5 to 10 years. If they buy with this assumption, even if prices drop further, they will still be okay in 5 to 10 years. By waiting, because they read investment research, not home buying research, they run the risk of higher interest rates, missing the right home in the best location for their family and, leaving the $8,000 first time home buyer tax credit on the table, as the tax credit goes away December 1, 2009.

It really serves no purpose to publish investment research for investors looking to return to the CDO, MBS and ABS markets, and try to put it into the context of the young family looking to buy their first home. It's really the old apples and oranges comparison and using this investment research information out of its intended context can only serve to scare away the people who are poised to do the best in the current market. This is a great time to buy for the average first time home buyer and and many other buyers, but this kind of posting may cause many to decide not to buy and miss out on a great opportunity.

Hi, Stacey. If you've read this blog over time, you know I cover a variety of housing subjects here and look for all sorts of things people are saying about the area, from affordability studies to "best of" lists.

If I don't blog about reports that suggest prices are going to fall further in the Baltimore area (and Deutsche Bank's is by no means the only one), then I'd be deliberately ignoring part of the conversation about local housing in the name of not scaring potential buyers.

No self-respecting reporter ignores something purely because noting it might cause someone to reevaluate buying decisions. Worse, if readers here caught on to the fact that I was "shielding" them from information, they wouldn't believe any stats or reports I post to the effect that the market seems to be picking up.

It's perfectly fair game to take issue with Deutsche Bank's research, as one commenter above has. But I don't agree with you that a report aimed at investors has no bearing on first-time buyers. All home buyers are, to a certain extent, investors. Your home is your biggest investment, right?

In a normal market, a buyer's main considerations are "what can I afford" and "what do I want." In this topsy-turvy environment, a buyer can't be blamed for thinking about where prices, interest rates, mortgage standards and appraisal rules are headed, not to mention the likelihood that they'll have jobs in a year or two.

If a buyer thinks to him or herself, "Well, I keep hearing that prices aren't done falling, but I also hear interest rates are going to rise, and I can comfortably qualify for a mortgage to buy this house I want, plus I have reason to believe my job is safe," that's a buyer who's going into a transaction with eyes open. I have faith in buyers (and sellers) to make good decisions when they're well-informed. Ill-informed buying and refinancing does no one any good in the long run -- that's what helped get us into the economic troubles we're in now.

I invite you to keep reading and commenting, Stacey. That's an open invitation to everyone, of course, along with a reminder that I'm always pleased when people suggest topics or items they'd like to see here. That's the great thing about a blog -- it's interactive.

Mrs. Roig,

At least have the decency to disclose that you are a realtor before you parrot the company line.

Jamie's blog does her readers a service by publishing an opinion that is alternative to what the National Association of Realtors has to say.

There was a housing bubble. It popped. Get over it and start giving your clients the information they need to make the right choices.

Somehow I doubt you were turning away clients at the top of the market, even though you probably knew it couldn't go on forever.

Now the rest of us left to clean up the mess you played a role in no matter how small.

Just be happy that you got yours before it fell apart.

Keep up the good work Jamie--even if it upsets those with a stake in the status quo.

Honestly, Mrs. Roig do you really think we can all afford to live in houses that cost 400K?

Looking @ the affordability index (price to rent/income) & mortagage availablity/qualifications, further price depreciation would be warranted. Add on HVCC & the pool of home buyers qualified for mortgages in this contracted economy/post housing bubble will be further challenged.

Jamie:

I want to write this for Stacey.

I've leveled some pretty serious criticisms against this crap piece of research, namely, why it uses a 28% d/i ratio in proportion to other metro areas deemed high cost at 40%.

If you apply that model with FNM guidelines, e.g. 494,500 (I think that with 560 you are using the incorrect numbers) then it completely invalidates their model and Baltimore county is somewhere between high cost and conventional standards.

I will say this again: this was probably written by a summer intern. No one knows what will happen with the market, but, reseach based on faulty numbers is only worth that much.

Here's my argument: in certain parts of London, people's median housing cost vs. income is 12 fold. Therefore, the median housing cost in Baltimore should be $650,000 or the like. House prices will triple. That's the quality of the Douche-Bank research by a summer intern.

BTW: I think you run a great blog! I'd be interested in seeing a write-up on real estate assessment processes... with some hard-hitting interviews.

Stacey - reading between the lines of your comment, your fear is quite palpable.

I'm with you, Jamie. The more information the better. More information to the people only bothers those who are happy with the status quo. Keep that flow of information coming!

What one must consider is what was the apprecation rate from 1995 to 2005 the subtract the deprecation rate from that.Also you must remember that most of baltimore is low income housing.The report is not detailed enough to be an accurate assesment of current or future price movements.What I do know is this The wealth machine has reset itself.Those that are liquid enough

Stacey,

Are you selling this home? www.FranklyMLS.com/BC7064716

The price history tells really puts your comment above in context.

I had always heard that until the run up, Baltimore's market was undervalued. If they are over valued now, I don't see how it makes sense for it to drop below value again.
And aren't houses at the 200k and lower point affected differently than houses in the 400 and above point? Especially if they are in good neighborhoods?

And if prices reset so drastically wouldn't that mean wages for laborers and contractors and building material suppliers would drastically reset too?

Karen "Idiot" Researcher (may I call you KIR?), I like your idea about assessments and will add it to my list. It won't be a quick turnaround because it's a weighty topic (and because my editors have their own to-do list for me), but assessments are clearly of interest to many people.

You say you're not convinced $560,000 is the loan limit, but I can't find any other figure on HUD's site. Did you take a look at the search page I included with my earlier response (https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicostlook.cfm)? That allows a CY2009 search.

--

Lesley, you asked: "And aren't houses at the 200k and lower point affected differently than houses in the 400 and above point? Especially if they are in good neighborhoods?"

The report focuses on the median price, and there's often a lot of variety that goes unmentioned when you're looking at median. That's true whether a study is solid or iffy.

Certainly people selling lower-priced homes in today's market are having a different experience than people with pricier properties.

Lesley, those who claimed that the B'more market was undervalued before (and even to the degree that it was correct) did so as a means of getting the "values" (aka prices) increased so they could earn even greater commissions.

Locals and buyers never cared and we actually took a somewhat perverse pleasure in it especially when we were discussing house prices with our DC (let alone NY or CA) friends.

Salaries in Baltimore were also somewhat lower (compared to DC and NY and CA) but not by all that much; but when the mix was all sorted out we had more to show for ourselves and we liked it!

Conservative frugality is a good thing even if it means our RE agents have to drive a Lexus instead of a Mercedes.

@Kevin R,

Nice find Kevin R....from 575K to 450K...in my opinion that 1960's house up in Phoenix is only worth 300K. Actually that pool probably knocks off another 20K from the price too. Love the TV furniture too...just sayin'

RE: It fails to examine standard deviations. If investors begin snaping up $5,000 row homes by the dozen it says nothing about house X.

Where are you finding these $5,000 row homes? What a joke! Yeah, if you find a $5,000 row home in Baltimore, you'll be ducking bullets every night.

Housing prices in Baltimore are extremely overpriced. There's absolutely no reason an old beat-up row home in Hampden should be going for $200k. Or a shiny new condo in Mt. Vernon for $375k. The price simply does not match the value.

I am always glad to see a person signing with own name, and it displays some courage. However, sometimes it appears that personalization of a reality mismatch doesn't really help either those who are "entering the market", nor those who are "having some early adopters' pains", neither those who were just trying to "expand their reach"...surely, it never was bettter time to buy!

Jamie, I think the "I have reason to believe my job is safe" is one of the key ingredients here.

As a potential first-time home buyer, I would love to get myself some of that 8K credit. Also the rates are at OK levels now and most likely they will keep going up in the near future.

However, it worries me sick what will happen if we buy a house and I lose my job. In this economy NO ONE is safe. I might be able to find another job, but most likely it won't be in the Baltimore area.

So, even if we'll be able to break even on the sale price, we're looking at the loss of 1.75-6% realtor commission and thousands of dollars in taxes and closing costs. To add insult to injury, I guess 8K will also be taken away (at least partially).

So we can argue until the cows come home about the price trends, but bottom line is that if we don't have a job tomorrow then home prices don't matter.

Stacey, I am so tired of hearing this:
"leaving the $8,000 first time home buyer tax credit on the table, as the tax credit goes away December 1, 2009"

A brief search of irs.gov reveals that the first time home buyer credit phases out for married couples with income $140,000 or above. Seems like noone is conneting the dots here - a couple of first-time home buyers who make less than the limit (hence qualifying for the tax credit) can't afford most of the single family homes currently on the market in the Baltimore suburbs. I'm tired of hearing about the woo-hoo tax credit that doesn't apply to anyone looking for more than a townhouse or condo.

I was talking with my buddies at the country club this weekend and we are all SOLIDLY convinced that this time around all the first time (and second, third and fourth time) home buyers out there WILL be able to afford their mortgages here in the Baltimore area going forward. This area has RESOLVE. Despite people losing jobs and getting lower salaries (in some cases)..the Baltimore area households WILL come up with the funds to keep asking prices up...we at our bank are encouraging ALL rich (and not so rich) people to keep buying more houses (SOON)...there has NEVER been a better time to buy houses at such high prices.....if something is not expensive..it is just not worth it...remember - if you believe there is not a not a housing slump - there is not a housing slump!!!

JTK, you'd be wise to remember people involved with the BRAC do communicate with each other. The phrase "insanely overpriced" is commonly used to describe this region. Individuals and families moving here have experienced real sticker shock and are renting, sharing, or staying with family to wait out the eventual price drops. Base housing has dramatically improved in many places giving another viable option.

Stacey, what is your definition for the income of a young first time buyer family? As a first time home buyer myself I can tell you that none of the promotional points like the tax credit do anything to ease the pain of buying in this market. The prices are high. The drop thus far has not been sufficiently helpful. First timers can only afford tiny townhouses or ancient houses in the worst neighborhoods. The section 8 people sometimes get better housing than what someone on a first timer's budget can handle! Something has got to give. To add insult to injury, the vast majority of what first timers can afford are all short sales. I can tell you from experience that I've grown to despise real estate as a result of my experience just trying to buy something decent before an investor snaps it up. You can't even go out further into the rural areas because the prices are high there too.

Now this is the kind of topic that needs discussion. The market here is so messed up. The banks are not regulating enough and the tax credit is just making matters worse. I wonder how many buyers that make less than 50k a year are trying to buy a +300k house just because the bank approved them on a loan so they can.

When will it dawn on both sellers AND buyers in this the market in this area that a person making 100k a year cannot safely AFFORD a nice 3+ bedroom house with safe/good schools??

Look at properties that have been sitting on the market for a year and check their prices. Seems even after significant reductions they are still sitting there ... Whereas five years ago they bought them for 50% less than what they're asking for today. I think folks overextended themselves on the home equity and now they're stuck.

BigDragon - sounds like you are being too picky - What is wrong with a townhome? Many first time buyers start with one and in many cases they feel more spacious then a SF home. I'm not sure what you expecting prices to drop too but if your expecting to by a 2500sqft house in a good area you are going to have to pay

@Joe,

My mentality as a first time buyer towards townhomes and condos is this: if I'm lucky I'll be able to sell it for what I bought it for. Viewing any home purchase in today's market as a "starter home" is a scary proposition. Why would I want to worry about my equity for the next 4 or 5 years? Instead, I'll wait it out (1 or 2 years) for a single family home that I can live in for a LONG time and ride out ups and downs in the market without a desire to "move up".

I do need to qualify my statement. I'm a suburb guy, I'll always be a suburb guy, I'm not looking to move into the city. That's why I'm looking for a SFH.

Kevin R - You have to start somewhere and townhomes hold their values because the buyer pool. I bought my townhome 5 years ago and I would have stayed longer if it wasn't for the record low rates and I bought a SF house in the smae area. I'm sure you can get a smaller single family for a good price but you may consider that a starter house too. In the end we all have to start somewhere and very few people start in the house they end up in until they retire

@Joe,

I know what you're saying Joe, but I think you're making my point for me. Homebuyers do need to start somewhere, as you said. The problem is that high prices on what are usually considered starter homes, and uncertainty about where prices are headed are keeping many people like me on the sidelines.

You said: "townhomes hold their values because the buyer pool". Anecdotally, I'd say that this is incorrect, but I don't have any real data to argue with you on this point. You bought 5 years ago,anyone know where I can find some data that compares condo and townhome prices from then and now?

Joe, there is truth in your points. And in a "normal" market they would hold more water than they do now.

Most first time buyers become so as they move through the normal social progression and as their earnings and security also progresses. (This last part is the problem btw)

Young marrieds in a TH saving and scraping, putting in the extra hours at work and toughing it out there through the first child and maybe even the second birth. If it is a good school district they may stay longer but most will want a yard and...

But if the job isn't secure and if the earnings are inadequate to buy that TH in the good school district (let alone the rancher)... and even with generous family assistance for the down payment... I'm sure not going to advise Kevin or my own 20 something kids to lock in on a still overpriced deal.

They are much better off by renting that house from the desperate and overextended mortgagee (at rather low rental rates more easily negotiated than many even want mentioned) and saving up the difference for an even better down payment later.

How much later remains the million dollar question. Good luck to all.

MrRational - My point is that buying a house is a long term investment and if you treat it that way it was a good investment. I bought 5 years ago when I was 23 and was paying less then I would have been in an apartment no including the tax savings from buying a home. People lost sight of this during the boom and this was one of the main problems. Everyone's situation is different but no one know when the bottom is going to be. You need to asses your own financials before buying to see if it makes sense for you but don't think you are going to move in 2 years and make money. However, you may be able to save money rather then renting and maybe you can put some sweat equity in.

@Joe... I'm not dissputing your points and believe I allowed for them when I said "And in a "normal" market they would hold more water than they do now."

But the axiomatic rationale that "you gotta live somewhere" so you may as well be paying a mortgage and getting deductions isn't enough on it's own as it traditionally applied to the choice to buy. It just isn't enough today.

The problem for many and it would appear for far too many... is that the variables (and you mention several) are just too many to comfortably overcome.

Anecdote: After my divorce and signing over my interest in a suburban rancher I still needed to a place to live. I chose a solid TH in about as solid a neighborhood that B'more (once) had.

Two years after my purchase a new program called "move to opportunity" came around.

While every other property in the world went up in value the neighborhoods like mine saw an actual decline and then a hold at that lower value for nearly ten years.

It was another six years and only after the irrational exuberance peaked that those houses recovered. I was finally able to sell that house in 2006 for a price that justified not continuing to rent it out.

Not a merry go round I'd recommend to anyone.

joe

I agree that no one knows when the bottom of the market is going to be...but I would bet everything I own that it is ahead of us. Such that Stacey's $8000 tax credit and low rates are laughable. I still see no economic reason why the Case-Shiller curve will not complete it's bellshape - leaving us at late 1990's prices.

If you want to stay at the place you'd call home for a longer period - BUY!

If you are not sure - RENT!

The inability to judge on that lead us to where we are.

Joe, there's nothing wrong with a townhouse in general. I have a contract on one, although it was rather tough finding an affordable one in a decent neighborhood. I think you're picking up on my despise comment. That has to do with the whole short sale process. One "deadline" after another goes by, more excuses, and more searching just to find out the rest of the decent inventory has been under contract for as long as I've been extending my current contract. In the low end of the market it's hard to find anything that isn't a short sale or a stealth short sale.

BigDragon - I agree the Short Sale/FC process is horrible. I had one friend that waited 6 month's to settle and another just canceled a contract because of the time it was taking

Stacey,

My husband and I are in the market to buy a home. But not in Baltimore or Baltimore County, since we will move to the Twin Cities next year. We have fantastic credit, a hefty down payment, and WANT to be in a home for 5-10 years. But now is not the right time for us to purchase. The tax credit of a whopping $8000 (sarcasm) isn't enough of an incentive to jump into a market, where it is neither the right place, nor the right time.

Friends in my age and stage-of-life cohort have purchased homes over the past 9 years, and you have no idea how many times I have heard "now is the best historic time to buy! all-time lows! purchase now!". I would be a millionaire if given a dollar for every time I've heard that type of statement.

As for slamming anyone with investment in mind, a principle is to do research on your investment and not invest in anything simply because it is the "popular" industry/peer-pressure thing to do. Please stop peddling this mentality--it contributed greatly to the real estate bubble.

And for the record, I enjoy reading Jamie's blog. It doesn't "scare" me out of the Baltimore market.

Laura when you get to MN... I'd stick to the St Paul side of the river and pretty much any street that intersects with Grand will have a wide variety of housing types (and prices) as you progress outward.

if I wasn't such a weenie about cold and snow... enjoy the town there.

See you at the Creamery!
http://www.grandolecreamery.com/

Who is actually buying in Bmore at this time? Inquiring Mind wants to know.

Thanks, MrRational! I love the Creamery, btw, and plan to stop in when we visit in August. We've been checking out various neighborhoods in the cities during our vacations, and we're focusing on St. Paul this particular trip in August.

As to Mike's comment of who is buying in Baltimore--it's a variety of age groups. I know a young woman who sold her home in the county, and is moving into a renovation project in the city, as well as another young couple moving out of their apartment into a row home. Also know of a middle-aged couple who are also buying a rowhome in the city. I'm not naming names, of course.

Laura,
I'm with you. My wife and I have heard the "it's the best time ever to buy" line a million times, too. We're not buying it.
We were in the market in Baltimore but decided to rent, $8,000 credit be damned. Why buy when $1,500 rents a nice place and leaves you flexible to leave if you need to?
Check out the Rent vs Buy calculator at NYT. Run your numbers. Contrary to popular opinion, renting is not always throwing your money away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html#

Hampden's housing market has picked up recently. Not anything like before, and the houses that are selling are in good shape. The run down ones that, as Joe rightfully noted, are selling for a wishful thinking 200k are sitting and sitting and sitting. But there have been several (5 that I've heard of) that have sold above 200k and were very nice.