Tuesday, March 17, 2009

LA Magazine

The magazine racks seem filled with the March Los Angeles Magazine asking the teaser question, "Buy Now or Save For Later?" So what do they tell you for $4.95? Do they answer the title question? Here are the articles and sidebars that fill its eight pages:

"Distress Test - My search for a home under $400K"

"The New Rules"

"Do I still need a real estate agent?" - would you believe, "Agents buy and sell for a living, they have more knowledge of legalities and a broader network to draw on than you do."?

"Given the market, can I pay my agent a lower commission?" - "you're not likely to inspire vigor if you offer too little"

"Can I still put less than 10 percent down on the home I'd like to buy?" - not without FHA, a second mortgage, or private mortgage insurance.

"How can I be sure I'm not overpaying?" goes only as far as to say, "Because figures are still declining, the home you buy now may be worth less in six months. 'So if you are not going to stay in a house for at least five years, you probably shouldn't buy'". That's as close as they got to answering the big question on the cover.
"Renting Out Your Property".

"The New Desirables" grouping places in a venn diagram of "Low price per square foot", "Good school district", and/or "Proximity to nature".

Finished by four pages of a "Price Guide" of obsolete DataQuick median sale prices by zip code for 2007 and 2008, as we know not relevant to 2009's falling prices.

Could have read some blogs for free instead and learned something useful. We cite indicators of where prices are headed; they sure didn't.


Anonymous said...

Blogs are free, but Los Angeles magazine has decent leads on restaurants. As for real estate, screw them. Brokers are vigorous, the market is. For FSBO, if your house is online on one of the major sites you will see traffic comparable to those on mls if you get out some street signs and post your open house on some sites/papers. I would bet that buyers would be more receptive to that given the recent distrust of brokers. As a buyer you really have access to everything already, so a broker seems irrelevant unless you are cramped for time and no nothing about simple contracts.

Anonymous said...

LA magazine is pure advertising, and this story is no different. This piece relates to journalism as skittles relate to nutrition. Empty calories.

Bubblewatcher said...

Don't tell me...the remaining pages are chock full of real estate ads.

Westside Bubble said...

Don't tell me...the remaining pages are chock full of real estate ads.

I didn't bother to look, but sure wouldn't be surprised!

Anonymous said...

Take a look at the magazine - might as well be a product from the NAR, chambers of commerce, and the visitors and convention bureau.

The publication knows where the bread gets buttered, and is not working towards any editorial or investigative journalism awards. Another reason why WB and the other blogs beat LA Times and other R/E publications on a daily basis, for free!

Anonymous said...

The best part is that home on the cover! Originally 4.5 now 3.2, i can't imagine it going for more then 2.5, but really its so poorly built it should only be worth the land that its on, which is probably 1.5 at this point. a house just a few down sold for 1.7 this month and was in need of update.