- This topic has 51 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
Sandi Egan.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 30, 2007 at 8:52 PM #10769October 30, 2007 at 10:30 PM #93436
golfproz
Participant$375k is still too high. The CA median price in 2000 was $211k add 3% or 4% per year for “normal” appreciation and you’re well short of $375. If you use 3% it’s around $260k and 4% is around $280k. In 2001 the median was 240K and at 3% that’s still only $290k. The state median should be in the mid to high 200s!
October 30, 2007 at 10:30 PM #93480Participant$375k is still too high. The CA median price in 2000 was $211k add 3% or 4% per year for “normal” appreciation and you’re well short of $375. If you use 3% it’s around $260k and 4% is around $280k. In 2001 the median was 240K and at 3% that’s still only $290k. The state median should be in the mid to high 200s!
October 30, 2007 at 10:30 PM #93469Participant$375k is still too high. The CA median price in 2000 was $211k add 3% or 4% per year for “normal” appreciation and you’re well short of $375. If you use 3% it’s around $260k and 4% is around $280k. In 2001 the median was 240K and at 3% that’s still only $290k. The state median should be in the mid to high 200s!
October 30, 2007 at 10:40 PM #93475one_muggle
ParticipantIf you look at the report from Global Insights, CA was actually undervalued (compared to historical norms) through 2001 or 2002, so 2000 numbers are technically low. Though, even they do not claim that prices will drop any particular amount, they report the overvaluation as a stress on the market, rather than a target price. With gross overvaluation (>35%) the chances of the median dropping below the trend line during a crash, increases–so you might still get to see your <$300k. Probably depends on the level of spillover into the general economy, thus feeding the vicious cycle. -one muggle
October 30, 2007 at 10:40 PM #93442ParticipantIf you look at the report from Global Insights, CA was actually undervalued (compared to historical norms) through 2001 or 2002, so 2000 numbers are technically low. Though, even they do not claim that prices will drop any particular amount, they report the overvaluation as a stress on the market, rather than a target price. With gross overvaluation (>35%) the chances of the median dropping below the trend line during a crash, increases–so you might still get to see your <$300k. Probably depends on the level of spillover into the general economy, thus feeding the vicious cycle. -one muggle
October 30, 2007 at 10:40 PM #93486ParticipantIf you look at the report from Global Insights, CA was actually undervalued (compared to historical norms) through 2001 or 2002, so 2000 numbers are technically low. Though, even they do not claim that prices will drop any particular amount, they report the overvaluation as a stress on the market, rather than a target price. With gross overvaluation (>35%) the chances of the median dropping below the trend line during a crash, increases–so you might still get to see your <$300k. Probably depends on the level of spillover into the general economy, thus feeding the vicious cycle. -one muggle
October 30, 2007 at 10:54 PM #93445what_a_disasta
ParticipantCalifornia homes are about 35% to 40% overvalued
…In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green.
October 30, 2007 at 10:54 PM #93489ParticipantCalifornia homes are about 35% to 40% overvalued
…In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green.
October 30, 2007 at 10:54 PM #93479ParticipantCalifornia homes are about 35% to 40% overvalued
…In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green.
October 31, 2007 at 6:18 AM #93511ParticipantUndervalued in 2000? If we believe the GS report with a median of $375k that would make the median home 7x the median income. I’m not sure how they as so called economists can make the assumption that this is fiscally a good thing. It seems to me that median homes should be 3x the median income or in line with rents.
October 31, 2007 at 6:18 AM #93553ParticipantUndervalued in 2000? If we believe the GS report with a median of $375k that would make the median home 7x the median income. I’m not sure how they as so called economists can make the assumption that this is fiscally a good thing. It seems to me that median homes should be 3x the median income or in line with rents.
October 31, 2007 at 6:18 AM #93546ParticipantUndervalued in 2000? If we believe the GS report with a median of $375k that would make the median home 7x the median income. I’m not sure how they as so called economists can make the assumption that this is fiscally a good thing. It seems to me that median homes should be 3x the median income or in line with rents.
October 31, 2007 at 6:50 AM #93520Alex_angel
ParticipantThey’ve been saying that about SF Bay area for years yet it still goes up. Like it or not California homes will never be the same price as those in Idaho.
October 31, 2007 at 6:50 AM #93555ParticipantThey’ve been saying that about SF Bay area for years yet it still goes up. Like it or not California homes will never be the same price as those in Idaho.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.