- This topic has 20 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
34f3f3f.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM #16132August 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM #440702
patientrenter
ParticipantPrices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.
August 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM #440902ParticipantPrices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.
August 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM #441235ParticipantPrices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.
August 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM #441306ParticipantPrices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.
August 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM #441478ParticipantPrices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.
August 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM #440848zk
Participant[quote=patientrenter]Prices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.[/quote]
Perhaps it’s time for you to come up with a new moniker.
In any case, if 25% of a million and a half is peanuts to you, sounds like you don’t have to worry about it. It’s certainly not peanuts to me. Maybe 25% is peanuts compared to what it went up. But it’s still not peanuts to me.
I don’t hold the same faith in the government’s ability to hold up prices as you do. The government wasn’t able to stop the low end from dropping over 50%. If the high end drops that much (I doubt it will, but not because of government intervention), then we’ve moved even further away from “peanuts.” Perhaps prices won’t drop all the way to their natural economic level, but, if the article is correct and the declines accelerate henceforth, we should see some significant (as opposed to peanuts) peak-to-trough declines.
August 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM #441047Participant[quote=patientrenter]Prices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.[/quote]
Perhaps it’s time for you to come up with a new moniker.
In any case, if 25% of a million and a half is peanuts to you, sounds like you don’t have to worry about it. It’s certainly not peanuts to me. Maybe 25% is peanuts compared to what it went up. But it’s still not peanuts to me.
I don’t hold the same faith in the government’s ability to hold up prices as you do. The government wasn’t able to stop the low end from dropping over 50%. If the high end drops that much (I doubt it will, but not because of government intervention), then we’ve moved even further away from “peanuts.” Perhaps prices won’t drop all the way to their natural economic level, but, if the article is correct and the declines accelerate henceforth, we should see some significant (as opposed to peanuts) peak-to-trough declines.
August 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM #441621Participant[quote=patientrenter]Prices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.[/quote]
Perhaps it’s time for you to come up with a new moniker.
In any case, if 25% of a million and a half is peanuts to you, sounds like you don’t have to worry about it. It’s certainly not peanuts to me. Maybe 25% is peanuts compared to what it went up. But it’s still not peanuts to me.
I don’t hold the same faith in the government’s ability to hold up prices as you do. The government wasn’t able to stop the low end from dropping over 50%. If the high end drops that much (I doubt it will, but not because of government intervention), then we’ve moved even further away from “peanuts.” Perhaps prices won’t drop all the way to their natural economic level, but, if the article is correct and the declines accelerate henceforth, we should see some significant (as opposed to peanuts) peak-to-trough declines.
August 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM #441380Participant[quote=patientrenter]Prices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.[/quote]
Perhaps it’s time for you to come up with a new moniker.
In any case, if 25% of a million and a half is peanuts to you, sounds like you don’t have to worry about it. It’s certainly not peanuts to me. Maybe 25% is peanuts compared to what it went up. But it’s still not peanuts to me.
I don’t hold the same faith in the government’s ability to hold up prices as you do. The government wasn’t able to stop the low end from dropping over 50%. If the high end drops that much (I doubt it will, but not because of government intervention), then we’ve moved even further away from “peanuts.” Perhaps prices won’t drop all the way to their natural economic level, but, if the article is correct and the declines accelerate henceforth, we should see some significant (as opposed to peanuts) peak-to-trough declines.
August 4, 2009 at 10:40 PM #441450Participant[quote=patientrenter]Prices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.
If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.[/quote]
Perhaps it’s time for you to come up with a new moniker.
In any case, if 25% of a million and a half is peanuts to you, sounds like you don’t have to worry about it. It’s certainly not peanuts to me. Maybe 25% is peanuts compared to what it went up. But it’s still not peanuts to me.
I don’t hold the same faith in the government’s ability to hold up prices as you do. The government wasn’t able to stop the low end from dropping over 50%. If the high end drops that much (I doubt it will, but not because of government intervention), then we’ve moved even further away from “peanuts.” Perhaps prices won’t drop all the way to their natural economic level, but, if the article is correct and the declines accelerate henceforth, we should see some significant (as opposed to peanuts) peak-to-trough declines.
August 4, 2009 at 11:03 PM #441394bsrsharma
ParticipantI think the obvious government intervention is the “magic number” price ($521K nationally; probably more in some areas of CA) created by (indirectly) treasuries purchase of conforming paper. So, generally, the faux million $ properties should asymptotically get compressed around that point. The “new” million $ homes will be what they were in times long past – true mansions, rarely bought & sold, and usually without a mortgage.
August 4, 2009 at 11:03 PM #441636ParticipantI think the obvious government intervention is the “magic number” price ($521K nationally; probably more in some areas of CA) created by (indirectly) treasuries purchase of conforming paper. So, generally, the faux million $ properties should asymptotically get compressed around that point. The “new” million $ homes will be what they were in times long past – true mansions, rarely bought & sold, and usually without a mortgage.
August 4, 2009 at 11:03 PM #441465ParticipantI think the obvious government intervention is the “magic number” price ($521K nationally; probably more in some areas of CA) created by (indirectly) treasuries purchase of conforming paper. So, generally, the faux million $ properties should asymptotically get compressed around that point. The “new” million $ homes will be what they were in times long past – true mansions, rarely bought & sold, and usually without a mortgage.
August 4, 2009 at 11:03 PM #441062ParticipantI think the obvious government intervention is the “magic number” price ($521K nationally; probably more in some areas of CA) created by (indirectly) treasuries purchase of conforming paper. So, generally, the faux million $ properties should asymptotically get compressed around that point. The “new” million $ homes will be what they were in times long past – true mansions, rarely bought & sold, and usually without a mortgage.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.