[quote=bearishgurl]
AN, you’ve still got in your mind that today’s listings should sell for “2000-2001 price” and “2003 price,” irrespective of how much $$ (and owner labor) was spent on improvements since then. Do you think EVERY property in EVERY area in ANY condition should adhere to [certain year] pricing?? Do you think EVERY area fell victim to “don’t-ask, don’t-tell financing?” Don’t you realize that sold prices are all subjective depending on seller investment, possible seller financing or concessions and most importantly, location of property???[/quote]
I think you misunderstood my point. I think 2000-2001 price are darn good deal. 2003 are OK deal. Areas that are hardest hit are areas where you can find a lot of darn good deals. Areas where they didn’t fall victim to “don’t-ask, don’t-tell financing” tend to not have many if any darn good deals. When I say 2000-2001 price, I’m not comparing apples to oranges (i.e. rehab vs non-rehab). I would compare its current condition and current price to how much a house in that condition would sell for in 2000-2001. Which would remove the rehab cost out of the equation.

The reality is, some areas are not blessed with darn good deals and there’s nothing we can do about it. But, that doesn’t mean a house selling for 2003 price in those areas would then be considered darn good deals. I would reserve the darn good deal to houses that is selling below their trend line (think undervalue).