Since the second half of 2009, the general trend has been for the
low-priced tier of the Case-Shiller home price index to rise strongly,
the high-priced tier to drift mildly downward, and the mid-priced tier
to split the difference with a more tempered increase.
February bucked that trend.
$461k is not really a high
$461k is not really a high priced home, but not knowing the percentage of homes above that level, I don’t know how significant that it. This looks like a mini bubble to me, with the low end YoY increase probably much higher than the ‘normal’ non-bubble national average increase, and we are only three years into this devastation. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, and as a buyer just makes me more determined than ever to resist buying. If folks are out there buying in the bubble mid to high end, I wish them luck. I personally think you are likely still being robbed.
Wow, bottom end rising almost
Wow, bottom end rising almost 15% in less than a year. I definitely didn’t see that coming. I thought housing was supposed to be very slow moving. Is it safe to call April/May 2009 as the bottom yet? Or should we wait another year or two to be sure?
AN wrote: Is it safe to call
[quote=AN] Is it safe to call April/May 2009 as the bottom yet? Or should we wait another year or two to be sure?[/quote]
Theories abound so take your pick. Quite frankly I’m not sure it matters anymore, since it is now well established that deficits aren’t all financial in nature. Common sense is up there with the big boys. It’s all about leading a horse to water…
The 1990s were a different
The 1990s were a different period of time and therefore cannot totally be extrapolated to that of today. For one thing, the late 80s boom/early 90s bust was not national in nature and was largely confined to just California and a few other regions in the US whose economies were driven largely by defense spending. The boom/bust was less severe in intensity and there was no massive government support (because it was not perceived as a NATIONAL problem, but mainly a California one). Another phenomenom is the fact that people today are staying put. They are not leaving San Diego for better economies in say Utah, which is what happened in the 90s. The 1990s multi-year market lull was an unprecedented aberration in recent memory and may not necessarily be repeated again.
PS – A perfect example of
PS – A perfect example of this was in 1994, when the southern California real estate market was largely comatose. The Fed, however, didn’t care. They ratched up the federal funds rate that year in spite of our mostly local real estate issues.
asprogerakas wrote:The 1990s
[quote=asprogerakas]The 1990s were a different period of time and therefore cannot totally be extrapolated to that of today. For one thing, the late 80s boom/early 90s bust was not national in nature and was largely confined to just California and a few other regions in the US whose economies were driven largely by defense spending. The boom/bust was less severe in intensity and there was no massive government support (because it was not perceived as a NATIONAL problem, but mainly a California one). Another phenomenom is the fact that people today are staying put. They are not leaving San Diego for better economies in say Utah, which is what happened in the 90s. The 1990s multi-year market lull was an unprecedented aberration in recent memory and may not necessarily be repeated again.[/quote]
This is from 2008, but it claims it was the fourth year when more people were leaving the state than moving here.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/18/business/fi-leaving-california18
—————–
Also, we’ve been told that the last downturn was only in California, but if you talk to people from other states, they were going through the exact same thing in the late 80s/early 90s. Different states might have felt it at slightly different times, buy every state that I’m aware of had a RE downturn in that time period unless there were other influences that were specific to a particular state (a new or rapidly growing industry, for instance).
IMHO, the Fed and govt intervened this time because of the credit bubble, not because of the housing bubble. Quite frankly, they probably don’t give a darn about the price of people’s houses, but the DO care about the solvency of the largest financial institutions in the country and world.
The late 80s bubble wasn’t nearly as big as this one because we went from a normal RE cycle which should have topped out in 2001…to a massive credit bubble that lasted from 2001-2007 (give or take), IMHO.