Guys I hate to trivialize this thread but isn’t it inconsequential what the macroscopic number is? I think we would all agree that location, housing type, desireability and such play a much greater role in the slope of the depreciation cycle and to lumpo socal as a whole is just plain misleading.
It does not matter and I contend it will lead to frustration if you even bother to factor the numbers in.
I like what people like Gary Sears do. He has pinpointed El Cajon condos and is dead focussed on that submarket. I am not saying that there is not an overall relationship between the housing submarkets as a whole. I know that, and bugs has posted that a million times. Yet I just think it is not a big deal to say prices in socal are at this level and such.
