A Chronological Listing of News Headlines from the Last Housing Bubble

[all]

[quote=temeculaguy] I freaking hate this memory lane stuff, this is worse than my high school reuinion where the girls i blew off in high school turned out to be the hottest mid forties gals on the planet, with good jobs to boot.[/quote]

You did good. They would not work that hard and develop the way they did had you not blew them off back in high school.

[Ren]

Oh to have our knowledge and start again at about age 10.

Prices are dropping in my Temecula ‘hood. There was a mini peak in ’09-’10, during which we bought, naturally ($123/sf), but with our upgrades and location, we’ll still take in $750+/mo positive. I can’t complain about that even if the houses around us are going for $10-20k less than we paid, and besides, we’re not the ones who will be paying off the loan. Contrast that with one particular couple we know who bought in Carlsbad in ’08 for $1.6m, while their neighbors are now unable to sell for $1.2m. They’re in no danger of defaulting, but even so it must absolutely sicken them. With that in mind, I have no fear whatsoever of buying rentals in Temecula even at prices 10% higher than they were 3 years ago, because it’s still such good value, and still my number one choice.

My own heartbreak is from selling a family-owned 4-bdrm in a decent area of Escondido about 25 years ago. It had maybe $80k to go on the loan, and at the time the small amount of cash ($15k each) that it netted us kids seemed much more important than any long term benefit. It rents for $1,800+ now. I’m constantly kicking myself for abandoning that cash cow, and the hundreds of thousands it would have made for us. The neighborhood is still nice, too.

[moneymaker]

I’ve no major regrets,maybe I’m just not old enough yet. I think I’ll do a little day trading(while educating myself on the market) and keep my day job just in case this turns out to be a regret. Think I’ll day trade the biggies you know the ones it would be smart to buy and keep anyway.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=captcha][quote=temeculaguy] I freaking hate this memory lane stuff, this is worse than my high school reuinion where the girls i blew off in high school turned out to be the hottest mid forties gals on the planet, with good jobs to boot.[/quote]

You did good. They would not work that hard and develop the way they did had you not blew them off back in high school.[/quote]

I’m assuming you’re male here and so I’m taking issue with this “sexist” remark, captcha.

By making this statement, I’m surmising that you believe women would not choose to work F/T or make anything of themselves if they had a man to “take care” of them. In my long “career,” I saw the opposite to be true. And, more often than not, it was my co-workers “husbands” who had a less-than-stable career while they (mostly females) slogged away year after year. Often, at the time these women began employment and a few years afterwards, their spouse HAD a good job but then lost it due to a variety of reasons and was never able to replace its pay package. But that wasn’t the reason these women-troopers stayed on. They wanted SS and a pension in their own names and enjoyed the family income that their earning power provided them.

BTW, this was all PRIOR to the FMLA where (mostly females) now take lengthy “maternity leaves” and still legally retain their employment positions.

Your post speaks volumes about the women you may subconsciously attract to yourself … read: “gold-diggers.” :=}

[Anonymous]

[quote=temeculaguy]I freaking hate this memory lane stuff, this is worse than my high school reuinion where the girls i blew off in high school turned out to be the hottest mid forties gals on the planet, with good jobs to boot. I’m going to bed.[/quote]

Fortunately, there were no girls interested in me during high school, so I don’t have to feel the pain you feel now.

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=captcha][quote=temeculaguy] I freaking hate this memory lane stuff, this is worse than my high school reuinion where the girls i blew off in high school turned out to be the hottest mid forties gals on the planet, with good jobs to boot.[/quote]

You did good. They would not work that hard and develop the way they did had you not blew them off back in high school.[/quote]

I’m assuming you’re male here and so I’m taking issue with this “sexist” remark, captcha.

By making this statement, I’m surmising that you believe women would not choose to work F/T or make anything of themselves if they had a man to “take care” of them. In my long “career,” I saw the opposite to be true. And, more often than not, it was my co-workers “husbands” who had a less-than-stable career while they (mostly females) slogged away year after year. Often, at the time these women began employment and a few years afterwards, their spouse HAD a good job but then lost it due to a variety of reasons and was never able to replace its pay package. But that wasn’t the reason these women-troopers stayed on. They wanted SS and a pension in their own names and enjoyed the family income that their earning power provided them.

BTW, this was all PRIOR to the FMLA where (mostly females) now take lengthy “maternity leaves” and still legally retain their employment positions.

Your post speaks volumes about the women you may subconsciously attract to yourself … read: “gold-diggers.” :=}[/quote]

I am a single mother of three.

[scaredyclassic]

In general, women would prefer to stay home with children.

I never believed this when I was younger.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=captcha]I am a single mother of three.[/quote]

So captcha, do you believe that women in general do NOT want to have careers if they have children? And do you believe women would rather be “taken care of” than make their own way? Would you rather have your OWN SS and pension or be dependent on a spouses? And lastly, do you think it is a prudent decision (for the long haul) for a woman to rely on men for their support for the foreseeable future or even a lifetime?

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=captcha]I am a single mother of three.[/quote]

So captcha, do you believe that women in general do NOT want to have careers if they have children? And do you believe women would rather be “taken care of” than make their own way? Would you rather have your OWN SS and pension or be dependent on a spouses? And lastly, do you think it is a prudent decision (for the long haul) for a woman to rely on men for their support for the foreseeable future or even a lifetime?[/quote]

Recent study shows that just over 68% of women in the country prefers to be taken care of, 29% prefers independence and less than 3% prefers to take care of.

The same researchers found that 79% of study results used to prove a point are invented on the spot.

[Ren]

100% of the women I’m married to would prefer to be taken care of, but 100% of me won’t allow it, because why should 50% of us have to work for 15 years until retirement when 100% of us could do so for 10 years?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren]100% of the women I’m married to would prefer to be taken care of, but 100% of me won’t allow it, because why should 50% of us have to work for 15 years until retirement when 100% of us could do so for 10 years?[/quote]

Good point Ren, and well taken (by the element that understands the full ramifications of these decisions) :=]

[Ren]

Actually now that I think about it, 20 years would be more likely if I did it on my own. No thank you.

[ctr70]

[quote=temeculaguy][quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ctr70]1991-1996 was another time people though California real estate was finished and would never come back. I think 1996 was more like the bottom. But it was still really cheap in San Diego even up to 2000. If we say 2008 was year 1 of crash, that puts us at about late 1994 right now.[/quote]

If memory serves, 1996 was the nominal bottom and 1997 was the bottom in real terms. That’s in aggregate, of course it could differ by area.

Home prices peaked in late 05/early 06, so I don’t think it’s correct to use 2008 as year 1 of the crash. The 1990 market peaked in spring, so I’d say 2006 is equivalent to 1990. That puts us equivalent to 1995, for what it’s worth.[/quote]

I think rich is correct, but ctr’s observation of 2000 being still cheap, some areas had already began a steady climb by then. I remember 1998 in particular up here as being a banner year. I put money down in early 1998 or late 1997 and by the time the home was built in the summer of 1998, I could have sold it at a sizable profit (maybe 20-30%). I remember thinking I wouldn’t have been able to afford that house had I not locked in the price 8 months or so earlier, it was going up 5-10% per phase back then for new construction and the phases seemed to be every 2 months.

I also remember my house before that which I bought about 1992 and was underwater until about 1997, sold it to buy the bigger house mentioned above and pretty much broke even. Only to watch that house triple or quadruple in value over the next decade, which I still kick myself for selling it since it was rent nuetral even at it’s lowpoint, but i feared it would still go down (there was barely an internet then so I can only blame newspaper articles for my fear). But even today, as bad as things are, that old place is worth between double and triple what I sold it for in 1997 and it rents for more than double what the mortgage was (which would only have 11 years left on it today). God dammit!!!! I freaking hate this memory lane stuff, this is worse than my high school reuinion where the girls i blew off in high school turned out to be the hottest mid forties gals on the planet, with good jobs to boot. I’m going to bed.[/quote]

You are right Rich we peaked this time late 2005, but the market didn’t start the free fall until 2008. 2006 and 2007 prices were still holding up somewhat. Even in early 2007 there was still a some euphoria left. So we had kind of a holding pattern for 2 yrs after the peak this time. I think by the 2nd half of 1990 there was no euphoria left. So there may be some adjustments to year counting to see where we would theoretically be at in the 1990’s.

To temeculaguy…yes you are right prices were moving up in 2000, but I think SD was still super cheap in 2000 (esp. compared to OC/coastal LA/Bay Area). A friend of mine bought his 3,000sf house in Encinitas for around $400k in 2000…even with post crash prices that house has still well over doubled in 10 yrs. That was a really good price for that size and location then, still very cheap IMO. In 2002 prices really started going vertical.

[sdrealtor]

Having been in the thick of it the euphoria actually stopped around July 2004. Until then you could put a sign in the ground, pick any price and buyers were climbing over each other to submit offers above asking prices. In July 2004 the psychology shifted and while statistics may show prices rising some places things were clearly different to those of us on the inside. After that it was mostly unqualified, uneducated buyers getting in with the most toxic of financing. It was the buyers who werent strong enough to get in during the hysteria getting in with no money down and counting on appreciation while not realizing the party was over. That went on for a couple years but by the end of 2006 the writing was on the wall for all to see and prices headed down. Once the financing firehose was shut off in Late Summer of 2007 the rest of the chips began falling more rapidly.

So the questions are where do you put the peak? In Summer 2004 when the psychology was there or late 2005 when the statistics were there? Where do you put the start of the downturn? I could make cases for Summer 2004, Late 2005 but clearly no later than Late Summer 2007 when financing vanished.

[Author]

Posts