Case shiller on zip code basis

[sdrealtor]

My area is North County Coastal defined as Encinitas and South Carlsbad which effectively functions as one market. The Zip codes are 92024, 92009 and 92011.

My personal home is very representative of the market as I know it. Homes like mine were around 500K in late 2000. They hit a peak of around 950K. Realistically, it is probably somewhere between 825 and 850K today which puts it 70% above its 2000 price and down around 13% from the peak.

I believe most of the homes in this area would show similar stats. I dont trust any stats I have seen because I havent seen any which accurately porttray what has and is happening. The only way to really understand that is to look at a property or area through the eyes of a good realtor who truly understands values in that area. In my area I think I know them as well as anyone and can very accurately estimate what a specific house would have sold for in the past and what it would sell for now.

[drunkle]

can you add graphs that chart the rate of change of the particular areas?

also, (maybe you did this already? or case-shiller did?) apply filters that weed out 95, 90, and 75 percentile data?

[drunkle]

can you add graphs that chart the rate of change of the particular areas?

also, (maybe you did this already? or case-shiller did?) apply filters that weed out 95, 90, and 75 percentile data?

[drunkle]

can you add graphs that chart the rate of change of the particular areas?

also, (maybe you did this already? or case-shiller did?) apply filters that weed out 95, 90, and 75 percentile data?

[drunkle]

can you add graphs that chart the rate of change of the particular areas?

also, (maybe you did this already? or case-shiller did?) apply filters that weed out 95, 90, and 75 percentile data?

[drunkle]

can you add graphs that chart the rate of change of the particular areas?

also, (maybe you did this already? or case-shiller did?) apply filters that weed out 95, 90, and 75 percentile data?

[NotCranky]

“I dont trust any stats I have seen because I haven’t seen any which accurately portray what has and is happening.”

The stats show the trend for the big picture and can’t do any better than that because the housing stock and location value of very few areas encompassed by a zip code, let alone two or three zips, is homogeneous. In the chart Normal Heights is lumped with Mission Valley. These two zips have very little in common. 92116 alone might as well be two or three worlds lumped together. It contains Kensington which resembles a higher tier and other areas that are almost on par with Logan Heights. You could have a house in that zip that is only down 3-5% and another 25%. The average for the two zips is 7%. From a buyer’s or a seller’s point of view that stat could be meaningless, beyond the obvious that almost all houses are falling to some degree. There are many applicable variations of the same theme for other areas.

Disclaimer: I am not bullish on any market, or even a particular house in the region.

[NotCranky]

“I dont trust any stats I have seen because I haven’t seen any which accurately portray what has and is happening.”

The stats show the trend for the big picture and can’t do any better than that because the housing stock and location value of very few areas encompassed by a zip code, let alone two or three zips, is homogeneous. In the chart Normal Heights is lumped with Mission Valley. These two zips have very little in common. 92116 alone might as well be two or three worlds lumped together. It contains Kensington which resembles a higher tier and other areas that are almost on par with Logan Heights. You could have a house in that zip that is only down 3-5% and another 25%. The average for the two zips is 7%. From a buyer’s or a seller’s point of view that stat could be meaningless, beyond the obvious that almost all houses are falling to some degree. There are many applicable variations of the same theme for other areas.

Disclaimer: I am not bullish on any market, or even a particular house in the region.

[NotCranky]

“I dont trust any stats I have seen because I haven’t seen any which accurately portray what has and is happening.”

The stats show the trend for the big picture and can’t do any better than that because the housing stock and location value of very few areas encompassed by a zip code, let alone two or three zips, is homogeneous. In the chart Normal Heights is lumped with Mission Valley. These two zips have very little in common. 92116 alone might as well be two or three worlds lumped together. It contains Kensington which resembles a higher tier and other areas that are almost on par with Logan Heights. You could have a house in that zip that is only down 3-5% and another 25%. The average for the two zips is 7%. From a buyer’s or a seller’s point of view that stat could be meaningless, beyond the obvious that almost all houses are falling to some degree. There are many applicable variations of the same theme for other areas.

Disclaimer: I am not bullish on any market, or even a particular house in the region.

[NotCranky]

“I dont trust any stats I have seen because I haven’t seen any which accurately portray what has and is happening.”

The stats show the trend for the big picture and can’t do any better than that because the housing stock and location value of very few areas encompassed by a zip code, let alone two or three zips, is homogeneous. In the chart Normal Heights is lumped with Mission Valley. These two zips have very little in common. 92116 alone might as well be two or three worlds lumped together. It contains Kensington which resembles a higher tier and other areas that are almost on par with Logan Heights. You could have a house in that zip that is only down 3-5% and another 25%. The average for the two zips is 7%. From a buyer’s or a seller’s point of view that stat could be meaningless, beyond the obvious that almost all houses are falling to some degree. There are many applicable variations of the same theme for other areas.

Disclaimer: I am not bullish on any market, or even a particular house in the region.

[NotCranky]

“I dont trust any stats I have seen because I haven’t seen any which accurately portray what has and is happening.”

The stats show the trend for the big picture and can’t do any better than that because the housing stock and location value of very few areas encompassed by a zip code, let alone two or three zips, is homogeneous. In the chart Normal Heights is lumped with Mission Valley. These two zips have very little in common. 92116 alone might as well be two or three worlds lumped together. It contains Kensington which resembles a higher tier and other areas that are almost on par with Logan Heights. You could have a house in that zip that is only down 3-5% and another 25%. The average for the two zips is 7%. From a buyer’s or a seller’s point of view that stat could be meaningless, beyond the obvious that almost all houses are falling to some degree. There are many applicable variations of the same theme for other areas.

Disclaimer: I am not bullish on any market, or even a particular house in the region.

[sdrealtor]

Bear in mind that my house did not sell in either time period. If it did, it could have sold above or below the values i used based upon the skill of the agent in pricing the property, the sellers motivation and many other factos. However, the numbers I presented are very solid typical cases of what price levels were and are in my submarket. As it is, esmith’s data as well as the case shiller figures dramatically overstate bubble appreciation and understate bust depreciation thus far IMO>

People get too excited over some whizbang statistical analysis. There is just too much noise in the data. I dont trust any data points. Whenever, i look at a comp I always question the price. Sometimes people sold too cheap and sometimes they got lucky with a high price. Sometimes the data is entered improperly or there are incentives undislcosed. Sometimes agents get paid and sometimes there are fsbo sales. Nearly every data point has quirks of some regard. I prefer to dwell in the world of theoretical price levels that existed at a point in time and what they are currently. I find this to be a much more reliable indicator of what is really happening.

[sdrealtor]

Bear in mind that my house did not sell in either time period. If it did, it could have sold above or below the values i used based upon the skill of the agent in pricing the property, the sellers motivation and many other factos. However, the numbers I presented are very solid typical cases of what price levels were and are in my submarket. As it is, esmith’s data as well as the case shiller figures dramatically overstate bubble appreciation and understate bust depreciation thus far IMO>

People get too excited over some whizbang statistical analysis. There is just too much noise in the data. I dont trust any data points. Whenever, i look at a comp I always question the price. Sometimes people sold too cheap and sometimes they got lucky with a high price. Sometimes the data is entered improperly or there are incentives undislcosed. Sometimes agents get paid and sometimes there are fsbo sales. Nearly every data point has quirks of some regard. I prefer to dwell in the world of theoretical price levels that existed at a point in time and what they are currently. I find this to be a much more reliable indicator of what is really happening.

[sdrealtor]

Bear in mind that my house did not sell in either time period. If it did, it could have sold above or below the values i used based upon the skill of the agent in pricing the property, the sellers motivation and many other factos. However, the numbers I presented are very solid typical cases of what price levels were and are in my submarket. As it is, esmith’s data as well as the case shiller figures dramatically overstate bubble appreciation and understate bust depreciation thus far IMO>

People get too excited over some whizbang statistical analysis. There is just too much noise in the data. I dont trust any data points. Whenever, i look at a comp I always question the price. Sometimes people sold too cheap and sometimes they got lucky with a high price. Sometimes the data is entered improperly or there are incentives undislcosed. Sometimes agents get paid and sometimes there are fsbo sales. Nearly every data point has quirks of some regard. I prefer to dwell in the world of theoretical price levels that existed at a point in time and what they are currently. I find this to be a much more reliable indicator of what is really happening.

[sdrealtor]

Bear in mind that my house did not sell in either time period. If it did, it could have sold above or below the values i used based upon the skill of the agent in pricing the property, the sellers motivation and many other factos. However, the numbers I presented are very solid typical cases of what price levels were and are in my submarket. As it is, esmith’s data as well as the case shiller figures dramatically overstate bubble appreciation and understate bust depreciation thus far IMO>

People get too excited over some whizbang statistical analysis. There is just too much noise in the data. I dont trust any data points. Whenever, i look at a comp I always question the price. Sometimes people sold too cheap and sometimes they got lucky with a high price. Sometimes the data is entered improperly or there are incentives undislcosed. Sometimes agents get paid and sometimes there are fsbo sales. Nearly every data point has quirks of some regard. I prefer to dwell in the world of theoretical price levels that existed at a point in time and what they are currently. I find this to be a much more reliable indicator of what is really happening.

[Author]

Posts