Of course it can sink below 2002 prices. The jobs that were then available in CA have gone Poof … heck I expect to see 97 prices. And those jobs have gone Poof to India and china as well.
Cool.
Cow_tipping.
While 1997 was laying pretty much on the bottom, you can see by 2002, we were well out of it, potentially excessively so giving 100% appreciation in 5 years which is a compounded return of 15%/year.
I used to think 2002 numbers were pretty secure, but I’m having more and more doubts. I see more and more fraud coming to light which in indicates the actual home buyer peak may have been 2003/2004 and everything since was fraud propping up fraud. When single buyers are buying five or six homes through multiple mortgage brokers before the loans can register, those aren’t real sales and the competition they caused wasn’t real either.
Maybe on a relative basis. But not in absolute terms.
Incomes in San Diego (median household) have risen by about 50% from 1995 to 2005 from 37K to 55.6K. Inflation (even in low inflation environments) does amazing things to the value of a dollar.
I feel that at least a 10% down should be required for all home buyers. And at least 20% for second homes or investment properties. Home prices would be much cheaper, and it would be easier to save up for 10% of 200k vs. 500k. If you can’t manage to save up 10%, why be trusted with a loan? Sorry, I know this will offend some people, but its true. If you are financially responsible, you can save up the difference. Besides, the mortgage on most loans that are 100% financing are at least 2x what rent would cost, you should be able to save up quite a bit renting, if you think you can buy. Anyways, how can you consider it owning a home if you owe 100% on it anyways, seems like renting to me.
