irrational fear?; spouse wants house…

[peterb]

Near a bottom? Tsunami’s coming. Maybe when CA unemployment is at 12% at the end of 2009 or in 2010.
Check all stats about CA home prices and unemployment above 7%. I think this may prove valuable to everyone who’s concerned about price movements in the housing market. The correlation is astoundingly high.

Check with SDCIA and see when Bruce Norris is going to be speaking again. Then take your wife to this meeting. Last a couple of hours.

[temeculaguy]

peter, it is 2010 in Temecula, The Tsunami came through already, the price movements have already occurred, there may be some more but the bulk are behind us, now the fear for a primary long term house is interest rates.

I won’t argue that housing wont continue to decline all over the country but this question is about a specific area. 2001 prices, more than 50% off peak are commonplace in my valley, sub $100 a square with some larger homes at 80 or 90 a square are approaching building cost and well below replacement cost. New building has stopped. Some condos are now priced at $100 a square and 100x rent multiplier with cash positive on day one. The downside risk has diminished, inventory is falling slightly and nods/nots are down significantly (jury is still out because of the new state law, they may rebound). This only pertains to my zip code, not all of So Cal, and I would be more fearful of areas that have held, than those who have already imploded. I see about another 10% decline over the next six months in my hood, then inflation or higher rates keep things flat. That 10% will come not because of unemployment but because S.D. and O.C. will fall and fall hard, stopping the flow of impatient fence sitters from relocating here and perhaps some reverse migration.

I’ll give you an example, 3/2 1400 sq ft townhouse with a 2 car garage listed for 165k http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33513-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-C/home/12509148
it was bought new in 2003 for 187k, these were high 300’s at peak with some touching 4. They rent for $1500 right now, vacancies are rare. 3% down fha and the P&I is just under 1k a month, tax and hoa, still under $1500. Figure the tax deduction and it is about 3-400 a month cheaper to buy than to rent, experts may not like that but people do, thats when people buy. So what does bruce norris think this unit’s bottom will be, he doesn’t know, because it’s a micro market, I don’t expect him to understand every micro market. Will it go down to 100k? I seriously doubt it. So the downside risk in my opinion is 10-20k (10%). If someone could show me an 800k carmel valley home selling for 325k that rentd for 3k, I wouldn’t talk them out of it, I’d say you are near bottom, these numbers are exactly the same as that example.

[temeculaguy]

peter, it is 2010 in Temecula, The Tsunami came through already, the price movements have already occurred, there may be some more but the bulk are behind us, now the fear for a primary long term house is interest rates.

I won’t argue that housing wont continue to decline all over the country but this question is about a specific area. 2001 prices, more than 50% off peak are commonplace in my valley, sub $100 a square with some larger homes at 80 or 90 a square are approaching building cost and well below replacement cost. New building has stopped. Some condos are now priced at $100 a square and 100x rent multiplier with cash positive on day one. The downside risk has diminished, inventory is falling slightly and nods/nots are down significantly (jury is still out because of the new state law, they may rebound). This only pertains to my zip code, not all of So Cal, and I would be more fearful of areas that have held, than those who have already imploded. I see about another 10% decline over the next six months in my hood, then inflation or higher rates keep things flat. That 10% will come not because of unemployment but because S.D. and O.C. will fall and fall hard, stopping the flow of impatient fence sitters from relocating here and perhaps some reverse migration.

I’ll give you an example, 3/2 1400 sq ft townhouse with a 2 car garage listed for 165k http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33513-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-C/home/12509148
it was bought new in 2003 for 187k, these were high 300’s at peak with some touching 4. They rent for $1500 right now, vacancies are rare. 3% down fha and the P&I is just under 1k a month, tax and hoa, still under $1500. Figure the tax deduction and it is about 3-400 a month cheaper to buy than to rent, experts may not like that but people do, thats when people buy. So what does bruce norris think this unit’s bottom will be, he doesn’t know, because it’s a micro market, I don’t expect him to understand every micro market. Will it go down to 100k? I seriously doubt it. So the downside risk in my opinion is 10-20k (10%). If someone could show me an 800k carmel valley home selling for 325k that rentd for 3k, I wouldn’t talk them out of it, I’d say you are near bottom, these numbers are exactly the same as that example.

[temeculaguy]

peter, it is 2010 in Temecula, The Tsunami came through already, the price movements have already occurred, there may be some more but the bulk are behind us, now the fear for a primary long term house is interest rates.

I won’t argue that housing wont continue to decline all over the country but this question is about a specific area. 2001 prices, more than 50% off peak are commonplace in my valley, sub $100 a square with some larger homes at 80 or 90 a square are approaching building cost and well below replacement cost. New building has stopped. Some condos are now priced at $100 a square and 100x rent multiplier with cash positive on day one. The downside risk has diminished, inventory is falling slightly and nods/nots are down significantly (jury is still out because of the new state law, they may rebound). This only pertains to my zip code, not all of So Cal, and I would be more fearful of areas that have held, than those who have already imploded. I see about another 10% decline over the next six months in my hood, then inflation or higher rates keep things flat. That 10% will come not because of unemployment but because S.D. and O.C. will fall and fall hard, stopping the flow of impatient fence sitters from relocating here and perhaps some reverse migration.

I’ll give you an example, 3/2 1400 sq ft townhouse with a 2 car garage listed for 165k http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33513-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-C/home/12509148
it was bought new in 2003 for 187k, these were high 300’s at peak with some touching 4. They rent for $1500 right now, vacancies are rare. 3% down fha and the P&I is just under 1k a month, tax and hoa, still under $1500. Figure the tax deduction and it is about 3-400 a month cheaper to buy than to rent, experts may not like that but people do, thats when people buy. So what does bruce norris think this unit’s bottom will be, he doesn’t know, because it’s a micro market, I don’t expect him to understand every micro market. Will it go down to 100k? I seriously doubt it. So the downside risk in my opinion is 10-20k (10%). If someone could show me an 800k carmel valley home selling for 325k that rentd for 3k, I wouldn’t talk them out of it, I’d say you are near bottom, these numbers are exactly the same as that example.

[temeculaguy]

peter, it is 2010 in Temecula, The Tsunami came through already, the price movements have already occurred, there may be some more but the bulk are behind us, now the fear for a primary long term house is interest rates.

I won’t argue that housing wont continue to decline all over the country but this question is about a specific area. 2001 prices, more than 50% off peak are commonplace in my valley, sub $100 a square with some larger homes at 80 or 90 a square are approaching building cost and well below replacement cost. New building has stopped. Some condos are now priced at $100 a square and 100x rent multiplier with cash positive on day one. The downside risk has diminished, inventory is falling slightly and nods/nots are down significantly (jury is still out because of the new state law, they may rebound). This only pertains to my zip code, not all of So Cal, and I would be more fearful of areas that have held, than those who have already imploded. I see about another 10% decline over the next six months in my hood, then inflation or higher rates keep things flat. That 10% will come not because of unemployment but because S.D. and O.C. will fall and fall hard, stopping the flow of impatient fence sitters from relocating here and perhaps some reverse migration.

I’ll give you an example, 3/2 1400 sq ft townhouse with a 2 car garage listed for 165k http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33513-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-C/home/12509148
it was bought new in 2003 for 187k, these were high 300’s at peak with some touching 4. They rent for $1500 right now, vacancies are rare. 3% down fha and the P&I is just under 1k a month, tax and hoa, still under $1500. Figure the tax deduction and it is about 3-400 a month cheaper to buy than to rent, experts may not like that but people do, thats when people buy. So what does bruce norris think this unit’s bottom will be, he doesn’t know, because it’s a micro market, I don’t expect him to understand every micro market. Will it go down to 100k? I seriously doubt it. So the downside risk in my opinion is 10-20k (10%). If someone could show me an 800k carmel valley home selling for 325k that rentd for 3k, I wouldn’t talk them out of it, I’d say you are near bottom, these numbers are exactly the same as that example.

[temeculaguy]

peter, it is 2010 in Temecula, The Tsunami came through already, the price movements have already occurred, there may be some more but the bulk are behind us, now the fear for a primary long term house is interest rates.

I won’t argue that housing wont continue to decline all over the country but this question is about a specific area. 2001 prices, more than 50% off peak are commonplace in my valley, sub $100 a square with some larger homes at 80 or 90 a square are approaching building cost and well below replacement cost. New building has stopped. Some condos are now priced at $100 a square and 100x rent multiplier with cash positive on day one. The downside risk has diminished, inventory is falling slightly and nods/nots are down significantly (jury is still out because of the new state law, they may rebound). This only pertains to my zip code, not all of So Cal, and I would be more fearful of areas that have held, than those who have already imploded. I see about another 10% decline over the next six months in my hood, then inflation or higher rates keep things flat. That 10% will come not because of unemployment but because S.D. and O.C. will fall and fall hard, stopping the flow of impatient fence sitters from relocating here and perhaps some reverse migration.

I’ll give you an example, 3/2 1400 sq ft townhouse with a 2 car garage listed for 165k http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33513-Emerson-Way-92592/unit-C/home/12509148
it was bought new in 2003 for 187k, these were high 300’s at peak with some touching 4. They rent for $1500 right now, vacancies are rare. 3% down fha and the P&I is just under 1k a month, tax and hoa, still under $1500. Figure the tax deduction and it is about 3-400 a month cheaper to buy than to rent, experts may not like that but people do, thats when people buy. So what does bruce norris think this unit’s bottom will be, he doesn’t know, because it’s a micro market, I don’t expect him to understand every micro market. Will it go down to 100k? I seriously doubt it. So the downside risk in my opinion is 10-20k (10%). If someone could show me an 800k carmel valley home selling for 325k that rentd for 3k, I wouldn’t talk them out of it, I’d say you are near bottom, these numbers are exactly the same as that example.

[scaredyclassic]

we’re not rv or dirtbike people, not really horse people. i guess we’re just weirdo homeschooler types who want some chickens and a little room. We like meadowview for sheer closeness, but could go anywhere within striking distance of temecula. i don’t liek all those dang mccain signs, but I’m tolerant and get along well with others, and if that were a real factor, i guess i couldn’t live anywhere in temecula ;). What I’m seeing is listings ranging all over the place, similar looking houses ranging from 350k-550k, with not much appreciable difference in the property. it sure seems like the downside risk has to be more than 10% if you’re buying ont he high side of the range of 350-550k, cause i could see all of them collapsing ino a pile of listings at 300k in 6 months because there’s already a 30% plus spread on similar properties. From the bottom end, though, 350-400k, it just feels to me like it could be 250-300k in a year. But I also feel theend of the empire is at hand and that we are at the end of the game and that there will be nothing good happening appreciation wise perhaps in my lfietime. I see this only as a consumption item, and have no epxctation of appreciation. I just don’t want to get hurt too badly by price implosion and would liek to ahve a place we like to raise our kids. Or am I just being way too pessimistic about the future of 1970’s era semi-custom home sin temecula? I can see investors stepping up to pay super cheap square footage prices on cash flow places, but these are quirky old houses form the 70s in varying states of disrepair requiring someone who has some money to maintain and would probably not be the kind of property that screams out to someone looking for rental. in fact, they seem like a landlord’s nightmare. Which means it’s for an owner, and the pool of people looking at the higher end of temecula properties for themselves I think will be smaller next year. My wife says poppycock, all the good stuff is going to get snatched up a nd that we should seize the carp, or carpe the dime. I tell her no, there will be places, we’re not going to “miss” it, but i have agreed to “look”. I fear that looking seriously could lead to buying, kind of like the way that first kid arrived just by considering him. I told her I would only be willing to make offers based on what i think the price will be in a year, and they will be abnoxiously low. With that proviso, i have agreed to shop a little. I’m in trouble though, aren’t I?

[scaredyclassic]

we’re not rv or dirtbike people, not really horse people. i guess we’re just weirdo homeschooler types who want some chickens and a little room. We like meadowview for sheer closeness, but could go anywhere within striking distance of temecula. i don’t liek all those dang mccain signs, but I’m tolerant and get along well with others, and if that were a real factor, i guess i couldn’t live anywhere in temecula ;). What I’m seeing is listings ranging all over the place, similar looking houses ranging from 350k-550k, with not much appreciable difference in the property. it sure seems like the downside risk has to be more than 10% if you’re buying ont he high side of the range of 350-550k, cause i could see all of them collapsing ino a pile of listings at 300k in 6 months because there’s already a 30% plus spread on similar properties. From the bottom end, though, 350-400k, it just feels to me like it could be 250-300k in a year. But I also feel theend of the empire is at hand and that we are at the end of the game and that there will be nothing good happening appreciation wise perhaps in my lfietime. I see this only as a consumption item, and have no epxctation of appreciation. I just don’t want to get hurt too badly by price implosion and would liek to ahve a place we like to raise our kids. Or am I just being way too pessimistic about the future of 1970’s era semi-custom home sin temecula? I can see investors stepping up to pay super cheap square footage prices on cash flow places, but these are quirky old houses form the 70s in varying states of disrepair requiring someone who has some money to maintain and would probably not be the kind of property that screams out to someone looking for rental. in fact, they seem like a landlord’s nightmare. Which means it’s for an owner, and the pool of people looking at the higher end of temecula properties for themselves I think will be smaller next year. My wife says poppycock, all the good stuff is going to get snatched up a nd that we should seize the carp, or carpe the dime. I tell her no, there will be places, we’re not going to “miss” it, but i have agreed to “look”. I fear that looking seriously could lead to buying, kind of like the way that first kid arrived just by considering him. I told her I would only be willing to make offers based on what i think the price will be in a year, and they will be abnoxiously low. With that proviso, i have agreed to shop a little. I’m in trouble though, aren’t I?

[scaredyclassic]

we’re not rv or dirtbike people, not really horse people. i guess we’re just weirdo homeschooler types who want some chickens and a little room. We like meadowview for sheer closeness, but could go anywhere within striking distance of temecula. i don’t liek all those dang mccain signs, but I’m tolerant and get along well with others, and if that were a real factor, i guess i couldn’t live anywhere in temecula ;). What I’m seeing is listings ranging all over the place, similar looking houses ranging from 350k-550k, with not much appreciable difference in the property. it sure seems like the downside risk has to be more than 10% if you’re buying ont he high side of the range of 350-550k, cause i could see all of them collapsing ino a pile of listings at 300k in 6 months because there’s already a 30% plus spread on similar properties. From the bottom end, though, 350-400k, it just feels to me like it could be 250-300k in a year. But I also feel theend of the empire is at hand and that we are at the end of the game and that there will be nothing good happening appreciation wise perhaps in my lfietime. I see this only as a consumption item, and have no epxctation of appreciation. I just don’t want to get hurt too badly by price implosion and would liek to ahve a place we like to raise our kids. Or am I just being way too pessimistic about the future of 1970’s era semi-custom home sin temecula? I can see investors stepping up to pay super cheap square footage prices on cash flow places, but these are quirky old houses form the 70s in varying states of disrepair requiring someone who has some money to maintain and would probably not be the kind of property that screams out to someone looking for rental. in fact, they seem like a landlord’s nightmare. Which means it’s for an owner, and the pool of people looking at the higher end of temecula properties for themselves I think will be smaller next year. My wife says poppycock, all the good stuff is going to get snatched up a nd that we should seize the carp, or carpe the dime. I tell her no, there will be places, we’re not going to “miss” it, but i have agreed to “look”. I fear that looking seriously could lead to buying, kind of like the way that first kid arrived just by considering him. I told her I would only be willing to make offers based on what i think the price will be in a year, and they will be abnoxiously low. With that proviso, i have agreed to shop a little. I’m in trouble though, aren’t I?

[scaredyclassic]

we’re not rv or dirtbike people, not really horse people. i guess we’re just weirdo homeschooler types who want some chickens and a little room. We like meadowview for sheer closeness, but could go anywhere within striking distance of temecula. i don’t liek all those dang mccain signs, but I’m tolerant and get along well with others, and if that were a real factor, i guess i couldn’t live anywhere in temecula ;). What I’m seeing is listings ranging all over the place, similar looking houses ranging from 350k-550k, with not much appreciable difference in the property. it sure seems like the downside risk has to be more than 10% if you’re buying ont he high side of the range of 350-550k, cause i could see all of them collapsing ino a pile of listings at 300k in 6 months because there’s already a 30% plus spread on similar properties. From the bottom end, though, 350-400k, it just feels to me like it could be 250-300k in a year. But I also feel theend of the empire is at hand and that we are at the end of the game and that there will be nothing good happening appreciation wise perhaps in my lfietime. I see this only as a consumption item, and have no epxctation of appreciation. I just don’t want to get hurt too badly by price implosion and would liek to ahve a place we like to raise our kids. Or am I just being way too pessimistic about the future of 1970’s era semi-custom home sin temecula? I can see investors stepping up to pay super cheap square footage prices on cash flow places, but these are quirky old houses form the 70s in varying states of disrepair requiring someone who has some money to maintain and would probably not be the kind of property that screams out to someone looking for rental. in fact, they seem like a landlord’s nightmare. Which means it’s for an owner, and the pool of people looking at the higher end of temecula properties for themselves I think will be smaller next year. My wife says poppycock, all the good stuff is going to get snatched up a nd that we should seize the carp, or carpe the dime. I tell her no, there will be places, we’re not going to “miss” it, but i have agreed to “look”. I fear that looking seriously could lead to buying, kind of like the way that first kid arrived just by considering him. I told her I would only be willing to make offers based on what i think the price will be in a year, and they will be abnoxiously low. With that proviso, i have agreed to shop a little. I’m in trouble though, aren’t I?

[scaredyclassic]

we’re not rv or dirtbike people, not really horse people. i guess we’re just weirdo homeschooler types who want some chickens and a little room. We like meadowview for sheer closeness, but could go anywhere within striking distance of temecula. i don’t liek all those dang mccain signs, but I’m tolerant and get along well with others, and if that were a real factor, i guess i couldn’t live anywhere in temecula ;). What I’m seeing is listings ranging all over the place, similar looking houses ranging from 350k-550k, with not much appreciable difference in the property. it sure seems like the downside risk has to be more than 10% if you’re buying ont he high side of the range of 350-550k, cause i could see all of them collapsing ino a pile of listings at 300k in 6 months because there’s already a 30% plus spread on similar properties. From the bottom end, though, 350-400k, it just feels to me like it could be 250-300k in a year. But I also feel theend of the empire is at hand and that we are at the end of the game and that there will be nothing good happening appreciation wise perhaps in my lfietime. I see this only as a consumption item, and have no epxctation of appreciation. I just don’t want to get hurt too badly by price implosion and would liek to ahve a place we like to raise our kids. Or am I just being way too pessimistic about the future of 1970’s era semi-custom home sin temecula? I can see investors stepping up to pay super cheap square footage prices on cash flow places, but these are quirky old houses form the 70s in varying states of disrepair requiring someone who has some money to maintain and would probably not be the kind of property that screams out to someone looking for rental. in fact, they seem like a landlord’s nightmare. Which means it’s for an owner, and the pool of people looking at the higher end of temecula properties for themselves I think will be smaller next year. My wife says poppycock, all the good stuff is going to get snatched up a nd that we should seize the carp, or carpe the dime. I tell her no, there will be places, we’re not going to “miss” it, but i have agreed to “look”. I fear that looking seriously could lead to buying, kind of like the way that first kid arrived just by considering him. I told her I would only be willing to make offers based on what i think the price will be in a year, and they will be abnoxiously low. With that proviso, i have agreed to shop a little. I’m in trouble though, aren’t I?

[ralphfurley]

TG, I’ve been keeping a fairly close eye on Murrieta/Temecula, and it looks like Murrieta is dropping much faster. Maybe because it is closer to the rest of the French Valley(?).

Anyhoo, it looked like Temecula was holding it’s value more than Murrieta. I thought they might trend downward at the same rate. But it doesn’t look like it when you can get a house for $77-90/sq.ft in Murrieta these days.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/30038-COUPLES-Ave-92562/home/8160563

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/36645-Covington-Cir-92563/home/8160331

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/38803-Vista-Rock-Dr-92563/unit-1/home/17363668

Any idea why Murrieta is tanking much faster than Temecula? K-12 education maybe? Less foreclosures? And do you think Murrieta will continue to drop faster as Temecula drops?

[ralphfurley]

TG, I’ve been keeping a fairly close eye on Murrieta/Temecula, and it looks like Murrieta is dropping much faster. Maybe because it is closer to the rest of the French Valley(?).

Anyhoo, it looked like Temecula was holding it’s value more than Murrieta. I thought they might trend downward at the same rate. But it doesn’t look like it when you can get a house for $77-90/sq.ft in Murrieta these days.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/30038-COUPLES-Ave-92562/home/8160563

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/36645-Covington-Cir-92563/home/8160331

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/38803-Vista-Rock-Dr-92563/unit-1/home/17363668

Any idea why Murrieta is tanking much faster than Temecula? K-12 education maybe? Less foreclosures? And do you think Murrieta will continue to drop faster as Temecula drops?

[ralphfurley]

TG, I’ve been keeping a fairly close eye on Murrieta/Temecula, and it looks like Murrieta is dropping much faster. Maybe because it is closer to the rest of the French Valley(?).

Anyhoo, it looked like Temecula was holding it’s value more than Murrieta. I thought they might trend downward at the same rate. But it doesn’t look like it when you can get a house for $77-90/sq.ft in Murrieta these days.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/30038-COUPLES-Ave-92562/home/8160563

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/36645-Covington-Cir-92563/home/8160331

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/38803-Vista-Rock-Dr-92563/unit-1/home/17363668

Any idea why Murrieta is tanking much faster than Temecula? K-12 education maybe? Less foreclosures? And do you think Murrieta will continue to drop faster as Temecula drops?

[ralphfurley]

TG, I’ve been keeping a fairly close eye on Murrieta/Temecula, and it looks like Murrieta is dropping much faster. Maybe because it is closer to the rest of the French Valley(?).

Anyhoo, it looked like Temecula was holding it’s value more than Murrieta. I thought they might trend downward at the same rate. But it doesn’t look like it when you can get a house for $77-90/sq.ft in Murrieta these days.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/30038-COUPLES-Ave-92562/home/8160563

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/36645-Covington-Cir-92563/home/8160331

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/38803-Vista-Rock-Dr-92563/unit-1/home/17363668

Any idea why Murrieta is tanking much faster than Temecula? K-12 education maybe? Less foreclosures? And do you think Murrieta will continue to drop faster as Temecula drops?

[Author]

Posts