North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[SD Realtor]

James Wenn that is my point exactly, that it is all relative.

John Alt I agree with you but I think maybe it is a case of a differing perspective of what we read. Both you and I read the same words sdrealtor wrote but I don’t interpret them as claiming some sort immunity for the coast. I think sdrealtor has never said that and in fact pointed out losses in the coastal areas. To me the information was more anecdotal in the sense that it made an attempt to point out the demand for the area being present in light of the higher cost of living there. That this particular portion of San Diego used to be a relatively cheaper place to live but that now it is no longer that way and will most likely NOT return to being that way. Not that it will not depreciate, but that what it was 10-15 years ago (a cheaper alternative) will no longer ever be.

Anyways maybe I read it wrong.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]

Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.

IMHO, the reason people are “holding on” here is because the govt has enabled and encouraged them to do so (free rent, anyone?). We live here, and know plenty of distressed situations. The low end was allowed to fall ~40-60% because all the govt manipulation wasn’t in place at the time they were hit (real estate declines always moves in waves, usually from the least desirable to the most desirable).

Not only that, but if sellers purchased before the bubble (pre-2001), then they still have plenty of equity and can easily sell. They have no need to “hold on” for bubble prices, as most of them never anticipated getting those prices until this decade brought idiots with their “toxic” loans.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]

Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.

IMHO, the reason people are “holding on” here is because the govt has enabled and encouraged them to do so (free rent, anyone?). We live here, and know plenty of distressed situations. The low end was allowed to fall ~40-60% because all the govt manipulation wasn’t in place at the time they were hit (real estate declines always moves in waves, usually from the least desirable to the most desirable).

Not only that, but if sellers purchased before the bubble (pre-2001), then they still have plenty of equity and can easily sell. They have no need to “hold on” for bubble prices, as most of them never anticipated getting those prices until this decade brought idiots with their “toxic” loans.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]

Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.

IMHO, the reason people are “holding on” here is because the govt has enabled and encouraged them to do so (free rent, anyone?). We live here, and know plenty of distressed situations. The low end was allowed to fall ~40-60% because all the govt manipulation wasn’t in place at the time they were hit (real estate declines always moves in waves, usually from the least desirable to the most desirable).

Not only that, but if sellers purchased before the bubble (pre-2001), then they still have plenty of equity and can easily sell. They have no need to “hold on” for bubble prices, as most of them never anticipated getting those prices until this decade brought idiots with their “toxic” loans.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]

Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.

IMHO, the reason people are “holding on” here is because the govt has enabled and encouraged them to do so (free rent, anyone?). We live here, and know plenty of distressed situations. The low end was allowed to fall ~40-60% because all the govt manipulation wasn’t in place at the time they were hit (real estate declines always moves in waves, usually from the least desirable to the most desirable).

Not only that, but if sellers purchased before the bubble (pre-2001), then they still have plenty of equity and can easily sell. They have no need to “hold on” for bubble prices, as most of them never anticipated getting those prices until this decade brought idiots with their “toxic” loans.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]

Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.

IMHO, the reason people are “holding on” here is because the govt has enabled and encouraged them to do so (free rent, anyone?). We live here, and know plenty of distressed situations. The low end was allowed to fall ~40-60% because all the govt manipulation wasn’t in place at the time they were hit (real estate declines always moves in waves, usually from the least desirable to the most desirable).

Not only that, but if sellers purchased before the bubble (pre-2001), then they still have plenty of equity and can easily sell. They have no need to “hold on” for bubble prices, as most of them never anticipated getting those prices until this decade brought idiots with their “toxic” loans.

[scaredyclassic]

this thread sort of reminds me of something my dad joked about with his business.

“well, we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume.”

[scaredyclassic]

this thread sort of reminds me of something my dad joked about with his business.

“well, we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume.”

[scaredyclassic]

this thread sort of reminds me of something my dad joked about with his business.

“well, we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume.”

[scaredyclassic]

this thread sort of reminds me of something my dad joked about with his business.

“well, we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume.”

[scaredyclassic]

this thread sort of reminds me of something my dad joked about with his business.

“well, we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume.”

[sdrealtor]

FWIW, there were no lines in 1999/2000 around here. I bought in 1999 and when the super prime lots were released they went the 1st day to people who were waiting. The other houses in phases took several weeks to sell. In the phase release I bought in, there were 11 homes of which 3 sold immediately. We bought the 4th best one available in that phase 2 weeks after it was released. we also had about a dozen unsold homes to choose from that were in previous releases that were still available and offering incentives.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW, there were no lines in 1999/2000 around here. I bought in 1999 and when the super prime lots were released they went the 1st day to people who were waiting. The other houses in phases took several weeks to sell. In the phase release I bought in, there were 11 homes of which 3 sold immediately. We bought the 4th best one available in that phase 2 weeks after it was released. we also had about a dozen unsold homes to choose from that were in previous releases that were still available and offering incentives.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW, there were no lines in 1999/2000 around here. I bought in 1999 and when the super prime lots were released they went the 1st day to people who were waiting. The other houses in phases took several weeks to sell. In the phase release I bought in, there were 11 homes of which 3 sold immediately. We bought the 4th best one available in that phase 2 weeks after it was released. we also had about a dozen unsold homes to choose from that were in previous releases that were still available and offering incentives.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW, there were no lines in 1999/2000 around here. I bought in 1999 and when the super prime lots were released they went the 1st day to people who were waiting. The other houses in phases took several weeks to sell. In the phase release I bought in, there were 11 homes of which 3 sold immediately. We bought the 4th best one available in that phase 2 weeks after it was released. we also had about a dozen unsold homes to choose from that were in previous releases that were still available and offering incentives.

[Author]

Posts