North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?

[sdcellar]

[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]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[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]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[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]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[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]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[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]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.[/quote]
Really? So you think we’re in a bubble when the price is not declining? We’ve seen that 1996 is about where the bottom was, yet you think 1997 on is the start of a new bubble?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.[/quote]
Really? So you think we’re in a bubble when the price is not declining? We’ve seen that 1996 is about where the bottom was, yet you think 1997 on is the start of a new bubble?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.[/quote]
Really? So you think we’re in a bubble when the price is not declining? We’ve seen that 1996 is about where the bottom was, yet you think 1997 on is the start of a new bubble?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.[/quote]
Really? So you think we’re in a bubble when the price is not declining? We’ve seen that 1996 is about where the bottom was, yet you think 1997 on is the start of a new bubble?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
Remember that 1997/1998-2001 marked the beginning of the bubble. People were already standing in lines to buy houses in 1999/2000 here.[/quote]
Really? So you think we’re in a bubble when the price is not declining? We’ve seen that 1996 is about where the bottom was, yet you think 1997 on is the start of a new bubble?

[an]

[quote=sdcellar][quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?[/quote]
uh, houses built in 1999 were new in 1999 but not new in 2009. Each new house build add to total inventory. Due to new home construction, total housing stock in 1999 was a lot more than in 1989. So, due to new home construction, total housing stock in 2009 was a lot more than in 1999. Do you get it now?

[an]

[quote=sdcellar][quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?[/quote]
uh, houses built in 1999 were new in 1999 but not new in 2009. Each new house build add to total inventory. Due to new home construction, total housing stock in 1999 was a lot more than in 1989. So, due to new home construction, total housing stock in 2009 was a lot more than in 1999. Do you get it now?

[an]

[quote=sdcellar][quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?[/quote]
uh, houses built in 1999 were new in 1999 but not new in 2009. Each new house build add to total inventory. Due to new home construction, total housing stock in 1999 was a lot more than in 1989. So, due to new home construction, total housing stock in 2009 was a lot more than in 1999. Do you get it now?

[an]

[quote=sdcellar][quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?[/quote]
uh, houses built in 1999 were new in 1999 but not new in 2009. Each new house build add to total inventory. Due to new home construction, total housing stock in 1999 was a lot more than in 1989. So, due to new home construction, total housing stock in 2009 was a lot more than in 1999. Do you get it now?

[Author]

Posts