North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[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]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?

[sdcellar]

Ah, I see what you’re saying now, but that also goes to my point that new home construction elevates interest in an area and helps pull resales along with it.

Makes sense, though, that annual sales volume should increase as an area grows (and I said as much earlier). So, much of the growth is normal, but it would be unwise to assume it’s all natural. We all agree that sales volume was skewed upward during the bubble years, don’t we?

[sdcellar]

Ah, I see what you’re saying now, but that also goes to my point that new home construction elevates interest in an area and helps pull resales along with it.

Makes sense, though, that annual sales volume should increase as an area grows (and I said as much earlier). So, much of the growth is normal, but it would be unwise to assume it’s all natural. We all agree that sales volume was skewed upward during the bubble years, don’t we?

[sdcellar]

Ah, I see what you’re saying now, but that also goes to my point that new home construction elevates interest in an area and helps pull resales along with it.

Makes sense, though, that annual sales volume should increase as an area grows (and I said as much earlier). So, much of the growth is normal, but it would be unwise to assume it’s all natural. We all agree that sales volume was skewed upward during the bubble years, don’t we?

[sdcellar]

Ah, I see what you’re saying now, but that also goes to my point that new home construction elevates interest in an area and helps pull resales along with it.

Makes sense, though, that annual sales volume should increase as an area grows (and I said as much earlier). So, much of the growth is normal, but it would be unwise to assume it’s all natural. We all agree that sales volume was skewed upward during the bubble years, don’t we?

[sdcellar]

Ah, I see what you’re saying now, but that also goes to my point that new home construction elevates interest in an area and helps pull resales along with it.

Makes sense, though, that annual sales volume should increase as an area grows (and I said as much earlier). So, much of the growth is normal, but it would be unwise to assume it’s all natural. We all agree that sales volume was skewed upward during the bubble years, don’t we?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN][quote=sdcellar]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?[/quote]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN][quote=sdcellar]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?[/quote]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN][quote=sdcellar]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?[/quote]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN][quote=sdcellar]
I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.[/quote]
Why do you think that?[/quote]Read the post I just made, but I’ll go with gut feeling and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

sdrealtor himself has suggested that sales “churn” increased during the bubble years.

What we need to unearth are annual resales per thousand homes by zip code and year. I’ll bet we could learn a lot from that.

[Author]

Posts