- This topic has 200 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
moneymaker.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 26, 2009 at 3:19 PM #356191February 26, 2009 at 3:20 PM #355605
jetonejet
ParticipantDUPLICATE
February 26, 2009 at 3:20 PM #355915ParticipantDUPLICATE
February 26, 2009 at 3:20 PM #356055ParticipantDUPLICATE
February 26, 2009 at 3:20 PM #356082ParticipantDUPLICATE
February 26, 2009 at 3:20 PM #356196ParticipantDUPLICATE
February 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM #355645Nor-LA-SD-guy
Participant[quote=peterb]I’ll pose the counter to this. Some area’s now have home mortgages that rival rents with a 20% down fixed 30 year mortgage AND the replacement cost is probably 30% more than the sales cost. These are compelling arguements for those that have been waiting on the sidelines for many years now. “Pent-up demand” if you will.
To counter these facts, I would propose that prices are determined primarily by demand. Rents can go down as well as home prices if demand drops off. As for replacement costs…do we need more houses built anytime soon??!
BUT, I agree with you. The trend is just starting from what I can see. Unemployment is now gathering momentum at a historic pace. This will cause net migration out of CA as well as increased density in the rental market. In a credit based economy and a highly leveraged industry like RE, employment is everything. The debt must be sustainable or all bets are off. This recession is about a year old. Most run several years. Where will we be in 2011??[/quote]
“migration out of CA ”
I keep hearing this but I ask where are they going to go ???
Why ?? Are the Job’s better somewhere else ???
I don’t see companies moving out of CA like in 1989-94.
Last I heard we had the largest increase in population in 2008 in Socal since 2006 …
February 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM #355957Participant[quote=peterb]I’ll pose the counter to this. Some area’s now have home mortgages that rival rents with a 20% down fixed 30 year mortgage AND the replacement cost is probably 30% more than the sales cost. These are compelling arguements for those that have been waiting on the sidelines for many years now. “Pent-up demand” if you will.
To counter these facts, I would propose that prices are determined primarily by demand. Rents can go down as well as home prices if demand drops off. As for replacement costs…do we need more houses built anytime soon??!
BUT, I agree with you. The trend is just starting from what I can see. Unemployment is now gathering momentum at a historic pace. This will cause net migration out of CA as well as increased density in the rental market. In a credit based economy and a highly leveraged industry like RE, employment is everything. The debt must be sustainable or all bets are off. This recession is about a year old. Most run several years. Where will we be in 2011??[/quote]
“migration out of CA ”
I keep hearing this but I ask where are they going to go ???
Why ?? Are the Job’s better somewhere else ???
I don’t see companies moving out of CA like in 1989-94.
Last I heard we had the largest increase in population in 2008 in Socal since 2006 …
February 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM #356095Participant[quote=peterb]I’ll pose the counter to this. Some area’s now have home mortgages that rival rents with a 20% down fixed 30 year mortgage AND the replacement cost is probably 30% more than the sales cost. These are compelling arguements for those that have been waiting on the sidelines for many years now. “Pent-up demand” if you will.
To counter these facts, I would propose that prices are determined primarily by demand. Rents can go down as well as home prices if demand drops off. As for replacement costs…do we need more houses built anytime soon??!
BUT, I agree with you. The trend is just starting from what I can see. Unemployment is now gathering momentum at a historic pace. This will cause net migration out of CA as well as increased density in the rental market. In a credit based economy and a highly leveraged industry like RE, employment is everything. The debt must be sustainable or all bets are off. This recession is about a year old. Most run several years. Where will we be in 2011??[/quote]
“migration out of CA ”
I keep hearing this but I ask where are they going to go ???
Why ?? Are the Job’s better somewhere else ???
I don’t see companies moving out of CA like in 1989-94.
Last I heard we had the largest increase in population in 2008 in Socal since 2006 …
February 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM #356124Participant[quote=peterb]I’ll pose the counter to this. Some area’s now have home mortgages that rival rents with a 20% down fixed 30 year mortgage AND the replacement cost is probably 30% more than the sales cost. These are compelling arguements for those that have been waiting on the sidelines for many years now. “Pent-up demand” if you will.
To counter these facts, I would propose that prices are determined primarily by demand. Rents can go down as well as home prices if demand drops off. As for replacement costs…do we need more houses built anytime soon??!
BUT, I agree with you. The trend is just starting from what I can see. Unemployment is now gathering momentum at a historic pace. This will cause net migration out of CA as well as increased density in the rental market. In a credit based economy and a highly leveraged industry like RE, employment is everything. The debt must be sustainable or all bets are off. This recession is about a year old. Most run several years. Where will we be in 2011??[/quote]
“migration out of CA ”
I keep hearing this but I ask where are they going to go ???
Why ?? Are the Job’s better somewhere else ???
I don’t see companies moving out of CA like in 1989-94.
Last I heard we had the largest increase in population in 2008 in Socal since 2006 …
February 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM #356236Participant[quote=peterb]I’ll pose the counter to this. Some area’s now have home mortgages that rival rents with a 20% down fixed 30 year mortgage AND the replacement cost is probably 30% more than the sales cost. These are compelling arguements for those that have been waiting on the sidelines for many years now. “Pent-up demand” if you will.
To counter these facts, I would propose that prices are determined primarily by demand. Rents can go down as well as home prices if demand drops off. As for replacement costs…do we need more houses built anytime soon??!
BUT, I agree with you. The trend is just starting from what I can see. Unemployment is now gathering momentum at a historic pace. This will cause net migration out of CA as well as increased density in the rental market. In a credit based economy and a highly leveraged industry like RE, employment is everything. The debt must be sustainable or all bets are off. This recession is about a year old. Most run several years. Where will we be in 2011??[/quote]
“migration out of CA ”
I keep hearing this but I ask where are they going to go ???
Why ?? Are the Job’s better somewhere else ???
I don’t see companies moving out of CA like in 1989-94.
Last I heard we had the largest increase in population in 2008 in Socal since 2006 …
February 26, 2009 at 4:31 PM #355682SD Realtor
ParticipantThis is a very good thread. No we are not even close to the bottom. In fact given the current goals of this administration I am seriously reconsidering my estimates on this depreciation cycle altogether. Originally I used to be in the 2010-2011 camp. This year I have moved out a year or two. Now I do believe we will see a much more uneven depreciation cycle. Not only is it defined by serious fragmention based on housing type and zip codes, but now I feel as if we will see a much more schizophrenic behavior with bouts of cyclical rallies that result in subsidies more then market strength. This spring is the posterchild for the first one.
I cannot overemphasize the strength of the current activity. It borders on being laughable. There is not any fundamental foundation for this sort of behavior. Nothing looks good from the economic and employment front, foreclosures are not abating (at least not naturally) and there is only a concerted effort by our government to increase home values.
Note the effort is not to build a healthy housing market. The effort is not to make sure that buyers are qualified to own homes. The effort is to try to raise values by adding incentives such as low rates and tax incentives to thus stimulate buying. Additional constraints such as stemming inventory by raining tax dollars all over distressed homeowners and creating obstacles to foreclosure.
Yes
We
Can!
February 26, 2009 at 4:31 PM #355994ParticipantThis is a very good thread. No we are not even close to the bottom. In fact given the current goals of this administration I am seriously reconsidering my estimates on this depreciation cycle altogether. Originally I used to be in the 2010-2011 camp. This year I have moved out a year or two. Now I do believe we will see a much more uneven depreciation cycle. Not only is it defined by serious fragmention based on housing type and zip codes, but now I feel as if we will see a much more schizophrenic behavior with bouts of cyclical rallies that result in subsidies more then market strength. This spring is the posterchild for the first one.
I cannot overemphasize the strength of the current activity. It borders on being laughable. There is not any fundamental foundation for this sort of behavior. Nothing looks good from the economic and employment front, foreclosures are not abating (at least not naturally) and there is only a concerted effort by our government to increase home values.
Note the effort is not to build a healthy housing market. The effort is not to make sure that buyers are qualified to own homes. The effort is to try to raise values by adding incentives such as low rates and tax incentives to thus stimulate buying. Additional constraints such as stemming inventory by raining tax dollars all over distressed homeowners and creating obstacles to foreclosure.
Yes
We
Can!
February 26, 2009 at 4:31 PM #356131ParticipantThis is a very good thread. No we are not even close to the bottom. In fact given the current goals of this administration I am seriously reconsidering my estimates on this depreciation cycle altogether. Originally I used to be in the 2010-2011 camp. This year I have moved out a year or two. Now I do believe we will see a much more uneven depreciation cycle. Not only is it defined by serious fragmention based on housing type and zip codes, but now I feel as if we will see a much more schizophrenic behavior with bouts of cyclical rallies that result in subsidies more then market strength. This spring is the posterchild for the first one.
I cannot overemphasize the strength of the current activity. It borders on being laughable. There is not any fundamental foundation for this sort of behavior. Nothing looks good from the economic and employment front, foreclosures are not abating (at least not naturally) and there is only a concerted effort by our government to increase home values.
Note the effort is not to build a healthy housing market. The effort is not to make sure that buyers are qualified to own homes. The effort is to try to raise values by adding incentives such as low rates and tax incentives to thus stimulate buying. Additional constraints such as stemming inventory by raining tax dollars all over distressed homeowners and creating obstacles to foreclosure.
Yes
We
Can!
February 26, 2009 at 4:31 PM #356160ParticipantThis is a very good thread. No we are not even close to the bottom. In fact given the current goals of this administration I am seriously reconsidering my estimates on this depreciation cycle altogether. Originally I used to be in the 2010-2011 camp. This year I have moved out a year or two. Now I do believe we will see a much more uneven depreciation cycle. Not only is it defined by serious fragmention based on housing type and zip codes, but now I feel as if we will see a much more schizophrenic behavior with bouts of cyclical rallies that result in subsidies more then market strength. This spring is the posterchild for the first one.
I cannot overemphasize the strength of the current activity. It borders on being laughable. There is not any fundamental foundation for this sort of behavior. Nothing looks good from the economic and employment front, foreclosures are not abating (at least not naturally) and there is only a concerted effort by our government to increase home values.
Note the effort is not to build a healthy housing market. The effort is not to make sure that buyers are qualified to own homes. The effort is to try to raise values by adding incentives such as low rates and tax incentives to thus stimulate buying. Additional constraints such as stemming inventory by raining tax dollars all over distressed homeowners and creating obstacles to foreclosure.
Yes
We
Can!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.