- This topic has 55 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
fsbo.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 7, 2008 at 8:31 AM #234413July 7, 2008 at 9:31 AM #234334
Eugene
ParticipantDo you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.
I don’t have good data prior to 99, unfortunately.
Levelling off is partly a seasonal thing. You can see that there’s usually an uptick around this time of year.
July 7, 2008 at 9:31 AM #234465ParticipantDo you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.
I don’t have good data prior to 99, unfortunately.
Levelling off is partly a seasonal thing. You can see that there’s usually an uptick around this time of year.
July 7, 2008 at 9:31 AM #234475ParticipantDo you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.
I don’t have good data prior to 99, unfortunately.
Levelling off is partly a seasonal thing. You can see that there’s usually an uptick around this time of year.
July 7, 2008 at 9:31 AM #234517ParticipantDo you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.
I don’t have good data prior to 99, unfortunately.
Levelling off is partly a seasonal thing. You can see that there’s usually an uptick around this time of year.
July 7, 2008 at 9:31 AM #234523ParticipantDo you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.
I don’t have good data prior to 99, unfortunately.
Levelling off is partly a seasonal thing. You can see that there’s usually an uptick around this time of year.
July 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM #234708feraina
ParticipantI see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.
From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.
July 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM #234761ParticipantI see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.
From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.
July 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM #234753ParticipantI see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.
From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.
July 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM #234700ParticipantI see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.
From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.
July 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM #234568ParticipantI see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.
From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.
July 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM #234661DWCAP
ParticipantAbout that 3% inflation figure. I would be interested to see the nominal numbers right next to it and drawl my conclusions from the two together more than just inflation adjusted numbers. What was the cost of living in 2002 and how much of that supposed wage infation is available for paying for housing? I often hear that wages relative to the cost of living have not kept pace since 2000, though I have no factual proof of this statement. What I do know is the two links below are about the same subject and yet show that everything isnt equal outside of housing either.
July 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM #234788ParticipantAbout that 3% inflation figure. I would be interested to see the nominal numbers right next to it and drawl my conclusions from the two together more than just inflation adjusted numbers. What was the cost of living in 2002 and how much of that supposed wage infation is available for paying for housing? I often hear that wages relative to the cost of living have not kept pace since 2000, though I have no factual proof of this statement. What I do know is the two links below are about the same subject and yet show that everything isnt equal outside of housing either.
July 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM #234800ParticipantAbout that 3% inflation figure. I would be interested to see the nominal numbers right next to it and drawl my conclusions from the two together more than just inflation adjusted numbers. What was the cost of living in 2002 and how much of that supposed wage infation is available for paying for housing? I often hear that wages relative to the cost of living have not kept pace since 2000, though I have no factual proof of this statement. What I do know is the two links below are about the same subject and yet show that everything isnt equal outside of housing either.
July 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM #234845ParticipantAbout that 3% inflation figure. I would be interested to see the nominal numbers right next to it and drawl my conclusions from the two together more than just inflation adjusted numbers. What was the cost of living in 2002 and how much of that supposed wage infation is available for paying for housing? I often hear that wages relative to the cost of living have not kept pace since 2000, though I have no factual proof of this statement. What I do know is the two links below are about the same subject and yet show that everything isnt equal outside of housing either.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.