- This topic has 150 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
January 6, 2011 at 1:45 PM #18358
-
January 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM #648477
SD Transplant
ParticipantPlust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
http://seekingalpha.com/article/245203-the-truth-about-the-u-s-housing-market?source=hp_wc&wc_num=3
-
January 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM #648502
permabear
ParticipantGreat charts. Glad to see Vancouver and Sydney are definitely NOT in bubbles.
LOL.
-
January 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM #648573Participant
Great charts. Glad to see Vancouver and Sydney are definitely NOT in bubbles.
LOL.
-
January 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM #649159Participant
Great charts. Glad to see Vancouver and Sydney are definitely NOT in bubbles.
LOL.
-
January 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM #649296Participant
Great charts. Glad to see Vancouver and Sydney are definitely NOT in bubbles.
LOL.
-
January 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM #649621Participant
Great charts. Glad to see Vancouver and Sydney are definitely NOT in bubbles.
LOL.
-
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #648597
Eugene
Participant[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
-
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #648617
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
-
January 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM #648647Participant
[quote=bearishgurl]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).[/quote]Yes, I think that that’s what they intended to show. But prescriptive land regulation and limited land go hand in hand. San Francisco has both. Nashville has neither.
-
January 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM #648718Participant
[quote=bearishgurl]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).[/quote]Yes, I think that that’s what they intended to show. But prescriptive land regulation and limited land go hand in hand. San Francisco has both. Nashville has neither.
-
January 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM #649304Participant
[quote=bearishgurl]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).[/quote]Yes, I think that that’s what they intended to show. But prescriptive land regulation and limited land go hand in hand. San Francisco has both. Nashville has neither.
-
January 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM #649441Participant
[quote=bearishgurl]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).[/quote]Yes, I think that that’s what they intended to show. But prescriptive land regulation and limited land go hand in hand. San Francisco has both. Nashville has neither.
-
January 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM #649766Participant
[quote=bearishgurl]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).[/quote]Yes, I think that that’s what they intended to show. But prescriptive land regulation and limited land go hand in hand. San Francisco has both. Nashville has neither.
-
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #648688Participant
[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
-
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #649274Participant
[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
-
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #649411Participant
[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
-
January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM #649736Participant
[quote=Eugene] . . . Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses. . . [/quote]
Eugene, I think what those charts were referring to by “prescriptive land regulation” was that the most “regulated city in the US,” for example, was San Francisco, CA (and in order of “regulation” on down). In other words, the areas with the most “prescriptive land regulation” were those areas with strict zoning laws and the most city ordinances and land-use regulations to navigate (in order to build/remodel).
-
-
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #648668Participant
[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
-
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #649254Participant
[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
-
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #649391Participant
[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
-
January 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM #649716Participant
[quote=SD Transplant]Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
Why is it that everyone always forgets about detached vs. attached?
The only way to get “median multiple” of 6.0 in San Diego, is to divide the median DETACHED price of $360k by the median household income of $60k, even though 40% of San Diego county households (and over 50% of San Diego city households) do not live in detached houses. Cunningham’s 4.2 makes more sense.
Naturally, places with “prescriptive land regulation” (read: limited land) have more apartments/condos and places with lots of land have more detached houses.
On the other hand, it appears that whoever did the chart used the correct metric (detached+attached) at least for some countries. In Dublin (Ireland), median HH income is hard to pin down but seems to be around €50k, median detached+attached price is €240k, and median detached price is upwards of €500k. (That’s after a 50% drop from the peak of the bubble.) In Manchester (UK), median HH income is under £30k, median detached+attached price is £150k, median detached price is £300k.
One big difference between San Diego and Dublin/Manchester is that, in San Diego, there are sufficiently many detached houses that they can be seen (erroneously) as “the” real estate market. In Dublin or Manchester, detached houses are almost nonexistent, account for less than 10% of total real estate.
-
-
January 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM #648548Participant
Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
http://seekingalpha.com/article/245203-the-truth-about-the-u-s-housing-market?source=hp_wc&wc_num=3
-
January 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM #649134Participant
Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
http://seekingalpha.com/article/245203-the-truth-about-the-u-s-housing-market?source=hp_wc&wc_num=3
-
January 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM #649271Participant
Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
http://seekingalpha.com/article/245203-the-truth-about-the-u-s-housing-market?source=hp_wc&wc_num=3
-
January 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM #649596Participant
Plust this is a cool chart on housing affordabilty
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/6/595019-129429337257722-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpg
The entire article has great data/charts
http://seekingalpha.com/article/245203-the-truth-about-the-u-s-housing-market?source=hp_wc&wc_num=3
-
January 6, 2011 at 4:11 PM #648517
an
Participant[quote=SD Transplant]It could be two decades before we get back to inflation-adjusted levels of the peak[/quote]
Based on 3% inflation, November 2005’s median home price of $517k, we should be expecting to see a nominal median price of ~$805k if this prediction is true. If inflation is 2%, median price of 768k and if inflation is at 4%, we should expect median price of $1.13M. Sounds a little too optimistic to me. -
January 6, 2011 at 4:11 PM #648588Participant
[quote=SD Transplant]It could be two decades before we get back to inflation-adjusted levels of the peak[/quote]
Based on 3% inflation, November 2005’s median home price of $517k, we should be expecting to see a nominal median price of ~$805k if this prediction is true. If inflation is 2%, median price of 768k and if inflation is at 4%, we should expect median price of $1.13M. Sounds a little too optimistic to me. -
January 6, 2011 at 4:11 PM #649174Participant
[quote=SD Transplant]It could be two decades before we get back to inflation-adjusted levels of the peak[/quote]
Based on 3% inflation, November 2005’s median home price of $517k, we should be expecting to see a nominal median price of ~$805k if this prediction is true. If inflation is 2%, median price of 768k and if inflation is at 4%, we should expect median price of $1.13M. Sounds a little too optimistic to me. -
January 6, 2011 at 4:11 PM #649311Participant
[quote=SD Transplant]It could be two decades before we get back to inflation-adjusted levels of the peak[/quote]
Based on 3% inflation, November 2005’s median home price of $517k, we should be expecting to see a nominal median price of ~$805k if this prediction is true. If inflation is 2%, median price of 768k and if inflation is at 4%, we should expect median price of $1.13M. Sounds a little too optimistic to me. -
January 6, 2011 at 4:11 PM #649636Participant
[quote=SD Transplant]It could be two decades before we get back to inflation-adjusted levels of the peak[/quote]
Based on 3% inflation, November 2005’s median home price of $517k, we should be expecting to see a nominal median price of ~$805k if this prediction is true. If inflation is 2%, median price of 768k and if inflation is at 4%, we should expect median price of $1.13M. Sounds a little too optimistic to me. -
January 6, 2011 at 4:26 PM #648522
Rich ToscanoKeymasterI would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.
-
January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM #648547
NotCranky
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
How in the world could these people featured in the article miss these points you are making?-
January 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM #648562
moneymaker
ParticipantI think we are about to see a wave of entrepreneurialism sweep the country. Big companies have no real leadership, read that as vision, and the little guy/gal that just lost their job and can’t seem to land another one will have no choice other than to start their own business, i.e. hire themselves. All that’s needed is knowledge, skill, and determination. I think this new class of small businesses will be refreshing, large companies wil continue to thrive overseas but here in the states I think this will be the decade for small business growth.
-
January 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM #648633Participant
I think we are about to see a wave of entrepreneurialism sweep the country. Big companies have no real leadership, read that as vision, and the little guy/gal that just lost their job and can’t seem to land another one will have no choice other than to start their own business, i.e. hire themselves. All that’s needed is knowledge, skill, and determination. I think this new class of small businesses will be refreshing, large companies wil continue to thrive overseas but here in the states I think this will be the decade for small business growth.
-
January 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM #649219Participant
I think we are about to see a wave of entrepreneurialism sweep the country. Big companies have no real leadership, read that as vision, and the little guy/gal that just lost their job and can’t seem to land another one will have no choice other than to start their own business, i.e. hire themselves. All that’s needed is knowledge, skill, and determination. I think this new class of small businesses will be refreshing, large companies wil continue to thrive overseas but here in the states I think this will be the decade for small business growth.
-
January 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM #649356Participant
I think we are about to see a wave of entrepreneurialism sweep the country. Big companies have no real leadership, read that as vision, and the little guy/gal that just lost their job and can’t seem to land another one will have no choice other than to start their own business, i.e. hire themselves. All that’s needed is knowledge, skill, and determination. I think this new class of small businesses will be refreshing, large companies wil continue to thrive overseas but here in the states I think this will be the decade for small business growth.
-
January 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM #649681Participant
I think we are about to see a wave of entrepreneurialism sweep the country. Big companies have no real leadership, read that as vision, and the little guy/gal that just lost their job and can’t seem to land another one will have no choice other than to start their own business, i.e. hire themselves. All that’s needed is knowledge, skill, and determination. I think this new class of small businesses will be refreshing, large companies wil continue to thrive overseas but here in the states I think this will be the decade for small business growth.
-
-
January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM #648618Participant
[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
How in the world could these people featured in the article miss these points you are making? -
January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM #649204Participant
[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
How in the world could these people featured in the article miss these points you are making? -
January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM #649341Participant
[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
How in the world could these people featured in the article miss these points you are making? -
January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM #649666Participant
[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
How in the world could these people featured in the article miss these points you are making? -
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #648632
CA renter
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
-
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #648703Participant
[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
-
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #649289Participant
[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
-
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #649426Participant
[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
-
January 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM #649751Participant
[quote=Rich Toscano]I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.[/quote]
So very well said, Rich. Thank you.
-
-
January 6, 2011 at 4:26 PM #648593Rich ToscanoKeymaster
I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.
-
January 6, 2011 at 4:26 PM #649179Rich ToscanoKeymaster
I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.
-
January 6, 2011 at 4:26 PM #649316Rich ToscanoKeymaster
I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.
-
January 6, 2011 at 4:26 PM #649641Rich ToscanoKeymaster
I would be very surprised if we ever hit the peak in INCOME-adjusted terms again. Just think how ridiculously expensive homes got compared to incomes, and what it took (lending wise) to get them there… why would that happen again?
Inflation adjusted is a little different since incomes can rise faster than inflation. But still. That’s a long way off, if ever.
I certainly don’t consider it “pessimistic” to say that we will never hit the inflation adjusted high. That was a terrible affair, in which homes were totally unaffordable and people had to take on huge debt just to buy a place to live. It seemed fun because people were profiting off the rise from expensive to really expensive… but hugely expensive housing is certainly not a desirable outcome.
-
January 7, 2011 at 1:33 AM #648652Participant
This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:08 AM #648702
sdrealtor
ParticipantEugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr
-
January 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM #648882Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr[/quote]
Here’s how it basically went.
We have these general classes of housing units (1-bedroom attached, 2-bedroom attached, …) Census gives us relative numbers of those in the city. 1-bedrooms and studios are supposed to account for 18% of all units, and 2-bedrooms account for another 30%.
But if we look at actual recorded sales over, say, the last month, the structure is different, for example, only 6% of all sales were studios and 1-bedrooms. Why? As I said above, many 1-bedrooms are apartment complexes, university housing, etc, and they are never sold on MLS.
So I just took sales prices and volumes for each category over the last month, modeled each category with a lognormal distribution, and rescaled volumes to get correct total numbers of units.
It looks like as many as 75% of all studios and 1-bedrooms and 40% of attached 2-bedrooms do not participate in the market (they can be rented, but they can’t be purchased).
-
January 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM #648947
no_such_reality
ParticipantYou also need to back out renters.
That said, the $500K ocean fronts aren’t showing up anytime soon.
-
January 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM #648997Participant
[quote=no_such_reality]You also need to back out renters.
[/quote]Not if I want to compare prices against household incomes.
-
January 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM #649068Participant
[quote=no_such_reality]You also need to back out renters.
[/quote]Not if I want to compare prices against household incomes.
-
January 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM #649654Participant
[quote=no_such_reality]You also need to back out renters.
[/quote]Not if I want to compare prices against household incomes.
-
January 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM #649790Participant
[quote=no_such_reality]You also need to back out renters.
[/quote]Not if I want to compare prices against household incomes.
-
January 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM #650116Participant
[quote=no_such_reality]You also need to back out renters.
[/quote]Not if I want to compare prices against household incomes.
-
January 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM #649018Participant
You also need to back out renters.
That said, the $500K ocean fronts aren’t showing up anytime soon.
-
January 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM #649604Participant
You also need to back out renters.
That said, the $500K ocean fronts aren’t showing up anytime soon.
-
January 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM #649740Participant
You also need to back out renters.
That said, the $500K ocean fronts aren’t showing up anytime soon.
-
January 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM #650066Participant
You also need to back out renters.
That said, the $500K ocean fronts aren’t showing up anytime soon.
-
January 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM #648953Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr[/quote]
Here’s how it basically went.
We have these general classes of housing units (1-bedroom attached, 2-bedroom attached, …) Census gives us relative numbers of those in the city. 1-bedrooms and studios are supposed to account for 18% of all units, and 2-bedrooms account for another 30%.
But if we look at actual recorded sales over, say, the last month, the structure is different, for example, only 6% of all sales were studios and 1-bedrooms. Why? As I said above, many 1-bedrooms are apartment complexes, university housing, etc, and they are never sold on MLS.
So I just took sales prices and volumes for each category over the last month, modeled each category with a lognormal distribution, and rescaled volumes to get correct total numbers of units.
It looks like as many as 75% of all studios and 1-bedrooms and 40% of attached 2-bedrooms do not participate in the market (they can be rented, but they can’t be purchased).
-
January 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM #649539Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr[/quote]
Here’s how it basically went.
We have these general classes of housing units (1-bedroom attached, 2-bedroom attached, …) Census gives us relative numbers of those in the city. 1-bedrooms and studios are supposed to account for 18% of all units, and 2-bedrooms account for another 30%.
But if we look at actual recorded sales over, say, the last month, the structure is different, for example, only 6% of all sales were studios and 1-bedrooms. Why? As I said above, many 1-bedrooms are apartment complexes, university housing, etc, and they are never sold on MLS.
So I just took sales prices and volumes for each category over the last month, modeled each category with a lognormal distribution, and rescaled volumes to get correct total numbers of units.
It looks like as many as 75% of all studios and 1-bedrooms and 40% of attached 2-bedrooms do not participate in the market (they can be rented, but they can’t be purchased).
-
January 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM #649675Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr[/quote]
Here’s how it basically went.
We have these general classes of housing units (1-bedroom attached, 2-bedroom attached, …) Census gives us relative numbers of those in the city. 1-bedrooms and studios are supposed to account for 18% of all units, and 2-bedrooms account for another 30%.
But if we look at actual recorded sales over, say, the last month, the structure is different, for example, only 6% of all sales were studios and 1-bedrooms. Why? As I said above, many 1-bedrooms are apartment complexes, university housing, etc, and they are never sold on MLS.
So I just took sales prices and volumes for each category over the last month, modeled each category with a lognormal distribution, and rescaled volumes to get correct total numbers of units.
It looks like as many as 75% of all studios and 1-bedrooms and 40% of attached 2-bedrooms do not participate in the market (they can be rented, but they can’t be purchased).
-
January 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM #650001Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr[/quote]
Here’s how it basically went.
We have these general classes of housing units (1-bedroom attached, 2-bedroom attached, …) Census gives us relative numbers of those in the city. 1-bedrooms and studios are supposed to account for 18% of all units, and 2-bedrooms account for another 30%.
But if we look at actual recorded sales over, say, the last month, the structure is different, for example, only 6% of all sales were studios and 1-bedrooms. Why? As I said above, many 1-bedrooms are apartment complexes, university housing, etc, and they are never sold on MLS.
So I just took sales prices and volumes for each category over the last month, modeled each category with a lognormal distribution, and rescaled volumes to get correct total numbers of units.
It looks like as many as 75% of all studios and 1-bedrooms and 40% of attached 2-bedrooms do not participate in the market (they can be rented, but they can’t be purchased).
-
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:08 AM #648773Participant
Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:08 AM #649359Participant
Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:08 AM #649495Participant
Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:08 AM #649821Participant
Eugene
I would love to hear more about how you cooked this up and have every confidence you did a reasonably good job. Any chance you could post more about it on your dormant blog?This is not going to please the permabears whose $500K oceanfront homes rests on you being wrong.
sdr
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM #648707Participant
Eugene it looks to me like you averaged the peaks. I think there is more area under the right half of the peak, I would think the average is closer to $350k-$400k. The definition of income and tracking it is also pretty hard to comprehend. According to the IRS lottery winnings are income and capital gains are not taxed as regular income, even though you work for the latter and not the former. I am always amazed when I hear “average household income is ??k”. I suspect it is actually higher than measured as a lot of income does not seem to get measured. Gross income and net income for me differ by a factor of 2 so that obviously makes a big difference when stating such ratios.
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM #648778Participant
Eugene it looks to me like you averaged the peaks. I think there is more area under the right half of the peak, I would think the average is closer to $350k-$400k. The definition of income and tracking it is also pretty hard to comprehend. According to the IRS lottery winnings are income and capital gains are not taxed as regular income, even though you work for the latter and not the former. I am always amazed when I hear “average household income is ??k”. I suspect it is actually higher than measured as a lot of income does not seem to get measured. Gross income and net income for me differ by a factor of 2 so that obviously makes a big difference when stating such ratios.
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM #649364Participant
Eugene it looks to me like you averaged the peaks. I think there is more area under the right half of the peak, I would think the average is closer to $350k-$400k. The definition of income and tracking it is also pretty hard to comprehend. According to the IRS lottery winnings are income and capital gains are not taxed as regular income, even though you work for the latter and not the former. I am always amazed when I hear “average household income is ??k”. I suspect it is actually higher than measured as a lot of income does not seem to get measured. Gross income and net income for me differ by a factor of 2 so that obviously makes a big difference when stating such ratios.
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM #649500Participant
Eugene it looks to me like you averaged the peaks. I think there is more area under the right half of the peak, I would think the average is closer to $350k-$400k. The definition of income and tracking it is also pretty hard to comprehend. According to the IRS lottery winnings are income and capital gains are not taxed as regular income, even though you work for the latter and not the former. I am always amazed when I hear “average household income is ??k”. I suspect it is actually higher than measured as a lot of income does not seem to get measured. Gross income and net income for me differ by a factor of 2 so that obviously makes a big difference when stating such ratios.
-
January 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM #649826Participant
Eugene it looks to me like you averaged the peaks. I think there is more area under the right half of the peak, I would think the average is closer to $350k-$400k. The definition of income and tracking it is also pretty hard to comprehend. According to the IRS lottery winnings are income and capital gains are not taxed as regular income, even though you work for the latter and not the former. I am always amazed when I hear “average household income is ??k”. I suspect it is actually higher than measured as a lot of income does not seem to get measured. Gross income and net income for me differ by a factor of 2 so that obviously makes a big difference when stating such ratios.
-
January 8, 2011 at 3:23 AM #649122Participant
[quote=Eugene]This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.[/quote]
Thanks for the graphs, Eugene.
Perhaps I’m not reading these charts correctly, but it would seem they ought to be leaning more to the right. This does not seem to correlate with what I’m seeing on the ground. Of course, even I would admit that some areas are pretty close to “reasonable,” but these graphs make it look like everthing is just hunky-dory.
-
January 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM #649147Participant
From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?
-
January 8, 2011 at 9:47 AM #649167
pemeliza
Participant“What is stopping them is fear of further declines.”
Yes, and right now I can’t say that I blame them. Nothing in this current market is giving me the impression that we are at a turning point in psychology.
Here is a specific example in Mt Helix which is a pretty decent family area that has recently been pounded. This looks like a very good deal well below recent sales and it is sitting.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100069201-10021_Resmar_Ct_La_Mesa_CA_91941
Basically, the seller bought the house 20 years ago and will be lucky to break even after commissions. Two lost decades and that is after the government took over the mortgage market and spent trillions buying down mortgage rates to historic lows.
-
January 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #649307Participant
Great example. Ask any bubblesitters still out there and they will tell you 3% annual appreciation from 1990 pricing is too high.
BTW there are 6 houses on Resmar Ct/Pl/Rd sitting unsold. That speaks to desireability of the location so apparently those prices are still too high
-
January 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #649378Participant
Great example. Ask any bubblesitters still out there and they will tell you 3% annual appreciation from 1990 pricing is too high.
BTW there are 6 houses on Resmar Ct/Pl/Rd sitting unsold. That speaks to desireability of the location so apparently those prices are still too high
-
January 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #649964Participant
Great example. Ask any bubblesitters still out there and they will tell you 3% annual appreciation from 1990 pricing is too high.
BTW there are 6 houses on Resmar Ct/Pl/Rd sitting unsold. That speaks to desireability of the location so apparently those prices are still too high
-
January 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #650100Participant
Great example. Ask any bubblesitters still out there and they will tell you 3% annual appreciation from 1990 pricing is too high.
BTW there are 6 houses on Resmar Ct/Pl/Rd sitting unsold. That speaks to desireability of the location so apparently those prices are still too high
-
January 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #650425Participant
Great example. Ask any bubblesitters still out there and they will tell you 3% annual appreciation from 1990 pricing is too high.
BTW there are 6 houses on Resmar Ct/Pl/Rd sitting unsold. That speaks to desireability of the location so apparently those prices are still too high
-
January 8, 2011 at 9:47 AM #649238Participant
“What is stopping them is fear of further declines.”
Yes, and right now I can’t say that I blame them. Nothing in this current market is giving me the impression that we are at a turning point in psychology.
Here is a specific example in Mt Helix which is a pretty decent family area that has recently been pounded. This looks like a very good deal well below recent sales and it is sitting.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100069201-10021_Resmar_Ct_La_Mesa_CA_91941
Basically, the seller bought the house 20 years ago and will be lucky to break even after commissions. Two lost decades and that is after the government took over the mortgage market and spent trillions buying down mortgage rates to historic lows.
-
January 8, 2011 at 9:47 AM #649824Participant
“What is stopping them is fear of further declines.”
Yes, and right now I can’t say that I blame them. Nothing in this current market is giving me the impression that we are at a turning point in psychology.
Here is a specific example in Mt Helix which is a pretty decent family area that has recently been pounded. This looks like a very good deal well below recent sales and it is sitting.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100069201-10021_Resmar_Ct_La_Mesa_CA_91941
Basically, the seller bought the house 20 years ago and will be lucky to break even after commissions. Two lost decades and that is after the government took over the mortgage market and spent trillions buying down mortgage rates to historic lows.
-
January 8, 2011 at 9:47 AM #649960Participant
“What is stopping them is fear of further declines.”
Yes, and right now I can’t say that I blame them. Nothing in this current market is giving me the impression that we are at a turning point in psychology.
Here is a specific example in Mt Helix which is a pretty decent family area that has recently been pounded. This looks like a very good deal well below recent sales and it is sitting.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100069201-10021_Resmar_Ct_La_Mesa_CA_91941
Basically, the seller bought the house 20 years ago and will be lucky to break even after commissions. Two lost decades and that is after the government took over the mortgage market and spent trillions buying down mortgage rates to historic lows.
-
January 8, 2011 at 9:47 AM #650285Participant
“What is stopping them is fear of further declines.”
Yes, and right now I can’t say that I blame them. Nothing in this current market is giving me the impression that we are at a turning point in psychology.
Here is a specific example in Mt Helix which is a pretty decent family area that has recently been pounded. This looks like a very good deal well below recent sales and it is sitting.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100069201-10021_Resmar_Ct_La_Mesa_CA_91941
Basically, the seller bought the house 20 years ago and will be lucky to break even after commissions. Two lost decades and that is after the government took over the mortgage market and spent trillions buying down mortgage rates to historic lows.
-
January 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM #649387Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?[/quote]
The fear of prices falling further is certainly part of the reason we’re sitting on the sidelines. The fear of falling prices is perfectly rational, considering the following:
1. The government apparently doesn’t believe that prices have bottomed; if they did, they wouldn’t be pushing hundreds of billions of dollars (actually, trillions) into the credit market. They also wouldn’t be continuing their “foreclosure moratoriums” whether by direct intervention or “robo-signing” holds. They wouldn’t be propping up banks and allowing/encouraging them to keep houses off the market, if they thought prices have bottomed.
2. Banks and investors of all stripes would be back in the mortgage market if they thought the collateral was fairly valued, and if they thought interest rates were going to stay low. As it stands, the mortgage market is almost 100% govt-backed.
So…if the government doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, and if the private mortgage market doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, why should buyers think prices have bottomed?
Additionally, I’m expecting large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector. The “financial elite” have been quite successful in distracting and duping the sheeple into believing that the “finanical crisis” was somehow caused by unions. If we see large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector, that will begin a new wave of deflation and defaults.
Other than for emotional or family reasons, why in the world would anyone want to buy now, especially in areas that weren’t allowed to fall, yet?
-
January 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM #649472Participant
Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.
-
January 8, 2011 at 7:55 PM #649567Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.[/quote]
It’s affordable to us because of certain circumstances; it’s not as “affordable” as I’d like based on our earned income.
The higher end was not allowed to fall (as much as it should have) because the government stepped in once it became obvious that “subprime” was NOT “contained.” The lower end fell first because those buyers had absolutely no buffer, and many of them were literally paying their mortgages by getting new, larger mortgages. It took no time at all for them to default, because they had no downpayments (in many/most cases), and not enough income to make their monthly payments if prices stopped going up (which allowed them to “cash out” their equity to pay their debts and mortgages).
The mid and higher tiers had more of a buffer because the sellers of the starter homes during the bubble were able to bring hundreds of thousands of dollars with them to put down on a house in a mid-higher tier area (this is why you saw housing prices increase by about the same dollar amount, as opposed to a similar percentage). Many of these people did a final “cash out” before the crash and banked that money (I know of a few who did this), and others at least had equity that enabled them to sell, even if they lost some of their down payment. That’s why it looks like there is “less distress” in the higher-end areas.
AS the declines were moving into the “prime” mid-high tiers, the govt/Fed freaked out and began with the “foreclosure moratoriums” and govt-backed mortgage market.
The bulk of the declines happened in late 2007/early 2008, when the credit market froze up. Once the govt stepped in, the declines tapered off, and the mid-high end was spared much of the damage seen in the lower-end areas.
If the Fed/govt had never intervened, I fully believe prices in the “more desirable” areas would have seen declines similar to the declines seen in the lower-end areas.
Because of this intervention, prices in the better areas have not been “allowed” to fall…yet. We will see if the govt steps back once the risks are shifted from the private market to the taxpayers. That transfer is almost completed, which makes me think the downturn will resume within the next year.
It was ALWAYS about saving the banks. They never cared at all about “keeping FBs in their homes.”
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:41 AM #649733Participant
But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.
-
January 9, 2011 at 9:41 AM #649838Participant
As I pointed out in another thread, there are more high income earner in NCC today than 10 years ago. Here are the numbers again specifically for Encinitas and Carlsbad:
Carlsbad:
>$150k: 3,753 (year 2000), 5720 (year 2009)
>$100k: 8933 (year 2000), 13218 (year 2009)
Encinitas:
>$150k: 3,021 (year 2000), 3355 (year 2009)
>$100k: 6603 (year 2000), 7558 (year 2009)How many new homes have been built in Carlsbad/Encinitas over that period of time? There are 2301 more families making >$150k and 5150 more families making >$100k. Have there been enough new houses to meet this demand?
Median HHI in Carlsbad was $65,854 in 2000 and it’s $101,358 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $72,281. For Encinitas, it was $64,821 in 2000 and it’s $99,043 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $70,630. So yes, income has risen by over 50% over the last 10 years in nominal term.
-
January 9, 2011 at 9:41 AM #649907Participant
As I pointed out in another thread, there are more high income earner in NCC today than 10 years ago. Here are the numbers again specifically for Encinitas and Carlsbad:
Carlsbad:
>$150k: 3,753 (year 2000), 5720 (year 2009)
>$100k: 8933 (year 2000), 13218 (year 2009)
Encinitas:
>$150k: 3,021 (year 2000), 3355 (year 2009)
>$100k: 6603 (year 2000), 7558 (year 2009)How many new homes have been built in Carlsbad/Encinitas over that period of time? There are 2301 more families making >$150k and 5150 more families making >$100k. Have there been enough new houses to meet this demand?
Median HHI in Carlsbad was $65,854 in 2000 and it’s $101,358 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $72,281. For Encinitas, it was $64,821 in 2000 and it’s $99,043 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $70,630. So yes, income has risen by over 50% over the last 10 years in nominal term.
-
January 9, 2011 at 9:41 AM #650492Participant
As I pointed out in another thread, there are more high income earner in NCC today than 10 years ago. Here are the numbers again specifically for Encinitas and Carlsbad:
Carlsbad:
>$150k: 3,753 (year 2000), 5720 (year 2009)
>$100k: 8933 (year 2000), 13218 (year 2009)
Encinitas:
>$150k: 3,021 (year 2000), 3355 (year 2009)
>$100k: 6603 (year 2000), 7558 (year 2009)How many new homes have been built in Carlsbad/Encinitas over that period of time? There are 2301 more families making >$150k and 5150 more families making >$100k. Have there been enough new houses to meet this demand?
Median HHI in Carlsbad was $65,854 in 2000 and it’s $101,358 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $72,281. For Encinitas, it was $64,821 in 2000 and it’s $99,043 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $70,630. So yes, income has risen by over 50% over the last 10 years in nominal term.
-
January 9, 2011 at 9:41 AM #650628Participant
As I pointed out in another thread, there are more high income earner in NCC today than 10 years ago. Here are the numbers again specifically for Encinitas and Carlsbad:
Carlsbad:
>$150k: 3,753 (year 2000), 5720 (year 2009)
>$100k: 8933 (year 2000), 13218 (year 2009)
Encinitas:
>$150k: 3,021 (year 2000), 3355 (year 2009)
>$100k: 6603 (year 2000), 7558 (year 2009)How many new homes have been built in Carlsbad/Encinitas over that period of time? There are 2301 more families making >$150k and 5150 more families making >$100k. Have there been enough new houses to meet this demand?
Median HHI in Carlsbad was $65,854 in 2000 and it’s $101,358 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $72,281. For Encinitas, it was $64,821 in 2000 and it’s $99,043 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $70,630. So yes, income has risen by over 50% over the last 10 years in nominal term.
-
January 9, 2011 at 9:41 AM #650949Participant
As I pointed out in another thread, there are more high income earner in NCC today than 10 years ago. Here are the numbers again specifically for Encinitas and Carlsbad:
Carlsbad:
>$150k: 3,753 (year 2000), 5720 (year 2009)
>$100k: 8933 (year 2000), 13218 (year 2009)
Encinitas:
>$150k: 3,021 (year 2000), 3355 (year 2009)
>$100k: 6603 (year 2000), 7558 (year 2009)How many new homes have been built in Carlsbad/Encinitas over that period of time? There are 2301 more families making >$150k and 5150 more families making >$100k. Have there been enough new houses to meet this demand?
Median HHI in Carlsbad was $65,854 in 2000 and it’s $101,358 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $72,281. For Encinitas, it was $64,821 in 2000 and it’s $99,043 in 2009 not adjusted for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, it’s $70,630. So yes, income has risen by over 50% over the last 10 years in nominal term.
-
January 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM #650038Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.[/quote]
Actually, the patterns of price increases and declines happened pretty much the same across the country (and around the world, in many cases). The low end dropped first, because there was no buffer, and the Fed/govt restrained themselves because, “subprime was contained.” The declines began moving into the better areas (and Alt-A and prime mortgages), and then the intervention began in a way we’ve never seen before.
You are too focused on your micro-area, sdr. If you look around, you’ll see the same pattern everywhere. In cities all around the country, the mid/higher-end is levitating above normal, historical ratios when compared to the lower-end areas. The buoyancy of the mid-higher end is completely due to the govt/central bank intervention.
With all due respect, I’ve been here all my life, and have lived through multiple RE cycles in California. I’ll trust my knowledge, experience and frame of historical reference over your optimistic beliefs about real estate. It’s nothing personal, but what you’re saying has been said during every single bubble in California. I’ve seen the carnage in “bullet proof” areas before, and that was during a much better economy.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:44 PM #650123Participant
I dont understand how expecting a flat to slightly decreasing market for the next 5 years could be considered optimistic. I am as pragmatic a person I know.
Markets are behaving differently everywhere. The high end has been high harder other places than our market has. How can you beleive federal gov’t policies are holding our prices up while allowing them to collpase in LV, PHX, FLA or East County. One of my neighbors moved to LV. I begged them not to sell, to rent out their house so they could come back in several year and rent a palace in LV. If they had that house would be down 10% from where they sold it. Instead they took that same money to LV and wha tthey bought is down over 50%, Does the govt love NCC anymore??? I dont think so. How can it be so hard to beleive there could be some fundamental strengths in our market that are keeping prices more stable here than other markets.
AN brough stats showing dramatic changes in teh incomes yet you deny anything fundamentally has changed. You can talk all the experience in SoCal you want. I grew up somewhere that I watched change the same way through multiple RE cycles. Its a very different place than it was in the 60″s and 70’s just like So Cal is. You refuse to believe are3as can change because that runs counter to your best interests. I have no best interests that concern me other than having fun every day wtih my children. Nothing else comes close to mattering to me. Pull out all the straw man arguments you want about bullet proof areas which I have never supported or said. Its all about attitude. You can chose to be positive and look for way to grow or you can stew. i choose the former.
-
January 10, 2011 at 2:07 AM #650188Participant
You’re right, sdr; I am wrong. It’s different here, and it’s different this time.
All that govt/Fed intervention did NOT affect housing prices at all. Nope, prices are exactly where they would have been without the low rates, the tax credits, the foreclosure moratoriums, the loan mods, etc. It is 100% my imagination that prices are still levitating above where they should be. We should buy before being “priced out, forever,” because all the rich people are coming to “snap up” NCC real estate.
It is so obvious now.
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM #651924
Huckleberry
ParticipantI have to side with CAR on all accounts in this thread…
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM #651954Participant
Feel free to, You have the right to be wrong also;)
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM #652020Participant
Feel free to, You have the right to be wrong also;)
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM #652610Participant
Feel free to, You have the right to be wrong also;)
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM #652746Participant
Feel free to, You have the right to be wrong also;)
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM #653075Participant
Feel free to, You have the right to be wrong also;)
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM #651990Participant
I have to side with CAR on all accounts in this thread…
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM #652580Participant
I have to side with CAR on all accounts in this thread…
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM #652716Participant
I have to side with CAR on all accounts in this thread…
-
January 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM #653045Participant
I have to side with CAR on all accounts in this thread…
-
January 10, 2011 at 2:07 AM #650257Participant
You’re right, sdr; I am wrong. It’s different here, and it’s different this time.
All that govt/Fed intervention did NOT affect housing prices at all. Nope, prices are exactly where they would have been without the low rates, the tax credits, the foreclosure moratoriums, the loan mods, etc. It is 100% my imagination that prices are still levitating above where they should be. We should buy before being “priced out, forever,” because all the rich people are coming to “snap up” NCC real estate.
It is so obvious now.
-
January 10, 2011 at 2:07 AM #650837Participant
You’re right, sdr; I am wrong. It’s different here, and it’s different this time.
All that govt/Fed intervention did NOT affect housing prices at all. Nope, prices are exactly where they would have been without the low rates, the tax credits, the foreclosure moratoriums, the loan mods, etc. It is 100% my imagination that prices are still levitating above where they should be. We should buy before being “priced out, forever,” because all the rich people are coming to “snap up” NCC real estate.
It is so obvious now.
-
January 10, 2011 at 2:07 AM #650974Participant
You’re right, sdr; I am wrong. It’s different here, and it’s different this time.
All that govt/Fed intervention did NOT affect housing prices at all. Nope, prices are exactly where they would have been without the low rates, the tax credits, the foreclosure moratoriums, the loan mods, etc. It is 100% my imagination that prices are still levitating above where they should be. We should buy before being “priced out, forever,” because all the rich people are coming to “snap up” NCC real estate.
It is so obvious now.
-
January 10, 2011 at 2:07 AM #651299Participant
You’re right, sdr; I am wrong. It’s different here, and it’s different this time.
All that govt/Fed intervention did NOT affect housing prices at all. Nope, prices are exactly where they would have been without the low rates, the tax credits, the foreclosure moratoriums, the loan mods, etc. It is 100% my imagination that prices are still levitating above where they should be. We should buy before being “priced out, forever,” because all the rich people are coming to “snap up” NCC real estate.
It is so obvious now.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:44 PM #650192Participant
I dont understand how expecting a flat to slightly decreasing market for the next 5 years could be considered optimistic. I am as pragmatic a person I know.
Markets are behaving differently everywhere. The high end has been high harder other places than our market has. How can you beleive federal gov’t policies are holding our prices up while allowing them to collpase in LV, PHX, FLA or East County. One of my neighbors moved to LV. I begged them not to sell, to rent out their house so they could come back in several year and rent a palace in LV. If they had that house would be down 10% from where they sold it. Instead they took that same money to LV and wha tthey bought is down over 50%, Does the govt love NCC anymore??? I dont think so. How can it be so hard to beleive there could be some fundamental strengths in our market that are keeping prices more stable here than other markets.
AN brough stats showing dramatic changes in teh incomes yet you deny anything fundamentally has changed. You can talk all the experience in SoCal you want. I grew up somewhere that I watched change the same way through multiple RE cycles. Its a very different place than it was in the 60″s and 70’s just like So Cal is. You refuse to believe are3as can change because that runs counter to your best interests. I have no best interests that concern me other than having fun every day wtih my children. Nothing else comes close to mattering to me. Pull out all the straw man arguments you want about bullet proof areas which I have never supported or said. Its all about attitude. You can chose to be positive and look for way to grow or you can stew. i choose the former.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:44 PM #650774Participant
I dont understand how expecting a flat to slightly decreasing market for the next 5 years could be considered optimistic. I am as pragmatic a person I know.
Markets are behaving differently everywhere. The high end has been high harder other places than our market has. How can you beleive federal gov’t policies are holding our prices up while allowing them to collpase in LV, PHX, FLA or East County. One of my neighbors moved to LV. I begged them not to sell, to rent out their house so they could come back in several year and rent a palace in LV. If they had that house would be down 10% from where they sold it. Instead they took that same money to LV and wha tthey bought is down over 50%, Does the govt love NCC anymore??? I dont think so. How can it be so hard to beleive there could be some fundamental strengths in our market that are keeping prices more stable here than other markets.
AN brough stats showing dramatic changes in teh incomes yet you deny anything fundamentally has changed. You can talk all the experience in SoCal you want. I grew up somewhere that I watched change the same way through multiple RE cycles. Its a very different place than it was in the 60″s and 70’s just like So Cal is. You refuse to believe are3as can change because that runs counter to your best interests. I have no best interests that concern me other than having fun every day wtih my children. Nothing else comes close to mattering to me. Pull out all the straw man arguments you want about bullet proof areas which I have never supported or said. Its all about attitude. You can chose to be positive and look for way to grow or you can stew. i choose the former.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:44 PM #650908Participant
I dont understand how expecting a flat to slightly decreasing market for the next 5 years could be considered optimistic. I am as pragmatic a person I know.
Markets are behaving differently everywhere. The high end has been high harder other places than our market has. How can you beleive federal gov’t policies are holding our prices up while allowing them to collpase in LV, PHX, FLA or East County. One of my neighbors moved to LV. I begged them not to sell, to rent out their house so they could come back in several year and rent a palace in LV. If they had that house would be down 10% from where they sold it. Instead they took that same money to LV and wha tthey bought is down over 50%, Does the govt love NCC anymore??? I dont think so. How can it be so hard to beleive there could be some fundamental strengths in our market that are keeping prices more stable here than other markets.
AN brough stats showing dramatic changes in teh incomes yet you deny anything fundamentally has changed. You can talk all the experience in SoCal you want. I grew up somewhere that I watched change the same way through multiple RE cycles. Its a very different place than it was in the 60″s and 70’s just like So Cal is. You refuse to believe are3as can change because that runs counter to your best interests. I have no best interests that concern me other than having fun every day wtih my children. Nothing else comes close to mattering to me. Pull out all the straw man arguments you want about bullet proof areas which I have never supported or said. Its all about attitude. You can chose to be positive and look for way to grow or you can stew. i choose the former.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:44 PM #651235Participant
I dont understand how expecting a flat to slightly decreasing market for the next 5 years could be considered optimistic. I am as pragmatic a person I know.
Markets are behaving differently everywhere. The high end has been high harder other places than our market has. How can you beleive federal gov’t policies are holding our prices up while allowing them to collpase in LV, PHX, FLA or East County. One of my neighbors moved to LV. I begged them not to sell, to rent out their house so they could come back in several year and rent a palace in LV. If they had that house would be down 10% from where they sold it. Instead they took that same money to LV and wha tthey bought is down over 50%, Does the govt love NCC anymore??? I dont think so. How can it be so hard to beleive there could be some fundamental strengths in our market that are keeping prices more stable here than other markets.
AN brough stats showing dramatic changes in teh incomes yet you deny anything fundamentally has changed. You can talk all the experience in SoCal you want. I grew up somewhere that I watched change the same way through multiple RE cycles. Its a very different place than it was in the 60″s and 70’s just like So Cal is. You refuse to believe are3as can change because that runs counter to your best interests. I have no best interests that concern me other than having fun every day wtih my children. Nothing else comes close to mattering to me. Pull out all the straw man arguments you want about bullet proof areas which I have never supported or said. Its all about attitude. You can chose to be positive and look for way to grow or you can stew. i choose the former.
-
January 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM #650107Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.[/quote]
Actually, the patterns of price increases and declines happened pretty much the same across the country (and around the world, in many cases). The low end dropped first, because there was no buffer, and the Fed/govt restrained themselves because, “subprime was contained.” The declines began moving into the better areas (and Alt-A and prime mortgages), and then the intervention began in a way we’ve never seen before.
You are too focused on your micro-area, sdr. If you look around, you’ll see the same pattern everywhere. In cities all around the country, the mid/higher-end is levitating above normal, historical ratios when compared to the lower-end areas. The buoyancy of the mid-higher end is completely due to the govt/central bank intervention.
With all due respect, I’ve been here all my life, and have lived through multiple RE cycles in California. I’ll trust my knowledge, experience and frame of historical reference over your optimistic beliefs about real estate. It’s nothing personal, but what you’re saying has been said during every single bubble in California. I’ve seen the carnage in “bullet proof” areas before, and that was during a much better economy.
-
January 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM #650690Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.[/quote]
Actually, the patterns of price increases and declines happened pretty much the same across the country (and around the world, in many cases). The low end dropped first, because there was no buffer, and the Fed/govt restrained themselves because, “subprime was contained.” The declines began moving into the better areas (and Alt-A and prime mortgages), and then the intervention began in a way we’ve never seen before.
You are too focused on your micro-area, sdr. If you look around, you’ll see the same pattern everywhere. In cities all around the country, the mid/higher-end is levitating above normal, historical ratios when compared to the lower-end areas. The buoyancy of the mid-higher end is completely due to the govt/central bank intervention.
With all due respect, I’ve been here all my life, and have lived through multiple RE cycles in California. I’ll trust my knowledge, experience and frame of historical reference over your optimistic beliefs about real estate. It’s nothing personal, but what you’re saying has been said during every single bubble in California. I’ve seen the carnage in “bullet proof” areas before, and that was during a much better economy.
-
January 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM #650825Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.[/quote]
Actually, the patterns of price increases and declines happened pretty much the same across the country (and around the world, in many cases). The low end dropped first, because there was no buffer, and the Fed/govt restrained themselves because, “subprime was contained.” The declines began moving into the better areas (and Alt-A and prime mortgages), and then the intervention began in a way we’ve never seen before.
You are too focused on your micro-area, sdr. If you look around, you’ll see the same pattern everywhere. In cities all around the country, the mid/higher-end is levitating above normal, historical ratios when compared to the lower-end areas. The buoyancy of the mid-higher end is completely due to the govt/central bank intervention.
With all due respect, I’ve been here all my life, and have lived through multiple RE cycles in California. I’ll trust my knowledge, experience and frame of historical reference over your optimistic beliefs about real estate. It’s nothing personal, but what you’re saying has been said during every single bubble in California. I’ve seen the carnage in “bullet proof” areas before, and that was during a much better economy.
-
January 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM #651150Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.[/quote]
Actually, the patterns of price increases and declines happened pretty much the same across the country (and around the world, in many cases). The low end dropped first, because there was no buffer, and the Fed/govt restrained themselves because, “subprime was contained.” The declines began moving into the better areas (and Alt-A and prime mortgages), and then the intervention began in a way we’ve never seen before.
You are too focused on your micro-area, sdr. If you look around, you’ll see the same pattern everywhere. In cities all around the country, the mid/higher-end is levitating above normal, historical ratios when compared to the lower-end areas. The buoyancy of the mid-higher end is completely due to the govt/central bank intervention.
With all due respect, I’ve been here all my life, and have lived through multiple RE cycles in California. I’ll trust my knowledge, experience and frame of historical reference over your optimistic beliefs about real estate. It’s nothing personal, but what you’re saying has been said during every single bubble in California. I’ve seen the carnage in “bullet proof” areas before, and that was during a much better economy.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:41 AM #649802Participant
But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:41 AM #650387Participant
But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:41 AM #650522Participant
But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.
-
January 9, 2011 at 8:41 AM #650846Participant
But the high end has fallen tremendously in certain areas. Not necessarily NCC SD but other high end areas across the country and in many parts of SD also. Were the policies set up to support NCC high end RE while allowing it to collapse in LV, PHX,FLA and even East County SD? This is utter nonsense you are putting forth.
Its the middle that is holding strongest as it should.
As for your certain circumstances, well everyone has certain circumstances specific to their own situation and many people have certain circumstances that allow them to buy here. The area you are looking has changed dramatically the last two decades and we have covered that ad infnitum in the past so dont try to throw out the old working class families used to be able to buy in Encinitas. The Encinitas of today is very different than the Encinitas of years long past.
Right or wrong, you are fighting a losing battle. The world is as it is and you either adopt an attitude that allows you suceed in it or you sit by and stew. It really is your choice and only yours.
-
January 8, 2011 at 7:55 PM #649637Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.[/quote]
It’s affordable to us because of certain circumstances; it’s not as “affordable” as I’d like based on our earned income.
The higher end was not allowed to fall (as much as it should have) because the government stepped in once it became obvious that “subprime” was NOT “contained.” The lower end fell first because those buyers had absolutely no buffer, and many of them were literally paying their mortgages by getting new, larger mortgages. It took no time at all for them to default, because they had no downpayments (in many/most cases), and not enough income to make their monthly payments if prices stopped going up (which allowed them to “cash out” their equity to pay their debts and mortgages).
The mid and higher tiers had more of a buffer because the sellers of the starter homes during the bubble were able to bring hundreds of thousands of dollars with them to put down on a house in a mid-higher tier area (this is why you saw housing prices increase by about the same dollar amount, as opposed to a similar percentage). Many of these people did a final “cash out” before the crash and banked that money (I know of a few who did this), and others at least had equity that enabled them to sell, even if they lost some of their down payment. That’s why it looks like there is “less distress” in the higher-end areas.
AS the declines were moving into the “prime” mid-high tiers, the govt/Fed freaked out and began with the “foreclosure moratoriums” and govt-backed mortgage market.
The bulk of the declines happened in late 2007/early 2008, when the credit market froze up. Once the govt stepped in, the declines tapered off, and the mid-high end was spared much of the damage seen in the lower-end areas.
If the Fed/govt had never intervened, I fully believe prices in the “more desirable” areas would have seen declines similar to the declines seen in the lower-end areas.
Because of this intervention, prices in the better areas have not been “allowed” to fall…yet. We will see if the govt steps back once the risks are shifted from the private market to the taxpayers. That transfer is almost completed, which makes me think the downturn will resume within the next year.
It was ALWAYS about saving the banks. They never cared at all about “keeping FBs in their homes.”
-
January 8, 2011 at 7:55 PM #650224Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.[/quote]
It’s affordable to us because of certain circumstances; it’s not as “affordable” as I’d like based on our earned income.
The higher end was not allowed to fall (as much as it should have) because the government stepped in once it became obvious that “subprime” was NOT “contained.” The lower end fell first because those buyers had absolutely no buffer, and many of them were literally paying their mortgages by getting new, larger mortgages. It took no time at all for them to default, because they had no downpayments (in many/most cases), and not enough income to make their monthly payments if prices stopped going up (which allowed them to “cash out” their equity to pay their debts and mortgages).
The mid and higher tiers had more of a buffer because the sellers of the starter homes during the bubble were able to bring hundreds of thousands of dollars with them to put down on a house in a mid-higher tier area (this is why you saw housing prices increase by about the same dollar amount, as opposed to a similar percentage). Many of these people did a final “cash out” before the crash and banked that money (I know of a few who did this), and others at least had equity that enabled them to sell, even if they lost some of their down payment. That’s why it looks like there is “less distress” in the higher-end areas.
AS the declines were moving into the “prime” mid-high tiers, the govt/Fed freaked out and began with the “foreclosure moratoriums” and govt-backed mortgage market.
The bulk of the declines happened in late 2007/early 2008, when the credit market froze up. Once the govt stepped in, the declines tapered off, and the mid-high end was spared much of the damage seen in the lower-end areas.
If the Fed/govt had never intervened, I fully believe prices in the “more desirable” areas would have seen declines similar to the declines seen in the lower-end areas.
Because of this intervention, prices in the better areas have not been “allowed” to fall…yet. We will see if the govt steps back once the risks are shifted from the private market to the taxpayers. That transfer is almost completed, which makes me think the downturn will resume within the next year.
It was ALWAYS about saving the banks. They never cared at all about “keeping FBs in their homes.”
-
January 8, 2011 at 7:55 PM #650358Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.[/quote]
It’s affordable to us because of certain circumstances; it’s not as “affordable” as I’d like based on our earned income.
The higher end was not allowed to fall (as much as it should have) because the government stepped in once it became obvious that “subprime” was NOT “contained.” The lower end fell first because those buyers had absolutely no buffer, and many of them were literally paying their mortgages by getting new, larger mortgages. It took no time at all for them to default, because they had no downpayments (in many/most cases), and not enough income to make their monthly payments if prices stopped going up (which allowed them to “cash out” their equity to pay their debts and mortgages).
The mid and higher tiers had more of a buffer because the sellers of the starter homes during the bubble were able to bring hundreds of thousands of dollars with them to put down on a house in a mid-higher tier area (this is why you saw housing prices increase by about the same dollar amount, as opposed to a similar percentage). Many of these people did a final “cash out” before the crash and banked that money (I know of a few who did this), and others at least had equity that enabled them to sell, even if they lost some of their down payment. That’s why it looks like there is “less distress” in the higher-end areas.
AS the declines were moving into the “prime” mid-high tiers, the govt/Fed freaked out and began with the “foreclosure moratoriums” and govt-backed mortgage market.
The bulk of the declines happened in late 2007/early 2008, when the credit market froze up. Once the govt stepped in, the declines tapered off, and the mid-high end was spared much of the damage seen in the lower-end areas.
If the Fed/govt had never intervened, I fully believe prices in the “more desirable” areas would have seen declines similar to the declines seen in the lower-end areas.
Because of this intervention, prices in the better areas have not been “allowed” to fall…yet. We will see if the govt steps back once the risks are shifted from the private market to the taxpayers. That transfer is almost completed, which makes me think the downturn will resume within the next year.
It was ALWAYS about saving the banks. They never cared at all about “keeping FBs in their homes.”
-
January 8, 2011 at 7:55 PM #650683Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.[/quote]
It’s affordable to us because of certain circumstances; it’s not as “affordable” as I’d like based on our earned income.
The higher end was not allowed to fall (as much as it should have) because the government stepped in once it became obvious that “subprime” was NOT “contained.” The lower end fell first because those buyers had absolutely no buffer, and many of them were literally paying their mortgages by getting new, larger mortgages. It took no time at all for them to default, because they had no downpayments (in many/most cases), and not enough income to make their monthly payments if prices stopped going up (which allowed them to “cash out” their equity to pay their debts and mortgages).
The mid and higher tiers had more of a buffer because the sellers of the starter homes during the bubble were able to bring hundreds of thousands of dollars with them to put down on a house in a mid-higher tier area (this is why you saw housing prices increase by about the same dollar amount, as opposed to a similar percentage). Many of these people did a final “cash out” before the crash and banked that money (I know of a few who did this), and others at least had equity that enabled them to sell, even if they lost some of their down payment. That’s why it looks like there is “less distress” in the higher-end areas.
AS the declines were moving into the “prime” mid-high tiers, the govt/Fed freaked out and began with the “foreclosure moratoriums” and govt-backed mortgage market.
The bulk of the declines happened in late 2007/early 2008, when the credit market froze up. Once the govt stepped in, the declines tapered off, and the mid-high end was spared much of the damage seen in the lower-end areas.
If the Fed/govt had never intervened, I fully believe prices in the “more desirable” areas would have seen declines similar to the declines seen in the lower-end areas.
Because of this intervention, prices in the better areas have not been “allowed” to fall…yet. We will see if the govt steps back once the risks are shifted from the private market to the taxpayers. That transfer is almost completed, which makes me think the downturn will resume within the next year.
It was ALWAYS about saving the banks. They never cared at all about “keeping FBs in their homes.”
-
January 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM #649543Participant
Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.
-
January 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM #650129Participant
Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.
-
January 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM #650264Participant
Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.
-
January 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM #650589Participant
Exactly you could buy, its affordable but you chose not to. Whether it is rational our not wasnt something I was addressing. I was only looking at affordability as evidenced by Eugene’s graphs.
BTW, all areas have fallen and I dont understand how someone can think certain areas weren’t “allowed” to fall.
-
January 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM #649457Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?[/quote]
The fear of prices falling further is certainly part of the reason we’re sitting on the sidelines. The fear of falling prices is perfectly rational, considering the following:
1. The government apparently doesn’t believe that prices have bottomed; if they did, they wouldn’t be pushing hundreds of billions of dollars (actually, trillions) into the credit market. They also wouldn’t be continuing their “foreclosure moratoriums” whether by direct intervention or “robo-signing” holds. They wouldn’t be propping up banks and allowing/encouraging them to keep houses off the market, if they thought prices have bottomed.
2. Banks and investors of all stripes would be back in the mortgage market if they thought the collateral was fairly valued, and if they thought interest rates were going to stay low. As it stands, the mortgage market is almost 100% govt-backed.
So…if the government doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, and if the private mortgage market doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, why should buyers think prices have bottomed?
Additionally, I’m expecting large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector. The “financial elite” have been quite successful in distracting and duping the sheeple into believing that the “finanical crisis” was somehow caused by unions. If we see large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector, that will begin a new wave of deflation and defaults.
Other than for emotional or family reasons, why in the world would anyone want to buy now, especially in areas that weren’t allowed to fall, yet?
-
January 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM #650044Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?[/quote]
The fear of prices falling further is certainly part of the reason we’re sitting on the sidelines. The fear of falling prices is perfectly rational, considering the following:
1. The government apparently doesn’t believe that prices have bottomed; if they did, they wouldn’t be pushing hundreds of billions of dollars (actually, trillions) into the credit market. They also wouldn’t be continuing their “foreclosure moratoriums” whether by direct intervention or “robo-signing” holds. They wouldn’t be propping up banks and allowing/encouraging them to keep houses off the market, if they thought prices have bottomed.
2. Banks and investors of all stripes would be back in the mortgage market if they thought the collateral was fairly valued, and if they thought interest rates were going to stay low. As it stands, the mortgage market is almost 100% govt-backed.
So…if the government doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, and if the private mortgage market doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, why should buyers think prices have bottomed?
Additionally, I’m expecting large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector. The “financial elite” have been quite successful in distracting and duping the sheeple into believing that the “finanical crisis” was somehow caused by unions. If we see large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector, that will begin a new wave of deflation and defaults.
Other than for emotional or family reasons, why in the world would anyone want to buy now, especially in areas that weren’t allowed to fall, yet?
-
January 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM #650180Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?[/quote]
The fear of prices falling further is certainly part of the reason we’re sitting on the sidelines. The fear of falling prices is perfectly rational, considering the following:
1. The government apparently doesn’t believe that prices have bottomed; if they did, they wouldn’t be pushing hundreds of billions of dollars (actually, trillions) into the credit market. They also wouldn’t be continuing their “foreclosure moratoriums” whether by direct intervention or “robo-signing” holds. They wouldn’t be propping up banks and allowing/encouraging them to keep houses off the market, if they thought prices have bottomed.
2. Banks and investors of all stripes would be back in the mortgage market if they thought the collateral was fairly valued, and if they thought interest rates were going to stay low. As it stands, the mortgage market is almost 100% govt-backed.
So…if the government doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, and if the private mortgage market doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, why should buyers think prices have bottomed?
Additionally, I’m expecting large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector. The “financial elite” have been quite successful in distracting and duping the sheeple into believing that the “finanical crisis” was somehow caused by unions. If we see large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector, that will begin a new wave of deflation and defaults.
Other than for emotional or family reasons, why in the world would anyone want to buy now, especially in areas that weren’t allowed to fall, yet?
-
January 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM #650505Participant
[quote=sdrealtor]From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?[/quote]
The fear of prices falling further is certainly part of the reason we’re sitting on the sidelines. The fear of falling prices is perfectly rational, considering the following:
1. The government apparently doesn’t believe that prices have bottomed; if they did, they wouldn’t be pushing hundreds of billions of dollars (actually, trillions) into the credit market. They also wouldn’t be continuing their “foreclosure moratoriums” whether by direct intervention or “robo-signing” holds. They wouldn’t be propping up banks and allowing/encouraging them to keep houses off the market, if they thought prices have bottomed.
2. Banks and investors of all stripes would be back in the mortgage market if they thought the collateral was fairly valued, and if they thought interest rates were going to stay low. As it stands, the mortgage market is almost 100% govt-backed.
So…if the government doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, and if the private mortgage market doesn’t believe prices have bottomed, why should buyers think prices have bottomed?
Additionally, I’m expecting large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector. The “financial elite” have been quite successful in distracting and duping the sheeple into believing that the “finanical crisis” was somehow caused by unions. If we see large pay and benefit cuts in the public sector, that will begin a new wave of deflation and defaults.
Other than for emotional or family reasons, why in the world would anyone want to buy now, especially in areas that weren’t allowed to fall, yet?
-
January 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM #649218Participant
From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?
-
January 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM #649804Participant
From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?
-
January 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM #649940Participant
From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?
-
January 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM #650265Participant
From what I see on the ground things are pretty hunky-dory price vs income. The disconnect comes in the psychology. Most people I see can afford to buy at todays interest rates and prices in neighborhoods that are in the range of acceptability/desireability to them. What is stopping them is fear of futher declines. So they continue looking for the perfect house at a giveaway price and buy only under those circumstances. CAR wouldnt you agree that pretty much describes your current situation?
-
-
January 8, 2011 at 3:23 AM #649193Participant
[quote=Eugene]This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.[/quote]
Thanks for the graphs, Eugene.
Perhaps I’m not reading these charts correctly, but it would seem they ought to be leaning more to the right. This does not seem to correlate with what I’m seeing on the ground. Of course, even I would admit that some areas are pretty close to “reasonable,” but these graphs make it look like everthing is just hunky-dory.
-
January 8, 2011 at 3:23 AM #649779Participant
[quote=Eugene]This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.[/quote]
Thanks for the graphs, Eugene.
Perhaps I’m not reading these charts correctly, but it would seem they ought to be leaning more to the right. This does not seem to correlate with what I’m seeing on the ground. Of course, even I would admit that some areas are pretty close to “reasonable,” but these graphs make it look like everthing is just hunky-dory.
-
January 8, 2011 at 3:23 AM #649915Participant
[quote=Eugene]This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.[/quote]
Thanks for the graphs, Eugene.
Perhaps I’m not reading these charts correctly, but it would seem they ought to be leaning more to the right. This does not seem to correlate with what I’m seeing on the ground. Of course, even I would admit that some areas are pretty close to “reasonable,” but these graphs make it look like everthing is just hunky-dory.
-
January 8, 2011 at 3:23 AM #650241Participant
[quote=Eugene]This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.[/quote]
Thanks for the graphs, Eugene.
Perhaps I’m not reading these charts correctly, but it would seem they ought to be leaning more to the right. This does not seem to correlate with what I’m seeing on the ground. Of course, even I would admit that some areas are pretty close to “reasonable,” but these graphs make it look like everthing is just hunky-dory.
-
-
January 7, 2011 at 1:33 AM #648723Participant
This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.
-
January 7, 2011 at 1:33 AM #649309Participant
This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.
-
January 7, 2011 at 1:33 AM #649446Participant
This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.
-
January 7, 2011 at 1:33 AM #649771Participant
This discussion made me wonder, what IS the real median multiple in San Diego? And it’s not an easy question to answer, because, between apartment complexes, student housing, and military housing, a lot of low-end inventory is essentially out of the regular real estate market, and any attempts to look at MLS at the face value will inevitably result in skewed results.
But I made some educated guesses, cooked up a model, pulled in some census data, and voila, the true state of San Diego RE, as of January 2011:
[img_assist|nid=14433|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=52]
and now just detached:
[img_assist|nid=14434|title=|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=53]
In this model, the true median home price is $270,000, and the true median multiple is 4.5.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.