- This topic has 55 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
peterb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM #513838February 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM #513273
pemeliza
Participant“The only thing I think is not on the table is stability.”
It is funny Nor because I have been thinking the same thing for some time now.
The problem with the “stability” thesis is that the “underwater” owners that are still holding on are going to jump one way or another depending on economic news over the next couple of months. If the economy takes another leg down look out below. This whole housing “recovery” seems very very fragile right now. The only thing that is going to keep these owners from walking is if they are convinced that the housing recovery of the last 10 months or so is going to continue.
February 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM #513936pemeliza
Participant“The only thing I think is not on the table is stability.”
It is funny Nor because I have been thinking the same thing for some time now.
The problem with the “stability” thesis is that the “underwater” owners that are still holding on are going to jump one way or another depending on economic news over the next couple of months. If the economy takes another leg down look out below. This whole housing “recovery” seems very very fragile right now. The only thing that is going to keep these owners from walking is if they are convinced that the housing recovery of the last 10 months or so is going to continue.
February 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM #513423pemeliza
Participant“The only thing I think is not on the table is stability.”
It is funny Nor because I have been thinking the same thing for some time now.
The problem with the “stability” thesis is that the “underwater” owners that are still holding on are going to jump one way or another depending on economic news over the next couple of months. If the economy takes another leg down look out below. This whole housing “recovery” seems very very fragile right now. The only thing that is going to keep these owners from walking is if they are convinced that the housing recovery of the last 10 months or so is going to continue.
February 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM #513843pemeliza
Participant“The only thing I think is not on the table is stability.”
It is funny Nor because I have been thinking the same thing for some time now.
The problem with the “stability” thesis is that the “underwater” owners that are still holding on are going to jump one way or another depending on economic news over the next couple of months. If the economy takes another leg down look out below. This whole housing “recovery” seems very very fragile right now. The only thing that is going to keep these owners from walking is if they are convinced that the housing recovery of the last 10 months or so is going to continue.
February 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM #514190pemeliza
Participant“The only thing I think is not on the table is stability.”
It is funny Nor because I have been thinking the same thing for some time now.
The problem with the “stability” thesis is that the “underwater” owners that are still holding on are going to jump one way or another depending on economic news over the next couple of months. If the economy takes another leg down look out below. This whole housing “recovery” seems very very fragile right now. The only thing that is going to keep these owners from walking is if they are convinced that the housing recovery of the last 10 months or so is going to continue.
February 15, 2010 at 4:34 PM #514021peterb
ParticipantIf you consider the U-6 level for unemployment in CA to be somewhere in the area of 20%. Then we’re in a range that’s new ground. This will probably mean higher density in rentals, people leaving the area and homes remaining empty after ejecting the occupants. All in all, probably not putting upward pressure on the price of housing in general.
February 15, 2010 at 4:34 PM #513357peterb
ParticipantIf you consider the U-6 level for unemployment in CA to be somewhere in the area of 20%. Then we’re in a range that’s new ground. This will probably mean higher density in rentals, people leaving the area and homes remaining empty after ejecting the occupants. All in all, probably not putting upward pressure on the price of housing in general.
February 15, 2010 at 4:34 PM #513928peterb
ParticipantIf you consider the U-6 level for unemployment in CA to be somewhere in the area of 20%. Then we’re in a range that’s new ground. This will probably mean higher density in rentals, people leaving the area and homes remaining empty after ejecting the occupants. All in all, probably not putting upward pressure on the price of housing in general.
February 15, 2010 at 4:34 PM #513506peterb
ParticipantIf you consider the U-6 level for unemployment in CA to be somewhere in the area of 20%. Then we’re in a range that’s new ground. This will probably mean higher density in rentals, people leaving the area and homes remaining empty after ejecting the occupants. All in all, probably not putting upward pressure on the price of housing in general.
February 15, 2010 at 4:34 PM #514275peterb
ParticipantIf you consider the U-6 level for unemployment in CA to be somewhere in the area of 20%. Then we’re in a range that’s new ground. This will probably mean higher density in rentals, people leaving the area and homes remaining empty after ejecting the occupants. All in all, probably not putting upward pressure on the price of housing in general.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.