- This topic has 156 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 5, 2007 at 3:18 PM #56889June 5, 2007 at 4:21 PM #56884
seattle-relo
ParticipantWe don’t need an increase in equity to keep our place, we’ll just be stuck here for 20 years. Our second,which is a 15 year balloon will e paid off in a couple of years, so the only worry would be if my husband lost his job and couldn’t find comparable employment. I apprechiated all the feedback and have talked with my husband about researching our options more. He still doesn’t believe the market will tank. But I do have a question that I’m sure has been answered in a previous post:
What would todays prices be if the market had just apprechiated in a more “healthy” (if there is one) market? Could that be where prices will eventually end up?I think we paid about 2004 prices for our house. I looked on Zillow and saw the same floor plan as my place purchased back in 2004 for 580K, 2003 for 480K, there wasn’t any sales of my floorplan in 2005, but there was Dec 2006 for 585K. I wondering if prices will end up at mid-2002 prices if they had just risen at a more “normal” level? Just wondering what people think?
June 5, 2007 at 4:21 PM #56907ParticipantWe don’t need an increase in equity to keep our place, we’ll just be stuck here for 20 years. Our second,which is a 15 year balloon will e paid off in a couple of years, so the only worry would be if my husband lost his job and couldn’t find comparable employment. I apprechiated all the feedback and have talked with my husband about researching our options more. He still doesn’t believe the market will tank. But I do have a question that I’m sure has been answered in a previous post:
What would todays prices be if the market had just apprechiated in a more “healthy” (if there is one) market? Could that be where prices will eventually end up?I think we paid about 2004 prices for our house. I looked on Zillow and saw the same floor plan as my place purchased back in 2004 for 580K, 2003 for 480K, there wasn’t any sales of my floorplan in 2005, but there was Dec 2006 for 585K. I wondering if prices will end up at mid-2002 prices if they had just risen at a more “normal” level? Just wondering what people think?
June 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM #56902waiting hawk
ParticipantNo he ment just for his situation I’m bettin.
June 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM #56925ParticipantNo he ment just for his situation I’m bettin.
June 5, 2007 at 5:23 PM #56916Chris Scoreboard Johnston
ParticipantChris Johnston
Perry, I couldn’t agree more with your comment about the size of the purchase being related to net worth. Now is no time to stretch. I am pretty conservative by nature, and sometimes I assume others are as well, which is a bad assumption on my part.
June 5, 2007 at 5:23 PM #56939ParticipantChris Johnston
Perry, I couldn’t agree more with your comment about the size of the purchase being related to net worth. Now is no time to stretch. I am pretty conservative by nature, and sometimes I assume others are as well, which is a bad assumption on my part.
June 5, 2007 at 5:28 PM #56920drunkle
Participantas hawk said, i was talking about the difference in valuations. more to the point, i didn’t think that the comparison between buying high and holding in the 90’s compared well with doing so today. maybe it does. but comparing wage trends in the 90’s with those of the 00’s, i don’t think so.
it was also a general comment and not one specific to relo. i dont know their financial situation and how stable they are. from personal experience, a single middle class wage earner in the 90’s could afford to buy high in the 90’s and tough it out. buying high today with mandatory dual income is what i’d consider precarious.
not to mention, what you got for your money: 300k in the 90’s for new vs 550k for beat.
June 5, 2007 at 5:28 PM #56942Participantas hawk said, i was talking about the difference in valuations. more to the point, i didn’t think that the comparison between buying high and holding in the 90’s compared well with doing so today. maybe it does. but comparing wage trends in the 90’s with those of the 00’s, i don’t think so.
it was also a general comment and not one specific to relo. i dont know their financial situation and how stable they are. from personal experience, a single middle class wage earner in the 90’s could afford to buy high in the 90’s and tough it out. buying high today with mandatory dual income is what i’d consider precarious.
not to mention, what you got for your money: 300k in the 90’s for new vs 550k for beat.
June 5, 2007 at 5:50 PM #56931(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participantseattle-relo
San Diego home price history reveals that it is almost never normal. The “normal” price appears to be a fleeting moment between the booms and busts. For example, the peak prices in ~ 1990-1991 were not revisited until about 1998 or so.
That said, I tried a little data exercise, where I fit a growth curve to the bottom of the market in 1996 with an initial start in 1976 (first year I found data). The average annual growth from 1976 to 1996, which covers two prior real estate cycles was a smidge over 6% This fit tracks below the actual prices for the entire period I am plotting, so I consider it a fairly conservative (worst case ?) estimate. This would imply that mid 2007 prices would be about 350K, assuming 6% growth, and 400K by 2010.
For kicks I also tried a 7% growth rate.
These are not intended to be representative of future growth. It is simply an exercise in comparing prices to theoretical growth rates.
[img_assist|nid=3589|title=Median Price Growth – San Diego|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=349]
June 5, 2007 at 5:50 PM #56953Participantseattle-relo
San Diego home price history reveals that it is almost never normal. The “normal” price appears to be a fleeting moment between the booms and busts. For example, the peak prices in ~ 1990-1991 were not revisited until about 1998 or so.
That said, I tried a little data exercise, where I fit a growth curve to the bottom of the market in 1996 with an initial start in 1976 (first year I found data). The average annual growth from 1976 to 1996, which covers two prior real estate cycles was a smidge over 6% This fit tracks below the actual prices for the entire period I am plotting, so I consider it a fairly conservative (worst case ?) estimate. This would imply that mid 2007 prices would be about 350K, assuming 6% growth, and 400K by 2010.
For kicks I also tried a 7% growth rate.
These are not intended to be representative of future growth. It is simply an exercise in comparing prices to theoretical growth rates.
[img_assist|nid=3589|title=Median Price Growth – San Diego|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=349]
June 5, 2007 at 6:06 PM #56934PD
ParticipantIt looks like prices have always stayed above the 6% line. If we come back down to that line, we are looking at a 30% haircut.
June 5, 2007 at 6:06 PM #56957ParticipantIt looks like prices have always stayed above the 6% line. If we come back down to that line, we are looking at a 30% haircut.
June 6, 2007 at 8:32 AM #57041ParticipantIt looks like prices have always stayed above the 6% line. If we come back down to that line, we are looking at a 30% haircut.
That depends how long it takes. In 2010, the 6% line is about 35% below the peak. By 2015, it is still about 10% below the peak.
June 6, 2007 at 8:32 AM #57063ParticipantIt looks like prices have always stayed above the 6% line. If we come back down to that line, we are looking at a 30% haircut.
That depends how long it takes. In 2010, the 6% line is about 35% below the peak. By 2015, it is still about 10% below the peak.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.