What’s an acceptable price-rent ratio in San Diego?

[DataAgent]

180 to 210 is a pretty good range. Another metric is $ per sq ft. In newer developments like 4S Ranch or SEH, $1/sq ft is fairly common ie $3K monthly rent for a 3K sq ft house.

[barnaby33]

Let me clear that up a bit. 4-6 times household annual income. Up to the latest bubble its held true.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Let me clear that up a bit. 4-6 times household annual income. Up to the latest bubble its held true.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Let me clear that up a bit. 4-6 times household annual income. Up to the latest bubble its held true.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Let me clear that up a bit. 4-6 times household annual income. Up to the latest bubble its held true.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Let me clear that up a bit. 4-6 times household annual income. Up to the latest bubble its held true.

Josh

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=ybitz]I was actually referring to house price to rent ratio, not so much income/rent ratio (though that’s also an important metric). For example, one of the house I looked was renting for $2500/month, and on sale for $625,000, creating a ratio of 250. This is ignoring maintenance/property tax/other costs, but is easily to calculate for lots of properties.[/quote]

I would think 250 is terrible but I don’t know the historical number. 100 is investment grade so it will probably not readily achievable. I will settle for 150 but not much more than that.

In some sense, I think the insanity of the housing market in Spring 2009 could rival the peak housing bubble time…particularly in the areas that the housing price does not have 50%-off for-sale sign on.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=ybitz]I was actually referring to house price to rent ratio, not so much income/rent ratio (though that’s also an important metric). For example, one of the house I looked was renting for $2500/month, and on sale for $625,000, creating a ratio of 250. This is ignoring maintenance/property tax/other costs, but is easily to calculate for lots of properties.[/quote]

I would think 250 is terrible but I don’t know the historical number. 100 is investment grade so it will probably not readily achievable. I will settle for 150 but not much more than that.

In some sense, I think the insanity of the housing market in Spring 2009 could rival the peak housing bubble time…particularly in the areas that the housing price does not have 50%-off for-sale sign on.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=ybitz]I was actually referring to house price to rent ratio, not so much income/rent ratio (though that’s also an important metric). For example, one of the house I looked was renting for $2500/month, and on sale for $625,000, creating a ratio of 250. This is ignoring maintenance/property tax/other costs, but is easily to calculate for lots of properties.[/quote]

I would think 250 is terrible but I don’t know the historical number. 100 is investment grade so it will probably not readily achievable. I will settle for 150 but not much more than that.

In some sense, I think the insanity of the housing market in Spring 2009 could rival the peak housing bubble time…particularly in the areas that the housing price does not have 50%-off for-sale sign on.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=ybitz]I was actually referring to house price to rent ratio, not so much income/rent ratio (though that’s also an important metric). For example, one of the house I looked was renting for $2500/month, and on sale for $625,000, creating a ratio of 250. This is ignoring maintenance/property tax/other costs, but is easily to calculate for lots of properties.[/quote]

I would think 250 is terrible but I don’t know the historical number. 100 is investment grade so it will probably not readily achievable. I will settle for 150 but not much more than that.

In some sense, I think the insanity of the housing market in Spring 2009 could rival the peak housing bubble time…particularly in the areas that the housing price does not have 50%-off for-sale sign on.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=ybitz]I was actually referring to house price to rent ratio, not so much income/rent ratio (though that’s also an important metric). For example, one of the house I looked was renting for $2500/month, and on sale for $625,000, creating a ratio of 250. This is ignoring maintenance/property tax/other costs, but is easily to calculate for lots of properties.[/quote]

I would think 250 is terrible but I don’t know the historical number. 100 is investment grade so it will probably not readily achievable. I will settle for 150 but not much more than that.

In some sense, I think the insanity of the housing market in Spring 2009 could rival the peak housing bubble time…particularly in the areas that the housing price does not have 50%-off for-sale sign on.

[Daniel]

200 is the upper range of acceptable, in my opinion. This depends, of course, on interest rates. When interest rates were higher, the ratio used to be lower (150 or so). But, speaking for myself, today I would be a buyer at around the 200 mark. It wouldn’t be a screaming deal, mind you, but it would be “acceptable”.

Nowadays the low-end areas are way below 200, while the higher end still levitates at 250 or so (like in your example).

[Daniel]

200 is the upper range of acceptable, in my opinion. This depends, of course, on interest rates. When interest rates were higher, the ratio used to be lower (150 or so). But, speaking for myself, today I would be a buyer at around the 200 mark. It wouldn’t be a screaming deal, mind you, but it would be “acceptable”.

Nowadays the low-end areas are way below 200, while the higher end still levitates at 250 or so (like in your example).

[Daniel]

200 is the upper range of acceptable, in my opinion. This depends, of course, on interest rates. When interest rates were higher, the ratio used to be lower (150 or so). But, speaking for myself, today I would be a buyer at around the 200 mark. It wouldn’t be a screaming deal, mind you, but it would be “acceptable”.

Nowadays the low-end areas are way below 200, while the higher end still levitates at 250 or so (like in your example).

[Daniel]

200 is the upper range of acceptable, in my opinion. This depends, of course, on interest rates. When interest rates were higher, the ratio used to be lower (150 or so). But, speaking for myself, today I would be a buyer at around the 200 mark. It wouldn’t be a screaming deal, mind you, but it would be “acceptable”.

Nowadays the low-end areas are way below 200, while the higher end still levitates at 250 or so (like in your example).

[Author]

Posts