Wow. 47% Decline for San Diego

[SD Realtor]

Something is off somewhere then E. Looking at this link,

Risks of a Serious Home Price Decline

it would seem that in 1999 the price to income ratio was indeed much different.

My statement was made 100% by using the data on this link above. Using the link above it shows that at the VERY lowest point in the entire county, the price to income ratio went a tiny bit below 7. That was for a single year as well.

Please take a look at the link and tell me what you think.

I am not sure that it is explainable to say that the county stats by Rich are way out of whack compared to the zip stats you produced because his are more encompassing and that there were zips that pulled up the zips that you presented.

My post was based entirely on the statistical data that Rich has presented. If you indeed have data that shows that in essence, the data that Rich had gathered is incorrect, then yes I would agree with you and say it is possible. Consequently at 8-9% interest rates and a subsequently tight credit market, those who have sufficiently adequate downpayments are in great position. Those who don’t will be forced to continue to rent.

Mu

[gandalf]

The outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.

If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.

OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.

Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.

[gandalf]

The outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.

If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.

OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.

Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.

[gandalf]

The outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.

If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.

OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.

Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.

[gandalf]

The outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.

If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.

OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.

Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.

[gandalf]

The outcome depends greatly on economic trends. Credit market issues are *really* problematic right now, not just for housing. Article yesterday about Daimler-Chrysler. I just scanned it but believe they’re closing up their Chrysler Financial services division because of inability to secure financing from Wall Street.

If the economy tanks, Fitch’s scenario is easily plausible. I’d even go so far as to say we’ll see a 47% nominal decrease if the economy craters. Unemployment, bankruptcies, continued bailouts, Fannie/Freddie, Wachovia, Lehman, WAMU, etc. Possibility of broader war in the ME, dollar-crisis, $200/barrell oil, etc. Most of the risk on the downside.

OTH, if we get through this okay, slow growth, inflation in check, etc. maybe it’s another 15% nominal, primarily in areas that haven’t fallen yet, with 5 years of 5% inflation, which gets us to around 40%. I think Fitch’s scenario is fairly plausible assuming current conditions for the next five years.

Breakthroughs in energy technology might lead to a re-tooling of our economy and possibly trigger a tremendous wave of growth. Imagine turning the vehicle fleet over for electric cars, powered by new forms of energy perhaps renewable or less costly than current means. Billions in oil money going to ME (blood money) stay here at home and create jobs and wealth.

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf and peterb I would agree with your points about the economic lynchpin having a drastic effect. If we see a scenario like peterb posted about then I will be wrong and we could see a plummet. If we see a modest rise in unemployment and we just kind of churn ahead with a modest rise of rates and continued intervention then I am much less confident.

E your posts are always based on stats and data which is why I like them. If indeed the medians are what you said in those areas in 99 then perhaps we can see them with high rates and no intervention. I think also since 1999 we have added a wider disparity with regards to wealth distribution. I feel as if there are a lot more people with a million bucks here in san diego in 2008 then in 1999. Surely not enough to prop up the market but a lot more then there were. Of course while all bets are off given employment, all bets are off given a bailout. Finally I think the wage growth we saw in the 90s was something we will not see for quite a long time. (Hus I believe the ratios we saw in 99 were driven by BOTH lower prices and higher wages.I don’t see wage growth here.

Speculative babbling

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf and peterb I would agree with your points about the economic lynchpin having a drastic effect. If we see a scenario like peterb posted about then I will be wrong and we could see a plummet. If we see a modest rise in unemployment and we just kind of churn ahead with a modest rise of rates and continued intervention then I am much less confident.

E your posts are always based on stats and data which is why I like them. If indeed the medians are what you said in those areas in 99 then perhaps we can see them with high rates and no intervention. I think also since 1999 we have added a wider disparity with regards to wealth distribution. I feel as if there are a lot more people with a million bucks here in san diego in 2008 then in 1999. Surely not enough to prop up the market but a lot more then there were. Of course while all bets are off given employment, all bets are off given a bailout. Finally I think the wage growth we saw in the 90s was something we will not see for quite a long time. (Hus I believe the ratios we saw in 99 were driven by BOTH lower prices and higher wages.I don’t see wage growth here.

Speculative babbling

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf and peterb I would agree with your points about the economic lynchpin having a drastic effect. If we see a scenario like peterb posted about then I will be wrong and we could see a plummet. If we see a modest rise in unemployment and we just kind of churn ahead with a modest rise of rates and continued intervention then I am much less confident.

E your posts are always based on stats and data which is why I like them. If indeed the medians are what you said in those areas in 99 then perhaps we can see them with high rates and no intervention. I think also since 1999 we have added a wider disparity with regards to wealth distribution. I feel as if there are a lot more people with a million bucks here in san diego in 2008 then in 1999. Surely not enough to prop up the market but a lot more then there were. Of course while all bets are off given employment, all bets are off given a bailout. Finally I think the wage growth we saw in the 90s was something we will not see for quite a long time. (Hus I believe the ratios we saw in 99 were driven by BOTH lower prices and higher wages.I don’t see wage growth here.

Speculative babbling

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf and peterb I would agree with your points about the economic lynchpin having a drastic effect. If we see a scenario like peterb posted about then I will be wrong and we could see a plummet. If we see a modest rise in unemployment and we just kind of churn ahead with a modest rise of rates and continued intervention then I am much less confident.

E your posts are always based on stats and data which is why I like them. If indeed the medians are what you said in those areas in 99 then perhaps we can see them with high rates and no intervention. I think also since 1999 we have added a wider disparity with regards to wealth distribution. I feel as if there are a lot more people with a million bucks here in san diego in 2008 then in 1999. Surely not enough to prop up the market but a lot more then there were. Of course while all bets are off given employment, all bets are off given a bailout. Finally I think the wage growth we saw in the 90s was something we will not see for quite a long time. (Hus I believe the ratios we saw in 99 were driven by BOTH lower prices and higher wages.I don’t see wage growth here.

Speculative babbling

[SD Realtor]

Gandalf and peterb I would agree with your points about the economic lynchpin having a drastic effect. If we see a scenario like peterb posted about then I will be wrong and we could see a plummet. If we see a modest rise in unemployment and we just kind of churn ahead with a modest rise of rates and continued intervention then I am much less confident.

E your posts are always based on stats and data which is why I like them. If indeed the medians are what you said in those areas in 99 then perhaps we can see them with high rates and no intervention. I think also since 1999 we have added a wider disparity with regards to wealth distribution. I feel as if there are a lot more people with a million bucks here in san diego in 2008 then in 1999. Surely not enough to prop up the market but a lot more then there were. Of course while all bets are off given employment, all bets are off given a bailout. Finally I think the wage growth we saw in the 90s was something we will not see for quite a long time. (Hus I believe the ratios we saw in 99 were driven by BOTH lower prices and higher wages.I don’t see wage growth here.

Speculative babbling

[Eugene]

Using the link above it shows that at the VERY lowest point in the entire county, the price to income ratio went a tiny bit below 7. That was for a single year as well.

The graph you’re looking at uses per capita income, not median family income.

For Carmel Valley I see this on census.gov (1999 numbers):
Median house value – 474k
Median family income – 111k
Per capita income – 47k

Six-digit median income in CV in 1999 may come as a surprise for many. And I’m sure it’s much higher today.

[Eugene]

Using the link above it shows that at the VERY lowest point in the entire county, the price to income ratio went a tiny bit below 7. That was for a single year as well.

The graph you’re looking at uses per capita income, not median family income.

For Carmel Valley I see this on census.gov (1999 numbers):
Median house value – 474k
Median family income – 111k
Per capita income – 47k

Six-digit median income in CV in 1999 may come as a surprise for many. And I’m sure it’s much higher today.

[Eugene]

Using the link above it shows that at the VERY lowest point in the entire county, the price to income ratio went a tiny bit below 7. That was for a single year as well.

The graph you’re looking at uses per capita income, not median family income.

For Carmel Valley I see this on census.gov (1999 numbers):
Median house value – 474k
Median family income – 111k
Per capita income – 47k

Six-digit median income in CV in 1999 may come as a surprise for many. And I’m sure it’s much higher today.

[Eugene]

Using the link above it shows that at the VERY lowest point in the entire county, the price to income ratio went a tiny bit below 7. That was for a single year as well.

The graph you’re looking at uses per capita income, not median family income.

For Carmel Valley I see this on census.gov (1999 numbers):
Median house value – 474k
Median family income – 111k
Per capita income – 47k

Six-digit median income in CV in 1999 may come as a surprise for many. And I’m sure it’s much higher today.

[Author]

Posts