[an]

[quote=sdcellar]I think you should always avoid using a single property when trying to go through these things and that was my point in the first place. I’m sure both the specific 2000 property and the 2001 have their considerations and I wouldn’t latch onto either one. That’s why I offered averages for 2000 (again, what’s supposed to be the working year for the exercise). I ran it for 2001 and here’s what I’ve got:

Year Sales Median Average
2000 30 $267,250 $285,800
2001 18 $322,750 $331,361

My data source is Redfin and as I mentioned before, at least one of the shortcomings is that it only provides information about the last sale of any given property. This will exclude properties that have sold since. One thing that’s really nice is that Redfin let’s you export the data, so it becomes easy to slice and dice it. That makes it easy to come up with metrics (like the ones above) quickly, but it’s important to realize that it’s also not the same thing as detailed property analysis (which is kind of in between the picking one or two houses, i.e. model matches and specific properties that are still pretty close). The latter could, of course, be used to achieve more tightly tuned (i.e. accurate) numbers.

You should check it out, it’s kind of fun. What I do is pick a zip, set basic criteria for maybe square footage and if I’m trying to weed out newer stuff, maybe a lower maximum price. Then I see what I get, zoom in and start exporting data. For the numbers above I got back 492 results and from there I could drill into years. There are flaws with the method to be sure, but seems like a reasonable proxy for tract homes.[/quote]
How did you get the 30 sales and 18 sales? Is that all 2000-2200 sq-ft in MM? I was talking specifically about my development and the comps I showed using the comp I can pull up, the median should be a little higher than that. However, even if I use your numbers, I’m paying 15% higher than the median in 2000 and 8% higher than the average in 2000. I’m paying 4% less than the median in 2001 and 7% less than the average in 2001. This is exactly what I said in my first post about my data point. I’m paying less in payment than those who bought in 2001.

If I use numbers for sales comp in my specific development, the number is even more favorable for me.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]I think you should always avoid using a single property when trying to go through these things and that was my point in the first place. I’m sure both the specific 2000 property and the 2001 have their considerations and I wouldn’t latch onto either one. That’s why I offered averages for 2000 (again, what’s supposed to be the working year for the exercise). I ran it for 2001 and here’s what I’ve got:

Year Sales Median Average
2000 30 $267,250 $285,800
2001 18 $322,750 $331,361

My data source is Redfin and as I mentioned before, at least one of the shortcomings is that it only provides information about the last sale of any given property. This will exclude properties that have sold since. One thing that’s really nice is that Redfin let’s you export the data, so it becomes easy to slice and dice it. That makes it easy to come up with metrics (like the ones above) quickly, but it’s important to realize that it’s also not the same thing as detailed property analysis (which is kind of in between the picking one or two houses, i.e. model matches and specific properties that are still pretty close). The latter could, of course, be used to achieve more tightly tuned (i.e. accurate) numbers.

You should check it out, it’s kind of fun. What I do is pick a zip, set basic criteria for maybe square footage and if I’m trying to weed out newer stuff, maybe a lower maximum price. Then I see what I get, zoom in and start exporting data. For the numbers above I got back 492 results and from there I could drill into years. There are flaws with the method to be sure, but seems like a reasonable proxy for tract homes.[/quote]
How did you get the 30 sales and 18 sales? Is that all 2000-2200 sq-ft in MM? I was talking specifically about my development and the comps I showed using the comp I can pull up, the median should be a little higher than that. However, even if I use your numbers, I’m paying 15% higher than the median in 2000 and 8% higher than the average in 2000. I’m paying 4% less than the median in 2001 and 7% less than the average in 2001. This is exactly what I said in my first post about my data point. I’m paying less in payment than those who bought in 2001.

If I use numbers for sales comp in my specific development, the number is even more favorable for me.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]Totally agree with SD R here. High food inflation will destroy lower middle class. Add in high cost of gas and they’re doubly screwed. They would have to resort to going to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.[/quote]

Change that to “…walk to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.” :={[/quote]
I put going, not drive. They could have ride bikes to McDonald or we’ll become like some of the 3rd world countries where you’ll start seeing a family of 4 packed on a moped :-D.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]Totally agree with SD R here. High food inflation will destroy lower middle class. Add in high cost of gas and they’re doubly screwed. They would have to resort to going to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.[/quote]

Change that to “…walk to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.” :={[/quote]
I put going, not drive. They could have ride bikes to McDonald or we’ll become like some of the 3rd world countries where you’ll start seeing a family of 4 packed on a moped :-D.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]Totally agree with SD R here. High food inflation will destroy lower middle class. Add in high cost of gas and they’re doubly screwed. They would have to resort to going to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.[/quote]

Change that to “…walk to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.” :={[/quote]
I put going, not drive. They could have ride bikes to McDonald or we’ll become like some of the 3rd world countries where you’ll start seeing a family of 4 packed on a moped :-D.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]Totally agree with SD R here. High food inflation will destroy lower middle class. Add in high cost of gas and they’re doubly screwed. They would have to resort to going to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.[/quote]

Change that to “…walk to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.” :={[/quote]
I put going, not drive. They could have ride bikes to McDonald or we’ll become like some of the 3rd world countries where you’ll start seeing a family of 4 packed on a moped :-D.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]Totally agree with SD R here. High food inflation will destroy lower middle class. Add in high cost of gas and they’re doubly screwed. They would have to resort to going to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.[/quote]

Change that to “…walk to McDonald and buy $1 cheese burger.” :={[/quote]
I put going, not drive. They could have ride bikes to McDonald or we’ll become like some of the 3rd world countries where you’ll start seeing a family of 4 packed on a moped :-D.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu]But you just proved my point. $1million isn’t going to cut it these days…[/quote]

I can’t speak for other Piggs, but if someone offered me a gift of $1M that HAD to be spent on a property, this is a chance of a lifetime to me to get exactly what I have been dreaming of and no less. If I have to add to it to make this happen, I would. This would NOT be an occasion to “settle,” IMO.[/quote]
But that still prove flu’s point that $1M, although we all would be grateful, doesn’t go very far today in SD.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu]But you just proved my point. $1million isn’t going to cut it these days…[/quote]

I can’t speak for other Piggs, but if someone offered me a gift of $1M that HAD to be spent on a property, this is a chance of a lifetime to me to get exactly what I have been dreaming of and no less. If I have to add to it to make this happen, I would. This would NOT be an occasion to “settle,” IMO.[/quote]
But that still prove flu’s point that $1M, although we all would be grateful, doesn’t go very far today in SD.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu]But you just proved my point. $1million isn’t going to cut it these days…[/quote]

I can’t speak for other Piggs, but if someone offered me a gift of $1M that HAD to be spent on a property, this is a chance of a lifetime to me to get exactly what I have been dreaming of and no less. If I have to add to it to make this happen, I would. This would NOT be an occasion to “settle,” IMO.[/quote]
But that still prove flu’s point that $1M, although we all would be grateful, doesn’t go very far today in SD.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu]But you just proved my point. $1million isn’t going to cut it these days…[/quote]

I can’t speak for other Piggs, but if someone offered me a gift of $1M that HAD to be spent on a property, this is a chance of a lifetime to me to get exactly what I have been dreaming of and no less. If I have to add to it to make this happen, I would. This would NOT be an occasion to “settle,” IMO.[/quote]
But that still prove flu’s point that $1M, although we all would be grateful, doesn’t go very far today in SD.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu]But you just proved my point. $1million isn’t going to cut it these days…[/quote]

I can’t speak for other Piggs, but if someone offered me a gift of $1M that HAD to be spent on a property, this is a chance of a lifetime to me to get exactly what I have been dreaming of and no less. If I have to add to it to make this happen, I would. This would NOT be an occasion to “settle,” IMO.[/quote]
But that still prove flu’s point that $1M, although we all would be grateful, doesn’t go very far today in SD.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]The 2000 lot is the same as the 2001 lot. The 1999s, same thing. I don’t know what ’98 place you’re talking about, but yeah, there are view lots near you (you’d have to adjust downward for that). You’re just looking at so much stuff it’s making your head spin. There was this thing called the bubble, you may have heard about it. Again, the 2001 looks like a tad bit of an outlier, we’re supposed to be using 2000, I gave you the average, a solid comp and you’re going further and further away from it. As I was saying, we can extrapolate from both ends, but when you have actuals…[/quote]
I said the ’00 lot is the same as the ’01 lot, that’s why I was wonder why there was a 44% increase w/in 1 year. Are you trying to say the bubble is the cause of the 44% increase between ’00 and ’01? I’ve been here long enough to have heard of the bubble, but I don’t believe the bubble started in earnest in 2000 to cause a 44% increase in 1 year.

You say the ’01 is an outlier and I’m telling you it’s not, because the houses in this development that sold in ’01 are all around that price. Since you obviously know the area, you can also verify what I said is true. The ’98 sold comp is a view lot AND it was sold HIGHER than the ’99 comps, that’s why I said the price dropped a good 5-10% between ’98 and ’99. If you adjust for view lot vs non view lot, ’98 sold comp is probably = to ’00 comp as well.

Lets take a step back and use the 2000 comp. My payment is 17%-22% higher than the payment would be in 2000 using the 2000 comp. Which is still less than the 50% income increase Rich stated between 2000-2010.

BTW, my original statement is still true and you’ve only changed the subject. Just to refresh your memory, here’s what I said:
[quote=AN]
Here’s my data point. 24% above 2001 price (I can only find one good comp around 2000-2001). Using the price they paid and the rate when they paid vs the price I paid and the rate I got, I’m paying about 5% LESS per month that the comp in 2001.[/quote]
Please back up your statement of the 2001 comp being an outlier. Bringing up ’99 and ’00 comp doesn’t prove that the ’01 comp is an outlier. To help you out, here are some more comps from ’01:
1800 sq-ft $313k
2000 sq-ft $360k
2000 sq-ft $359k
2000 sq-ft $340k
2300 sq-ft $359k
2300 sq-ft $359k
2300 sq-ft $343k
2300 sq-ft $338k

Some ’00 comps:
1600 sq-ft $260k
1600 sq-ft $274k
1600 sq-ft $267k
1800 sq-ft $275k
2300 sq-ft $285k
2300 sq-ft $324k

So, maybe the ’00 comp was more of an outlier.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]The 2000 lot is the same as the 2001 lot. The 1999s, same thing. I don’t know what ’98 place you’re talking about, but yeah, there are view lots near you (you’d have to adjust downward for that). You’re just looking at so much stuff it’s making your head spin. There was this thing called the bubble, you may have heard about it. Again, the 2001 looks like a tad bit of an outlier, we’re supposed to be using 2000, I gave you the average, a solid comp and you’re going further and further away from it. As I was saying, we can extrapolate from both ends, but when you have actuals…[/quote]
I said the ’00 lot is the same as the ’01 lot, that’s why I was wonder why there was a 44% increase w/in 1 year. Are you trying to say the bubble is the cause of the 44% increase between ’00 and ’01? I’ve been here long enough to have heard of the bubble, but I don’t believe the bubble started in earnest in 2000 to cause a 44% increase in 1 year.

You say the ’01 is an outlier and I’m telling you it’s not, because the houses in this development that sold in ’01 are all around that price. Since you obviously know the area, you can also verify what I said is true. The ’98 sold comp is a view lot AND it was sold HIGHER than the ’99 comps, that’s why I said the price dropped a good 5-10% between ’98 and ’99. If you adjust for view lot vs non view lot, ’98 sold comp is probably = to ’00 comp as well.

Lets take a step back and use the 2000 comp. My payment is 17%-22% higher than the payment would be in 2000 using the 2000 comp. Which is still less than the 50% income increase Rich stated between 2000-2010.

BTW, my original statement is still true and you’ve only changed the subject. Just to refresh your memory, here’s what I said:
[quote=AN]
Here’s my data point. 24% above 2001 price (I can only find one good comp around 2000-2001). Using the price they paid and the rate when they paid vs the price I paid and the rate I got, I’m paying about 5% LESS per month that the comp in 2001.[/quote]
Please back up your statement of the 2001 comp being an outlier. Bringing up ’99 and ’00 comp doesn’t prove that the ’01 comp is an outlier. To help you out, here are some more comps from ’01:
1800 sq-ft $313k
2000 sq-ft $360k
2000 sq-ft $359k
2000 sq-ft $340k
2300 sq-ft $359k
2300 sq-ft $359k
2300 sq-ft $343k
2300 sq-ft $338k

Some ’00 comps:
1600 sq-ft $260k
1600 sq-ft $274k
1600 sq-ft $267k
1800 sq-ft $275k
2300 sq-ft $285k
2300 sq-ft $324k

So, maybe the ’00 comp was more of an outlier.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]The 2000 lot is the same as the 2001 lot. The 1999s, same thing. I don’t know what ’98 place you’re talking about, but yeah, there are view lots near you (you’d have to adjust downward for that). You’re just looking at so much stuff it’s making your head spin. There was this thing called the bubble, you may have heard about it. Again, the 2001 looks like a tad bit of an outlier, we’re supposed to be using 2000, I gave you the average, a solid comp and you’re going further and further away from it. As I was saying, we can extrapolate from both ends, but when you have actuals…[/quote]
I said the ’00 lot is the same as the ’01 lot, that’s why I was wonder why there was a 44% increase w/in 1 year. Are you trying to say the bubble is the cause of the 44% increase between ’00 and ’01? I’ve been here long enough to have heard of the bubble, but I don’t believe the bubble started in earnest in 2000 to cause a 44% increase in 1 year.

You say the ’01 is an outlier and I’m telling you it’s not, because the houses in this development that sold in ’01 are all around that price. Since you obviously know the area, you can also verify what I said is true. The ’98 sold comp is a view lot AND it was sold HIGHER than the ’99 comps, that’s why I said the price dropped a good 5-10% between ’98 and ’99. If you adjust for view lot vs non view lot, ’98 sold comp is probably = to ’00 comp as well.

Lets take a step back and use the 2000 comp. My payment is 17%-22% higher than the payment would be in 2000 using the 2000 comp. Which is still less than the 50% income increase Rich stated between 2000-2010.

BTW, my original statement is still true and you’ve only changed the subject. Just to refresh your memory, here’s what I said:
[quote=AN]
Here’s my data point. 24% above 2001 price (I can only find one good comp around 2000-2001). Using the price they paid and the rate when they paid vs the price I paid and the rate I got, I’m paying about 5% LESS per month that the comp in 2001.[/quote]
Please back up your statement of the 2001 comp being an outlier. Bringing up ’99 and ’00 comp doesn’t prove that the ’01 comp is an outlier. To help you out, here are some more comps from ’01:
1800 sq-ft $313k
2000 sq-ft $360k
2000 sq-ft $359k
2000 sq-ft $340k
2300 sq-ft $359k
2300 sq-ft $359k
2300 sq-ft $343k
2300 sq-ft $338k

Some ’00 comps:
1600 sq-ft $260k
1600 sq-ft $274k
1600 sq-ft $267k
1800 sq-ft $275k
2300 sq-ft $285k
2300 sq-ft $324k

So, maybe the ’00 comp was more of an outlier.

[Author]

Posts