[feraina]

3/2 for 225K, wow, I sure hope so! But I don’t know. Since April, decent homes in MM listed for 450K or less have been snatched up quickly, and there have even been some price increases on some listed homes. I’m waiting for “summer cooling” of the market, but it doesn’t seem to be happening yet.

I’ll be delighted if prices would fall another 15%, which would make a decent 3/2 closer to 300K. To get to 225K…

The other thread (SD Home Price Index Blog) suggests that MM is already a little under-priced.

My parents were smitten with this 3/3 townhome for retirement:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-080041253-11202_Caminito_Inocenta_San_Diego_Ca_92126
and it was all I could do to prevent them from offering more than 400K (it came back with a counter-offer of 475K), which I thought would make a fair deal if not a good one. I’m curious, what do the rest of you more experienced Piggs think this 3/3 attached home is worth?

[feraina]

I see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.

Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.

From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.

[feraina]

I see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.

Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.

From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.

[feraina]

I see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.

Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.

From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.

[feraina]

I see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.

Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.

From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.

[feraina]

I see what you mean. From this figure:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_F-Z51q1pTp8/SGndG4kpdxI/AAAAAAAAAGg/TX1NO44Kc6s/s1600-h/sdhpi-0806-2.png
It looks like the four areas that are experience an uptick now, Encinitas/Carlsbad, Clairemon/Linda Vista/MM, CV/4S/Scripps, RB/RP/CMR, were also the four that experienced a slight uptick in the spring of 2007. The uptick was earlier last year, maybe the glut of foreclosures earlier this year postponed this year’s spring bounce.

Interestingly, percentage wise relative to 01/2001 pricing, all the various areas are now at a very similar level. It could be a coincidence, and it’s possible that they will all fall together some more. But it’s also (worryingly) possible that maybe they are all converging to some fundamental value.

From Rich’s historical data, it looks like housing prices were growing 5.5% on average in nominal terms. If that’s applicable in general, and assuming 01/01 to be the last time we had “fair pricing”, then current “fair pricing” should be 1.055^7.5 = 1.49, or 149% of 01/01 price. esmith’s 2nd and 3rd figures make it look like the mid- and low-tiers have fallen very close to 149%, as well as areas like Clairemont/MM.

[feraina]

esmith, very interesting & informative blog!

Do you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.

Thanks for the blog & analysis!

[feraina]

esmith, very interesting & informative blog!

Do you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.

Thanks for the blog & analysis!

[feraina]

esmith, very interesting & informative blog!

Do you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.

Thanks for the blog & analysis!

[feraina]

esmith, very interesting & informative blog!

Do you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.

Thanks for the blog & analysis!

[feraina]

esmith, very interesting & informative blog!

Do you have graphical data for the false bottoms of 93, 94, and 95? From the first and second figures, it really looks like many neighborhoods have leveled off, and some have even begun an uptick. I’m curious what those earlier false bottoms looked like at this timescale.

Thanks for the blog & analysis!

[feraina]

If this article gets enough publicity, maybe more people will attempt the practice. But I don’t think that NAR’s argument that such buying hurts “the average consumer” holds water. These new purchases are bringing down the comps, and moreover their old home is going back to the bank as foreclosure and which will be eventually sold for even less. So as an “average consumer” waiting on the sideline for the prices to drop to more reasonable ranges, I for one am not bothered at all by this practice, at least from a market perspective. Also, presumably owners that buy-and-bail are less likely to be bitter, and therefore less likely to cause unnecessary damage to their foreclosed homes when they leave.

This is all much better than the bank quietly writing down the loan and not allowing the local market to have the benefit of a low comp, and also better than a bitter owner leaving without a new home and intent on trashing the house.

[feraina]

If this article gets enough publicity, maybe more people will attempt the practice. But I don’t think that NAR’s argument that such buying hurts “the average consumer” holds water. These new purchases are bringing down the comps, and moreover their old home is going back to the bank as foreclosure and which will be eventually sold for even less. So as an “average consumer” waiting on the sideline for the prices to drop to more reasonable ranges, I for one am not bothered at all by this practice, at least from a market perspective. Also, presumably owners that buy-and-bail are less likely to be bitter, and therefore less likely to cause unnecessary damage to their foreclosed homes when they leave.

This is all much better than the bank quietly writing down the loan and not allowing the local market to have the benefit of a low comp, and also better than a bitter owner leaving without a new home and intent on trashing the house.

[feraina]

If this article gets enough publicity, maybe more people will attempt the practice. But I don’t think that NAR’s argument that such buying hurts “the average consumer” holds water. These new purchases are bringing down the comps, and moreover their old home is going back to the bank as foreclosure and which will be eventually sold for even less. So as an “average consumer” waiting on the sideline for the prices to drop to more reasonable ranges, I for one am not bothered at all by this practice, at least from a market perspective. Also, presumably owners that buy-and-bail are less likely to be bitter, and therefore less likely to cause unnecessary damage to their foreclosed homes when they leave.

This is all much better than the bank quietly writing down the loan and not allowing the local market to have the benefit of a low comp, and also better than a bitter owner leaving without a new home and intent on trashing the house.

[feraina]

If this article gets enough publicity, maybe more people will attempt the practice. But I don’t think that NAR’s argument that such buying hurts “the average consumer” holds water. These new purchases are bringing down the comps, and moreover their old home is going back to the bank as foreclosure and which will be eventually sold for even less. So as an “average consumer” waiting on the sideline for the prices to drop to more reasonable ranges, I for one am not bothered at all by this practice, at least from a market perspective. Also, presumably owners that buy-and-bail are less likely to be bitter, and therefore less likely to cause unnecessary damage to their foreclosed homes when they leave.

This is all much better than the bank quietly writing down the loan and not allowing the local market to have the benefit of a low comp, and also better than a bitter owner leaving without a new home and intent on trashing the house.

[Author]

Posts