Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
pemeliza
ParticipantThe trophy homes pull up the value of the shacks especially if the shacks have a decent lot.
ParticipantThe trophy homes pull up the value of the shacks especially if the shacks have a decent lot.
ParticipantCAR, as you reflect on this I will give you a follow-up question.
Let us assume for the moment that history were different and the top of the market would have been reached during 2000-2001 and that the top would have been nominally equivalent to the top set in 1990. In other words let’s assume there was no credit bubble.
My question is where do you think prices would be today 10 years after the top set in 2000-2001?
The reason I ask is because you have suggested many times that 2000-2001 prices would be about the level you would pull the trigger at today and many others have suggested the same thing. By implication then it seems that you are saying that in the absence of the credit bubble that today’s prices should be nominally the same not only as 2000-2001 prices but also 1989-1990 prices.
In other words, real prices should have steeply declined over the past 20 years in the absence of the credit bubble.
As it stands, given that some cream-puff homes in SD county are currently selling for real prices (after adjusting for inflation) that are slightly lower than what they sold for in 1989-1990 it seems that with all of the government intervention and lowering of interest rates, all the government was able to accomplish was flat or slightly declining real prices over the last 20 years in arguably one of the most desirable cities to live in the country. This much we know as fact because we can see it in the sales records.
What is compelling to me, is that you seem to be saying that in the absence of government intervention and FED easy money policies that real inflation adjusted prices should have declined sharply over the past 20 years.
ParticipantCAR, as you reflect on this I will give you a follow-up question.
Let us assume for the moment that history were different and the top of the market would have been reached during 2000-2001 and that the top would have been nominally equivalent to the top set in 1990. In other words let’s assume there was no credit bubble.
My question is where do you think prices would be today 10 years after the top set in 2000-2001?
The reason I ask is because you have suggested many times that 2000-2001 prices would be about the level you would pull the trigger at today and many others have suggested the same thing. By implication then it seems that you are saying that in the absence of the credit bubble that today’s prices should be nominally the same not only as 2000-2001 prices but also 1989-1990 prices.
In other words, real prices should have steeply declined over the past 20 years in the absence of the credit bubble.
As it stands, given that some cream-puff homes in SD county are currently selling for real prices (after adjusting for inflation) that are slightly lower than what they sold for in 1989-1990 it seems that with all of the government intervention and lowering of interest rates, all the government was able to accomplish was flat or slightly declining real prices over the last 20 years in arguably one of the most desirable cities to live in the country. This much we know as fact because we can see it in the sales records.
What is compelling to me, is that you seem to be saying that in the absence of government intervention and FED easy money policies that real inflation adjusted prices should have declined sharply over the past 20 years.
ParticipantCAR, as you reflect on this I will give you a follow-up question.
Let us assume for the moment that history were different and the top of the market would have been reached during 2000-2001 and that the top would have been nominally equivalent to the top set in 1990. In other words let’s assume there was no credit bubble.
My question is where do you think prices would be today 10 years after the top set in 2000-2001?
The reason I ask is because you have suggested many times that 2000-2001 prices would be about the level you would pull the trigger at today and many others have suggested the same thing. By implication then it seems that you are saying that in the absence of the credit bubble that today’s prices should be nominally the same not only as 2000-2001 prices but also 1989-1990 prices.
In other words, real prices should have steeply declined over the past 20 years in the absence of the credit bubble.
As it stands, given that some cream-puff homes in SD county are currently selling for real prices (after adjusting for inflation) that are slightly lower than what they sold for in 1989-1990 it seems that with all of the government intervention and lowering of interest rates, all the government was able to accomplish was flat or slightly declining real prices over the last 20 years in arguably one of the most desirable cities to live in the country. This much we know as fact because we can see it in the sales records.
What is compelling to me, is that you seem to be saying that in the absence of government intervention and FED easy money policies that real inflation adjusted prices should have declined sharply over the past 20 years.
ParticipantCAR, as you reflect on this I will give you a follow-up question.
Let us assume for the moment that history were different and the top of the market would have been reached during 2000-2001 and that the top would have been nominally equivalent to the top set in 1990. In other words let’s assume there was no credit bubble.
My question is where do you think prices would be today 10 years after the top set in 2000-2001?
The reason I ask is because you have suggested many times that 2000-2001 prices would be about the level you would pull the trigger at today and many others have suggested the same thing. By implication then it seems that you are saying that in the absence of the credit bubble that today’s prices should be nominally the same not only as 2000-2001 prices but also 1989-1990 prices.
In other words, real prices should have steeply declined over the past 20 years in the absence of the credit bubble.
As it stands, given that some cream-puff homes in SD county are currently selling for real prices (after adjusting for inflation) that are slightly lower than what they sold for in 1989-1990 it seems that with all of the government intervention and lowering of interest rates, all the government was able to accomplish was flat or slightly declining real prices over the last 20 years in arguably one of the most desirable cities to live in the country. This much we know as fact because we can see it in the sales records.
What is compelling to me, is that you seem to be saying that in the absence of government intervention and FED easy money policies that real inflation adjusted prices should have declined sharply over the past 20 years.
ParticipantCAR, as you reflect on this I will give you a follow-up question.
Let us assume for the moment that history were different and the top of the market would have been reached during 2000-2001 and that the top would have been nominally equivalent to the top set in 1990. In other words let’s assume there was no credit bubble.
My question is where do you think prices would be today 10 years after the top set in 2000-2001?
The reason I ask is because you have suggested many times that 2000-2001 prices would be about the level you would pull the trigger at today and many others have suggested the same thing. By implication then it seems that you are saying that in the absence of the credit bubble that today’s prices should be nominally the same not only as 2000-2001 prices but also 1989-1990 prices.
In other words, real prices should have steeply declined over the past 20 years in the absence of the credit bubble.
As it stands, given that some cream-puff homes in SD county are currently selling for real prices (after adjusting for inflation) that are slightly lower than what they sold for in 1989-1990 it seems that with all of the government intervention and lowering of interest rates, all the government was able to accomplish was flat or slightly declining real prices over the last 20 years in arguably one of the most desirable cities to live in the country. This much we know as fact because we can see it in the sales records.
What is compelling to me, is that you seem to be saying that in the absence of government intervention and FED easy money policies that real inflation adjusted prices should have declined sharply over the past 20 years.
ParticipantI agree that 1988 pricing was probably 15% lower than the 1990 peak and that is supported by sales records.
“I figured 1988 was near the top, then figured another 15% or so for the actual top in 1989/1990, then figured it was reached again around 2000”
It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the nominal top of the prior 1990 peak would have also been the nominal top of the current cycle around 2000-2001 had it not been for the credit bubble which extended the cycle for an additional 7 years. Why should the top of this cycle (which should have ended in 2000-2001 as you suggest) have been nominally the same as the top of the prior cycle in 1990?
ParticipantI agree that 1988 pricing was probably 15% lower than the 1990 peak and that is supported by sales records.
“I figured 1988 was near the top, then figured another 15% or so for the actual top in 1989/1990, then figured it was reached again around 2000”
It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the nominal top of the prior 1990 peak would have also been the nominal top of the current cycle around 2000-2001 had it not been for the credit bubble which extended the cycle for an additional 7 years. Why should the top of this cycle (which should have ended in 2000-2001 as you suggest) have been nominally the same as the top of the prior cycle in 1990?
ParticipantI agree that 1988 pricing was probably 15% lower than the 1990 peak and that is supported by sales records.
“I figured 1988 was near the top, then figured another 15% or so for the actual top in 1989/1990, then figured it was reached again around 2000”
It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the nominal top of the prior 1990 peak would have also been the nominal top of the current cycle around 2000-2001 had it not been for the credit bubble which extended the cycle for an additional 7 years. Why should the top of this cycle (which should have ended in 2000-2001 as you suggest) have been nominally the same as the top of the prior cycle in 1990?
ParticipantI agree that 1988 pricing was probably 15% lower than the 1990 peak and that is supported by sales records.
“I figured 1988 was near the top, then figured another 15% or so for the actual top in 1989/1990, then figured it was reached again around 2000”
It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the nominal top of the prior 1990 peak would have also been the nominal top of the current cycle around 2000-2001 had it not been for the credit bubble which extended the cycle for an additional 7 years. Why should the top of this cycle (which should have ended in 2000-2001 as you suggest) have been nominally the same as the top of the prior cycle in 1990?
ParticipantI agree that 1988 pricing was probably 15% lower than the 1990 peak and that is supported by sales records.
“I figured 1988 was near the top, then figured another 15% or so for the actual top in 1989/1990, then figured it was reached again around 2000”
It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the nominal top of the prior 1990 peak would have also been the nominal top of the current cycle around 2000-2001 had it not been for the credit bubble which extended the cycle for an additional 7 years. Why should the top of this cycle (which should have ended in 2000-2001 as you suggest) have been nominally the same as the top of the prior cycle in 1990?
Participant“It was a **credit bubble** that pushed prices up, in the aggregate, in the 2001-2007 period”
I would argue that the “credit bubble” period was more like 2003-2007.
Also, saying 1988 was near the last peak is like saying 2003 was near this peak. While certainly a true statement, things were changing incredibly fast during the 1988-1990 and 2003-2005 time periods.
Participant“It was a **credit bubble** that pushed prices up, in the aggregate, in the 2001-2007 period”
I would argue that the “credit bubble” period was more like 2003-2007.
Also, saying 1988 was near the last peak is like saying 2003 was near this peak. While certainly a true statement, things were changing incredibly fast during the 1988-1990 and 2003-2005 time periods.
-
AuthorPosts
