Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 2, 2010 at 7:02 AM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #535021April 2, 2010 at 7:02 AM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #535118
pemeliza
Participant“What areas are you seeing 2001 prices ?”
One area that is getting decimated that was holding up relatively well until now is the better streets in Mt. Helix. Here is one that is sitting on the market for under the 2001 price:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100006632-4512_Bird_Of_Paradise_Ln_La_Mesa_CA_91941
This looks like a great deal but there good be something fundamentally wrong about the house I have not seen it. But that house is not alone and in general the area is probably close to 2001 price levels even for the best streets.
I’m also seeing examples in some of the best SD city area zip codes (Pt. Loma, Mission Hills, etc.) that are getting close to those price levels especially stuff in the higher end (> 900k). But there are other examples. Here is a row home that just closed for a few thousand over the 2002 price in 92103
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-C194A990-3133_3rd_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92103
So far this spring I have seen no indication that the downward price trend has halted in these areas so 2001 nominal pricing definitely seems like a possibility.
April 2, 2010 at 7:02 AM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #535383pemeliza
Participant“What areas are you seeing 2001 prices ?”
One area that is getting decimated that was holding up relatively well until now is the better streets in Mt. Helix. Here is one that is sitting on the market for under the 2001 price:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100006632-4512_Bird_Of_Paradise_Ln_La_Mesa_CA_91941
This looks like a great deal but there good be something fundamentally wrong about the house I have not seen it. But that house is not alone and in general the area is probably close to 2001 price levels even for the best streets.
I’m also seeing examples in some of the best SD city area zip codes (Pt. Loma, Mission Hills, etc.) that are getting close to those price levels especially stuff in the higher end (> 900k). But there are other examples. Here is a row home that just closed for a few thousand over the 2002 price in 92103
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-C194A990-3133_3rd_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92103
So far this spring I have seen no indication that the downward price trend has halted in these areas so 2001 nominal pricing definitely seems like a possibility.
April 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #534201pemeliza
Participant1996 was pretty much the bottom of the last bust in California and 1996 prices are nominally basically the same as 1988 prices. So in 22 years yes houses should probably be double especially given that interest rates are roughly half of what they were in the late 80’s.
Also, At 3% inflation it takes about 23.5 years for a price to double. Prices in 1996 were an overshoot to the downside. Given the scope of this bubble I would not be surprised to prices overshoot to the downside at about 2001 nominal pricing for the best areas. I’m already seeing this type of pricing in good areas.
April 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #534332pemeliza
Participant1996 was pretty much the bottom of the last bust in California and 1996 prices are nominally basically the same as 1988 prices. So in 22 years yes houses should probably be double especially given that interest rates are roughly half of what they were in the late 80’s.
Also, At 3% inflation it takes about 23.5 years for a price to double. Prices in 1996 were an overshoot to the downside. Given the scope of this bubble I would not be surprised to prices overshoot to the downside at about 2001 nominal pricing for the best areas. I’m already seeing this type of pricing in good areas.
April 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #534789pemeliza
Participant1996 was pretty much the bottom of the last bust in California and 1996 prices are nominally basically the same as 1988 prices. So in 22 years yes houses should probably be double especially given that interest rates are roughly half of what they were in the late 80’s.
Also, At 3% inflation it takes about 23.5 years for a price to double. Prices in 1996 were an overshoot to the downside. Given the scope of this bubble I would not be surprised to prices overshoot to the downside at about 2001 nominal pricing for the best areas. I’m already seeing this type of pricing in good areas.
April 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #534887pemeliza
Participant1996 was pretty much the bottom of the last bust in California and 1996 prices are nominally basically the same as 1988 prices. So in 22 years yes houses should probably be double especially given that interest rates are roughly half of what they were in the late 80’s.
Also, At 3% inflation it takes about 23.5 years for a price to double. Prices in 1996 were an overshoot to the downside. Given the scope of this bubble I would not be surprised to prices overshoot to the downside at about 2001 nominal pricing for the best areas. I’m already seeing this type of pricing in good areas.
April 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM in reply to: Should the houses be worth twice what they were in 1996? #535152pemeliza
Participant1996 was pretty much the bottom of the last bust in California and 1996 prices are nominally basically the same as 1988 prices. So in 22 years yes houses should probably be double especially given that interest rates are roughly half of what they were in the late 80’s.
Also, At 3% inflation it takes about 23.5 years for a price to double. Prices in 1996 were an overshoot to the downside. Given the scope of this bubble I would not be surprised to prices overshoot to the downside at about 2001 nominal pricing for the best areas. I’m already seeing this type of pricing in good areas.
pemeliza
ParticipantAre you sure that was an arm’s length transaction? This one just closed on the same street and was much smaller (but probably in better condition.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090064360-5359_Channing_St_San_Diego_CA_92117
Wow, $2000-$2500 a month for that! I think that is way too high for that these days based on what I am seeing rent in my area.
pemeliza
ParticipantAre you sure that was an arm’s length transaction? This one just closed on the same street and was much smaller (but probably in better condition.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090064360-5359_Channing_St_San_Diego_CA_92117
Wow, $2000-$2500 a month for that! I think that is way too high for that these days based on what I am seeing rent in my area.
pemeliza
ParticipantAre you sure that was an arm’s length transaction? This one just closed on the same street and was much smaller (but probably in better condition.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090064360-5359_Channing_St_San_Diego_CA_92117
Wow, $2000-$2500 a month for that! I think that is way too high for that these days based on what I am seeing rent in my area.
pemeliza
ParticipantAre you sure that was an arm’s length transaction? This one just closed on the same street and was much smaller (but probably in better condition.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090064360-5359_Channing_St_San_Diego_CA_92117
Wow, $2000-$2500 a month for that! I think that is way too high for that these days based on what I am seeing rent in my area.
pemeliza
ParticipantAre you sure that was an arm’s length transaction? This one just closed on the same street and was much smaller (but probably in better condition.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090064360-5359_Channing_St_San_Diego_CA_92117
Wow, $2000-$2500 a month for that! I think that is way too high for that these days based on what I am seeing rent in my area.
February 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM in reply to: About half of U.S. mortgages seen underwater by 2011 #519443pemeliza
ParticipantHere is a nice new listing in 92024
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011921-92024
Huge lot but not much of a house and not single story.
February 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM in reply to: About half of U.S. mortgages seen underwater by 2011 #519537pemeliza
ParticipantHere is a nice new listing in 92024
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100011921-92024
Huge lot but not much of a house and not single story.
-
AuthorPosts
