[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

It may be an overcorrection, taking into account inflation and the value of the dollar. Personally, I don’t see it as much of a stretch. It seems more likely (and more logical) to me that prices will follow past trends and current downward pressures than to only go down another 10% and level out, while every other market continues to tank. It’s never happened that way in the past, and I just don’t think the coast is that magical.

The changes in the U.S. dollar haven’t prevented prices from reaching 2000-2001 levels in other areas, and those areas are still dropping.

[Ren]

It may be an overcorrection, taking into account inflation and the value of the dollar. Personally, I don’t see it as much of a stretch. It seems more likely (and more logical) to me that prices will follow past trends and current downward pressures than to only go down another 10% and level out, while every other market continues to tank. It’s never happened that way in the past, and I just don’t think the coast is that magical.

The changes in the U.S. dollar haven’t prevented prices from reaching 2000-2001 levels in other areas, and those areas are still dropping.

[Ren]

It may be an overcorrection, taking into account inflation and the value of the dollar. Personally, I don’t see it as much of a stretch. It seems more likely (and more logical) to me that prices will follow past trends and current downward pressures than to only go down another 10% and level out, while every other market continues to tank. It’s never happened that way in the past, and I just don’t think the coast is that magical.

The changes in the U.S. dollar haven’t prevented prices from reaching 2000-2001 levels in other areas, and those areas are still dropping.

[Ren]

It may be an overcorrection, taking into account inflation and the value of the dollar. Personally, I don’t see it as much of a stretch. It seems more likely (and more logical) to me that prices will follow past trends and current downward pressures than to only go down another 10% and level out, while every other market continues to tank. It’s never happened that way in the past, and I just don’t think the coast is that magical.

The changes in the U.S. dollar haven’t prevented prices from reaching 2000-2001 levels in other areas, and those areas are still dropping.

[Ren]

It may be an overcorrection, taking into account inflation and the value of the dollar. Personally, I don’t see it as much of a stretch. It seems more likely (and more logical) to me that prices will follow past trends and current downward pressures than to only go down another 10% and level out, while every other market continues to tank. It’s never happened that way in the past, and I just don’t think the coast is that magical.

The changes in the U.S. dollar haven’t prevented prices from reaching 2000-2001 levels in other areas, and those areas are still dropping.

[Ren]

I’m not saying that a $475k house will be going for $500k. What I’m saying is that I’ve been watching the market there since pre-bubble (it’s where I plan to retire), and for the past year I’ve been looking on Redfin every few weeks and looking at the sales history. The houses that went for $300-400k (the range I’m looking at) in the late 90’s were going for $900+ at the peak, and they’re going for $700-800k now.

At the peak, there were plenty of people willing to pay $900k+, but that didn’t stop prices from dropping since then. I realize there are plenty of people willing to pay $700k now, but that still won’t stop prices from dropping even further, like to $500k, because the downward pressure far exceeds any perceived desirability keeping prices inflated (a desirability which hasn’t changed since the late 90’s). That kind of price change is entirely within reason considering the size of the bubble, it would match past trends, and still leave a significant premium over inland property. That’s my informed opinion, but I guess we’ll have to wait a few years to see who’s right 🙂

The bubble popped in places like Temecula. It’s slowly deflating on the coast.

[Ren]

I’m not saying that a $475k house will be going for $500k. What I’m saying is that I’ve been watching the market there since pre-bubble (it’s where I plan to retire), and for the past year I’ve been looking on Redfin every few weeks and looking at the sales history. The houses that went for $300-400k (the range I’m looking at) in the late 90’s were going for $900+ at the peak, and they’re going for $700-800k now.

At the peak, there were plenty of people willing to pay $900k+, but that didn’t stop prices from dropping since then. I realize there are plenty of people willing to pay $700k now, but that still won’t stop prices from dropping even further, like to $500k, because the downward pressure far exceeds any perceived desirability keeping prices inflated (a desirability which hasn’t changed since the late 90’s). That kind of price change is entirely within reason considering the size of the bubble, it would match past trends, and still leave a significant premium over inland property. That’s my informed opinion, but I guess we’ll have to wait a few years to see who’s right 🙂

The bubble popped in places like Temecula. It’s slowly deflating on the coast.

[Ren]

I’m not saying that a $475k house will be going for $500k. What I’m saying is that I’ve been watching the market there since pre-bubble (it’s where I plan to retire), and for the past year I’ve been looking on Redfin every few weeks and looking at the sales history. The houses that went for $300-400k (the range I’m looking at) in the late 90’s were going for $900+ at the peak, and they’re going for $700-800k now.

At the peak, there were plenty of people willing to pay $900k+, but that didn’t stop prices from dropping since then. I realize there are plenty of people willing to pay $700k now, but that still won’t stop prices from dropping even further, like to $500k, because the downward pressure far exceeds any perceived desirability keeping prices inflated (a desirability which hasn’t changed since the late 90’s). That kind of price change is entirely within reason considering the size of the bubble, it would match past trends, and still leave a significant premium over inland property. That’s my informed opinion, but I guess we’ll have to wait a few years to see who’s right 🙂

The bubble popped in places like Temecula. It’s slowly deflating on the coast.

[Ren]

I’m not saying that a $475k house will be going for $500k. What I’m saying is that I’ve been watching the market there since pre-bubble (it’s where I plan to retire), and for the past year I’ve been looking on Redfin every few weeks and looking at the sales history. The houses that went for $300-400k (the range I’m looking at) in the late 90’s were going for $900+ at the peak, and they’re going for $700-800k now.

At the peak, there were plenty of people willing to pay $900k+, but that didn’t stop prices from dropping since then. I realize there are plenty of people willing to pay $700k now, but that still won’t stop prices from dropping even further, like to $500k, because the downward pressure far exceeds any perceived desirability keeping prices inflated (a desirability which hasn’t changed since the late 90’s). That kind of price change is entirely within reason considering the size of the bubble, it would match past trends, and still leave a significant premium over inland property. That’s my informed opinion, but I guess we’ll have to wait a few years to see who’s right 🙂

The bubble popped in places like Temecula. It’s slowly deflating on the coast.

[Ren]

I’m not saying that a $475k house will be going for $500k. What I’m saying is that I’ve been watching the market there since pre-bubble (it’s where I plan to retire), and for the past year I’ve been looking on Redfin every few weeks and looking at the sales history. The houses that went for $300-400k (the range I’m looking at) in the late 90’s were going for $900+ at the peak, and they’re going for $700-800k now.

At the peak, there were plenty of people willing to pay $900k+, but that didn’t stop prices from dropping since then. I realize there are plenty of people willing to pay $700k now, but that still won’t stop prices from dropping even further, like to $500k, because the downward pressure far exceeds any perceived desirability keeping prices inflated (a desirability which hasn’t changed since the late 90’s). That kind of price change is entirely within reason considering the size of the bubble, it would match past trends, and still leave a significant premium over inland property. That’s my informed opinion, but I guess we’ll have to wait a few years to see who’s right 🙂

The bubble popped in places like Temecula. It’s slowly deflating on the coast.

[Author]

Posts