[sdcellar]

AN, I think the phenomena is what sdrealtor has talked about before, the lowest priced properties (and areas) bubbled the most. They also had the least financially sound pool of buyers as you’re pointing out. This leaves higher priced areas with a little less to fall and generally better strength among owners. Newer construction seems disproportionally vulnerable as well, even at higher price ranges, but that would be my opinion.

Perhaps I was reading too much into your earlier posts, but your position sounds more moderate now, so I can only agree with it.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

[quote=pemeliza]”Some say yes, and some say no. ”

I guess if you consider the quality of life in 92024 in the 90’s it probably wasn’t really under-priced. But given its choice location it was certainly ripe for major appreciation as it got flooded with new money. The people that saw this and had the $$$ back in the 90s made out good even if they didn’t sell at the peak. They locked in a low tax base and now have a phenomenal quality of life.[/quote]Yeah, the thing to remember is that everything in San Diego “appreciated” at roughly the same rate. Hell, even all the way out the Temecula Valley from what I’ve heard.

Again, I think this is somewhere in the middle. I think prices were on the low side in the 90’s but quickly went overboard in the 00’s.

[sdcellar]

[quote=pemeliza]”Some say yes, and some say no. ”

I guess if you consider the quality of life in 92024 in the 90’s it probably wasn’t really under-priced. But given its choice location it was certainly ripe for major appreciation as it got flooded with new money. The people that saw this and had the $$$ back in the 90s made out good even if they didn’t sell at the peak. They locked in a low tax base and now have a phenomenal quality of life.[/quote]Yeah, the thing to remember is that everything in San Diego “appreciated” at roughly the same rate. Hell, even all the way out the Temecula Valley from what I’ve heard.

Again, I think this is somewhere in the middle. I think prices were on the low side in the 90’s but quickly went overboard in the 00’s.

[sdcellar]

[quote=pemeliza]”Some say yes, and some say no. ”

I guess if you consider the quality of life in 92024 in the 90’s it probably wasn’t really under-priced. But given its choice location it was certainly ripe for major appreciation as it got flooded with new money. The people that saw this and had the $$$ back in the 90s made out good even if they didn’t sell at the peak. They locked in a low tax base and now have a phenomenal quality of life.[/quote]Yeah, the thing to remember is that everything in San Diego “appreciated” at roughly the same rate. Hell, even all the way out the Temecula Valley from what I’ve heard.

Again, I think this is somewhere in the middle. I think prices were on the low side in the 90’s but quickly went overboard in the 00’s.

[sdcellar]

[quote=pemeliza]”Some say yes, and some say no. ”

I guess if you consider the quality of life in 92024 in the 90’s it probably wasn’t really under-priced. But given its choice location it was certainly ripe for major appreciation as it got flooded with new money. The people that saw this and had the $$$ back in the 90s made out good even if they didn’t sell at the peak. They locked in a low tax base and now have a phenomenal quality of life.[/quote]Yeah, the thing to remember is that everything in San Diego “appreciated” at roughly the same rate. Hell, even all the way out the Temecula Valley from what I’ve heard.

Again, I think this is somewhere in the middle. I think prices were on the low side in the 90’s but quickly went overboard in the 00’s.

[sdcellar]

[quote=pemeliza]”Some say yes, and some say no. ”

I guess if you consider the quality of life in 92024 in the 90’s it probably wasn’t really under-priced. But given its choice location it was certainly ripe for major appreciation as it got flooded with new money. The people that saw this and had the $$$ back in the 90s made out good even if they didn’t sell at the peak. They locked in a low tax base and now have a phenomenal quality of life.[/quote]Yeah, the thing to remember is that everything in San Diego “appreciated” at roughly the same rate. Hell, even all the way out the Temecula Valley from what I’ve heard.

Again, I think this is somewhere in the middle. I think prices were on the low side in the 90’s but quickly went overboard in the 00’s.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Got it now. I agree that bubble is unnatural. Yet, even with these unnatural purchases, resale today is still down to ~1996.[/quote]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Got it now. I agree that bubble is unnatural. Yet, even with these unnatural purchases, resale today is still down to ~1996.[/quote]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Got it now. I agree that bubble is unnatural. Yet, even with these unnatural purchases, resale today is still down to ~1996.[/quote]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Got it now. I agree that bubble is unnatural. Yet, even with these unnatural purchases, resale today is still down to ~1996.[/quote]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.

[Author]

Posts