[sdcellar]

Ah, I see what you’re saying now, but that also goes to my point that new home construction elevates interest in an area and helps pull resales along with it.

Makes sense, though, that annual sales volume should increase as an area grows (and I said as much earlier). So, much of the growth is normal, but it would be unwise to assume it’s all natural. We all agree that sales volume was skewed upward during the bubble years, don’t we?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.[/quote]The original post (which you were referring to) had none of this detail and his latest post came after our interchange.

So, I’m going to stick with the fact that you certainly seem to be reading a lot into his initial post. There were two periods sdr referred to, one we’d consider bubbly and the other not. And nothing about holding power, just sales volume. You contend that bubbly sales volume is more the norm, I suggest that it may not be.

That said, I’m not sure what the strict correlation is between volume and price. I’m sure somebody has graphed it somewhere. There would certainly seem to be a correlation to some extent, I’m just not sure how constant it is. For example, it seems sales volume in 2007 was low because prices were simply too high. In 2010, it appears to be more related to available inventory.

I’m also thinking that “normal” sales volume would be somewhere between the 1300 and 2000 figures.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.[/quote]Within a single post you say new housing stock “went up by a lot,” so need to factor that in. Then you say that it’s always been there (“that variable didn’t change”), suggesting we can safely ignore the effect on new home construction.

So, I’m confused. Which is it?

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[Author]

Posts