Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdcellar
ParticipantDepends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.
On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.
(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)
By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?
ParticipantDepends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.
On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.
(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)
By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?
ParticipantDepends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.
On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.
(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)
By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?
ParticipantDepends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.
On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.
(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)
By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?
ParticipantDepends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.
On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.
(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)
By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?
Participant[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.
We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.
Participant[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.
We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.
Participant[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.
We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.
Participant[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.
We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.
Participant[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.
We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.
ParticipantAN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.
I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.
I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?
ParticipantAN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.
I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.
I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?
ParticipantAN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.
I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.
I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?
ParticipantAN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.
I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.
I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?
-
AuthorPosts
