Patrick.net

Why correction in some Bay areas/Orange county is very slow?

By bubblesitter   Follow   Sat, 11 Sep 2010, 3:46pm   5,234 views   66 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

I want some honest opinions. I'd like it to be concise by % allocation to each of these points making it total 100%.

1) Only low paying jobs are lost in these areas?
2) Interest rate is too low.
3) All of the today's first time buyers are paying high % of their income on mortgage just because they think this is the way it would be in CA?
4) Move up buyers are renting their current residences and are using that rental income to pay current high prices.
5) Both first time buyers and existing home owners in these areas have big savings and are putting more toward down payment to reduce loan amount drastically.

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 27-66 of 66     Last »     See most liked comments

1. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   27   12:50pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   justme I don't expect you to answer my question or continue with the issue at hand. You're a sniper and you will now disappear until next time. I think we call those people trolls.

2. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

   28   1:13pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Not only does your graph TOTALLY IGNORE THE QUESTION OF RELATIVE MARKETS by grouping all areas into one single index, but it cuts off an entire YEAR of data in 2009-2010. iwog says justme says I meant Thomas, not Bubblesitter. What I said is still correct. Actually it’s not correct, it’s total crap. Thomas posted a chart that had NO BREAKDOWN WHATSOEVER of tiered home values in an conversation about tiered home values. You said his chart was more detailed geographically than mine which is entirely irrelevant. The entire conversation is why condos are losing a lot of value while high end homes are losing a little value. In Southern California no less. I have NO FRICKEN CLUE why you think a Bay Area breakdown with a fake inflation trendline could possibly be relevant. Perhaps you can tell us? >>Not only does your graph TOTALLY IGNORE THE QUESTION OF RELATIVE MARKETS by grouping all areas into one single index, but it cuts off an entire YEAR of data in 2009-2010. It is not my fault that you cannot keep straight the concepts of tiers (market segment) and area (geographical area). If you nmean tier, then say so. It is a hallmark of the dishonest that they can never admit to even a simple mistake. And by the way, your data was also from the Bay Area, not Orange County. Quack-kettle-black.

3. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

   29   1:18pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says justme I don’t expect you to answer my question or continue with the issue at hand. You’re a sniper and you will now disappear until next time. I think we call those people trolls. Answer your question? I'm not here today to answer your questions. I'm here to correct your errors. See below for the biggest one. You have not responded. Not that I really care. I just don't want your dishonest arguments to stand uncorrected. It is often not the person that types the most drivel which is correct. justme says iwog says I don’t know much about Orange county, however I did Wiki it and they are of the opinion that wages have increased by a substantial amount from 2000 to 2007. Assuming that trend continued into 2010, there will always be plenty of rich people bidding on a beautiful house in a California town where the average day temperature in the summer is 85 degrees and the average day temperature in winter is 69 degrees. Justme says: Faulty argument. You should acknowledge that house price increases more than outpaced wage increases in 2000-2007. And in 2007-2010, wages have flattened due to the recession. You can’t just “assume” that the trend continued in 2007-1010. To argue that any of the wage increases somehow support further home prices increases is plain wrong. It was wrong in 2000-2007, and it is wrong now.

4. bubblesitter Follow Befriend (5) 10 threads 2,329 comments

   30   2:34pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says bubblesitter says I am convinced more by Ace and Vain’s analysis than Iwog’s. That salary argument just does not make sense when salary increases are typically 3% and SFR appreciated 20% year in bubble years. That’s the whole point!!!!! Salaries didn’t increase by 3%, they increased more like 5% per year from 2000 to 2007. A lot of rich people ended up in Orange county. Okay 5%/year wage increase still it is no match for 2000-2006 20% appreciation of SFR. Why don't you just admit that there was a bubble of epic proportion. Rich people moved to OC. Huh? Retired rich people?

5. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

   31   2:38pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   What the hell? Here is from your original post: "I want some honest opinions." So, when someone gives you their opinion, you call them out? Why the hell did you ask then?

6. bubblesitter Follow Befriend (5) 10 threads 2,329 comments

   32   2:51pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says What the hell? Here is from your original post: “I want some honest opinions.” So, when someone gives you their opinion, you call them out? Why the hell did you ask then? Thanks for the reminder. I'll take your opinion as well. :)

7. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

   33   2:52pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says What the hell? Here is from your original post: “I want some honest opinions.” So, when someone gives you their opinion, you call them out? Why the hell did you ask then? Uh, I am not answering for bubblesitter, but for me the word "honest" is the significant one.

8. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

   34   2:56pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   justme says tatupu70 says What the hell? Here is from your original post: “I want some honest opinions.” So, when someone gives you their opinion, you call them out? Why the hell did you ask then? Uh, I am not answering for bubblesitter, but for me the word “honest” is the significant one. So, your take is that Iwog doesn't believe what he is posting? Not sure how you could come to that conclusion...

9. bubblesitter Follow Befriend (5) 10 threads 2,329 comments

   35   3:21pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   All right guys let's stay on opinions and not attacking each other. :)

10. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

    36   3:40pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says So, your take is that Iwog doesn’t believe what he is posting? What, now you want to quibble about the definition of the expression "honest opinion"? Okay, I'll try: An honest opinion is a meld of fact (objective truth) and personal values. If the "facts" are not true, then the opinion is not honest. Believing in your own lies of fact does not make your opinion honest.

11. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

    37   4:17pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   justme says What, now you want to quibble about the definition of the expression “honest opinion”? Okay, I’ll try: An honest opinion is a meld of fact (objective truth) and personal values. If the “facts” are not true, then the opinion is not honest. Believing in your own lies of fact does not make your opinion honest. OK--I'll play along even though your definition of honest truth is ridiculous. What "facts" are not true?

12. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    38   4:42pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   bubblesitter says Okay 5%/year wage increase still it is no match for 2000-2006 20% appreciation of SFR. Why don’t you just admit that there was a bubble of epic proportion. Rich people moved to OC. Huh? Retired rich people? 5% a year wage increase is no match for 2000-2006 appreciation, but it's very much a match for 2000 to 2010 appreciation. Isn't that the bottom line? You wanted to know why cheap real estate lost a far larger percentage of value compared to expensive real estate. 1. Wages have risen since 2000 (especially at the high end) therefore nice homes should and do cost more than in 2000. 2. Cheap housing gained 200-300% while expensive housing gained about 50-100%. What doesn't go up as far isn't coming down as far. 3. Buyers in fortress areas are more educated (fact) and more financially educated (premise) therefore were less likely to plunge into homes they couldn't afford in 2006-2007.

13. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    39   4:45pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   justme says Answer your question? I’m not here today to answer your questions. I’m here to correct your errors. See below for the biggest one. You have not responded. Not that I really care. I just don’t want your dishonest arguments to stand uncorrected. It is often not the person that types the most drivel which is correct. You didn't correct any errors. I find the character of someone who would lash out with personal attacks then refuse to answer any questions to be severely lacking. What makes you so angry anyway?

14. Enzo MiMo Follow Befriend 5 comments Fort Lauderdale, FL

    40   5:54pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I rule that iwog is the only poster who is lucid, cogent, and ADHD-free for the length of this thread. The others seem to use low-quality obfuscation when their thesis hits the wall. Calls 'em as I seez 'em. ;') Enzo MiMo

15. pkennedy Follow Befriend (8) 28 threads 1,339 comments Redwood City, CA

    41   6:30pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Iwog does a great job at most of the threads he participates in, providing data, and decent analysis of that data.

16. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

    42   7:17pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   blowback91 says I rule that iwog is the only poster who is lucid, cogent, and ADHD-free for the length of this thread. The others seem to use low-quality obfuscation when their thesis hits the wall. Calls ‘em as I seez ‘em. ;’) Enzo MiMo Let me see, blowback91 is a new user created today. He has one post, which consists of of the above. Yeah, I should care, but I don't. It seems fishy.

17. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

    43   7:19pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   pkennedy says Iwog does a great job at most of the threads he participates in, providing data, and decent analysis of that data. Iwog decreed by rectal extraction that wages grew 5%/year from 2000 -2010 In Orange County. There is no data, just wishful guesstimation.

18. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    44   7:21pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   justme says Let me see, blowback91 is a new user created today. He has one post, which consists of of the above. Yeah, I should care, but I don’t. It seems fishy. For you it's always going to be about the poster and never the topic. Why not stop taking everything personally and join the adults?

19. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    45   7:26pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   justme says Iwog decreed by rectal extraction that wages grew 5%/year from 2000 -2010 In Orange County. There is no data, just wishful guesstimation. I did nothing of the kind. I said I saw a wage report for Orange County that showed wage growth from 2000 to 2007 of about 5%. I then proposed as a possible reason why high end homes in Orange County were staying high that maybe wages continued to grow. I did not decree anything.

20. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    46   8:47pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says 1. Wages have risen since 2000 (especially at the high end) therefore nice homes should and do cost more than in 2000. 2. Cheap housing gained 200-300% while expensive housing gained about 50-100%. What doesn’t go up as far isn’t coming down as far. 3. Buyers in fortress areas are more educated (fact) and more financially educated (premise) therefore were less likely to plunge into homes they couldn’t afford in 2006-2007. 1. LOL! first we had lots of job losses post 2000. second we had lots of salary freezes, and finally lots of jobs migrating out. Salaries over the past 10 years are in fact down, IF you have a job. 2. Expensive houses in so called Fortress area were infact equally priced in Palo Alto and Fremont and Down to Blossom Valley. There were no such things as Fortress regions or cities. You would find many homes per sq ft were equal in price. 3. You can witness the many 'well educated' people commuting from South San Jose, and Fremont easily any morning of the week.

21. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    47   9:03pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says bubblesitter was asking why fortress areas have not lost nearly as much in value as other areas. One of my answers was the FACT that high end areas didn’t gain nearly as much as low end areas during the boom. mid 300K doubled by 2000 and in some cases double again.... mid 300K to 1,200K your favorite fortress town of Palo Alto would be a classic case of a bubble.

22. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    48   9:26pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   thomas.wong1986 says 1. LOL! first we had lots of job losses post 2000. second we had lots of salary freezes, and finally lots of jobs migrating out. Salaries over the past 10 years are in fact down, IF you have a job. We're talking about a home in Orange County. Whatever fantasy you have about jobs in the South Bay doesn't apply to Orange County. According to Wiki, the median wage in Orange (a city in Orange County) increased about 5% per year from 2000 to 2007. Here's the link if you want to check it yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange,_California

23. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    49   10:12pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Orange county it is...

24. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

    50   11:31pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Well, well, well. Using the median income numbers from wikipedia % (75024/58994)**(1/7) 1.03493528961006 % (75024/64573)**(1/7) 1.02166151901838 That's 3.5%/year for households and 2.2%/year for families over the 7 years from 2000 to 2007. Like I said before, the 5%/year that iwog claimed was Indeed by rectal extraction. Is it about the "topic" or about the person? Well, once a person has been caught lying several times, it will become common knowledge that the person is not to be trusted, and anything they claim thereafter will be viewed with suspicion. And rightly so. Is that unduly personal? Should he get a fresh new chance every day? Not until he has repented and admitted his lying ways. It is that simple.

25. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    51   11:40pm Sun 12 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   justme says Well, well, well. Using the median income numbers from wikipedia % (75024/58994)**(1/7) 1.03493528961006 % (75024/64573)**(1/7) 1.02166151901838 That’s 3.5%/year for households and 2.2%/year for families over the 7 years from 2000 to 2007. Like I said before, the 5%/year that iwog claimed was Indeed by rectal extraction. Is it about the “topic” or about the person? Well, once a person has been caught lying several times, it will become common knowledge that the person is not to be trusted, and anything they claim thereafter will be viewed with suspicion. And rightly so. Is that unduly personal? Should he get a fresh new chance every day? Not until he has repented and admitted his lying ways. It is that simple. Funny how I usually link my source but you never do. I'm not aware I've ever been caught lying. You don't seem to know the meaning of the word. It does appear that I used the city of Orange (inside of Orange Co.) instead of Orange County proper. The city of Orange has the approximately 5% increased income per year from 2000 to 2007 just as I had indicated. Orange County however is lower. I made a mistake and thank you for correcting it. Apparently I started with a search of Orange County and ended up somewhere else. You know it would make you look far more reasonable if you simply disagreed with me and provided better numbers than to call me a liar.

26. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

    52   12:03am Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says he city of Orange has the approximately 5% increased income per year from 2000 to 2007 just as I had indicated. Even when refuted black on white, you still keep at it. THERE IS NO NUMBER IN YOUR REFERENCE (Orange, the city) that supports your claim. And not in Orange, the county, either, for that sake. 3.5% or 2.2% is not 5%. They are a world apart.

27. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    53   12:26am Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   justme says iwog says he city of Orange has the approximately 5% increased income per year from 2000 to 2007 just as I had indicated. Even when refuted black on white, you still keep at it. THERE IS NO NUMBER IN YOUR REFERENCE (Orange, the city) that supports your claim. And not in Orange, the county, either, for that sake. 3.5% or 2.2% is not 5%. They are a world apart. The problem with your version of black and white is that you got it entirely wrong. Even while being self-righteous with as much mock outrage as you can muster, you didn't even get the numbers correct. From Wiki: The median income for a household in the city is $58,994, and the median income for a family is $64,573 (these figures had risen to $75,024 and $85,730 respectively as of a 2007 estimate $58,994 in 2000 + 4% per year = $75,512 in 2007. $64,573 in 2000 + 4.7% per year = $85,817 in 2007. Does this mean you're a liar Justme? I think it does..........at least the way you fling the term around without any regard to accuracy. I wonder if you hold yourself to the same standard that you hold others? I'm betting no. :(

28. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    54   12:33am Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Someone please check my above calculations to put this nonsense to rest. We are soooo far beyond my original point that it's ridiculous.

29. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

    55   6:51am Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Your latest calculation is still wrong, but we both copied one number wrong each (let's call that even). Here are the correct numbers and calculations: % (75024/58994)**(1/7) 1.03493528961006 % (85730/64573)**(1/7) 1.04131739402802 This means 3.5% and 4.1% for Orange the City, households versus families, not 4% and 4.7% as you say. And definitely not 5%. Not even with your mistyped number do you get more than 4.1%: % (85817/64573)**(1/7) 1.04146829175773 There is no way I can guess how you do your calculations, but the numbers that come out are incorrect. Reference is Wikipedia, which says: The median income for a household in the city is $58,994, and the median income for a family is $64,573 (these figures had risen to $75,024 and $85,730 respectively as of a 2007 estimate[20]). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange,_California#Demographics_in_2000

30. mthom Follow Befriend 2 threads 139 comments

    56   8:17am Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   bubblesitter says iwog says I approached this without the presumption that real estate was overpriced in 2000 or even 1995. Obviously if a condo goes from 200k to 435k then back to 200k, you’d expect a nice house to go from 900k to 1.2k and back down to 900k. A 900K SFR is a premium home. It probably appreciated at a rate of 10% a year from 2000 to 2007 then lost it again at the same rate. A 200k condo probably followed the same arc, but since it gained more it lost more. I should have put the starting point at the beginning. 1.2M house peaked from 500K in 2000, 450K condo peaked from 200K in 2000 and 950K peaked from 400K in 2000. My dilemma is why condo price corrected appropriately but the 1.2M house did not(in the same time frame, from 2005-2010)? This is very similar to many parts of the Bay Area: Campbell, better parts of Sunnyvale, better parts of Fremont, and others. Houses were $400k-$500k in 1998, peaked around $900k-$1.1M and have fallen back to $700k-$800k. I think it's the lack of foreclosures/gov't intervention and still decently high demand that's keeping prices from falling further.

31. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    57   9:08am Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   justme says Your latest calculation is still wrong, but we both copied one number wrong each (let’s call that even). Here are the correct numbers and calculations: I don't call people liars when they make a mistake. That's the difference between you and me. Therefore I'd rather not call it even.

32. E-man Follow Befriend (31) 34 threads 2,543 comments San Jose, CA Premium

    58   9:53am Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Why every thread has to turn into a pissing match? Too many people let their emotion get in the way of their thinking. Here are my 2 cents. The cost of a home consists of several factors 1. Land value 2. Structure/Building 3. Wage 4. Interest rate Let's say a 3,000 square foot home sold for $400k in the 1990's. Land value = $200k Building value = @200k (construction cost of about $65/sq. ft.) In 2006, it sold for $1Mil Land value = $500k Building value = $500k (cost about $165/sq.ft) In 2010, it sells for $800k Land value = $500k Building value = $300k (cost about $100/sq.ft.) The cost (materials and labor) of new construction sky-rocketed during the boom years, and it has come down substantially in the last couple of years. Going back to the factors listed above. The interest rate now (4.25% in 2010) comparing to the 1990's (about 8%) has increased your buying power by about 50%. Furthuremore, have your salary increased by at least 50% from 1990's? Condo's, on the other hand, have 1. NO LAND VALUE 2. High HOA, but doesn't add much value IMO. 3. Under tremendous pressure due to high HOA delinquencies 4. Banks and FHA are not lending to any condo complex that has a delinquency rate greater than 15%. The complexes with high HOA delinquency rates put other (not deliquent) complexes under tremendous PRICE PRESSURE. Therefore, your buyer pool is only all cash buyers, and these people would only buy if the condo would cash-flow. Now you know why prices in desirable areas are still high? Try to list that home for $100k below fair market value, and people will bid it back up. I didn't make up the rules. I just use them to my advantage :o) Good luck with house hunting.

33. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

    59   10:04am Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says I don’t call people liars when they make a mistake. Very noble of you, but the lie was the 5% number, which you could not substantiate even with bad math and typos. When you had typos and bad math, I just said you had typos and bad math, I did not say lie. You have a history of decreeing data by rectal extraction, and I will continue to call you out every time you do that. Next!

34. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    60   12:07pm Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   justme says iwog says I don’t call people liars when they make a mistake. Very noble of you, but the lie was the 5% number, which you could not substantiate even with bad math and typos. When you had typos and bad math, I just said you had typos and bad math, I did not say lie. You have a history of decreeing data by rectal extraction, and I will continue to call you out every time you do that. Next! I see. So the 5% number is a lie, but the 2.2% number from you wasn't a lie. (I was much closer and I just eyeballed it) Very convenient.

35. E-man Follow Befriend (31) 34 threads 2,543 comments San Jose, CA Premium

    61   12:10pm Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   I'd say if you don't have anything constructive to say, please don't say anything at all. If the numbers are incorrect, please say so instead of making a fuss out of it. I'd think that the readers would be more appreciative than reading a pissing match, but I could be wrong :o)

36. bubblesitter Follow Befriend (5) 10 threads 2,329 comments

    62   12:12pm Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I never expected this to be an attacking each other thread. I just wanted honest opinions. Oh well, what can I do?

37. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,450 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    63   3:17pm Mon 13 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   E-man says I’d say if you don’t have anything constructive to say, please don’t say anything at all. If the numbers are incorrect, please say so instead of making a fuss out of it. I’d think that the readers would be more appreciative than reading a pissing match, but I could be wrong :o) You're right of course.

38. justme Follow Befriend (2) 33 threads 3,456 comments

    64   7:05am Tue 14 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Falsehoods are not constructive.

39. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    65   12:04pm Tue 14 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   mthom says This is very similar to many parts of the Bay Area: Campbell, better parts of Sunnyvale, better parts of Fremont, and others. Houses were $400k-$500k in 1998, peaked around $900k-$1.1M and have fallen back to $700k-$800k. I think it’s the lack of foreclosures/gov’t intervention and still decently high demand that’s keeping prices from falling further. More like prices were under $300K in the above areas before 1998. Doubled to $500K and went up again to $700-800K. Factoring in inflation the same 1998 prices adjusted for inflation the same homes would run as much between 300-400K which would be back to 3-4x household incomes.

40. Cvoc13 Follow Befriend (9) 6 threads 194 comments Dublin, CA Cvoc13's website

    66   11:40pm Tue 14 Sep 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Because the Gov. is supporting the Housing market. 2) The Banks are not bringing to market all of the foreclosures, 3) The people here have more money to throw away on the thought this is the time to buy and with #2 real prices are not being found. 4) The Mark To Market rule was suspended allowing reason #2 (banks to hold off market) People if you would look at this like a NEW IDEA and no history, and looking only forward accounting for all the headwinds of our Economy you would likely not think buying a house was a GOOD investment, It might be a good home, But investment? NO way, These areas will be 30% lower then they are today 9/15/2010 by the time the date clock reads 9/15/2013 almost without a doubt. We are in for a HELL of time folks, at least that is how I see it, Housing is just but one area that needs to and in fact will come down in price.

« First     « Previous comments