For those who think we are still over-valued and need to resort to historical trends, consider this.
-
If it weren’t for the big blow-up in the 2003-2004 era, we might have been fine.
-
We are roughly 25% higher in pricing then we were 10 years ago, or about +2.5% per year.
-
The last three selling seasons have been steady.
Average $/sf of NSDCC Detached Sales between April 1st and July 31st:
Sustainable? As long as rates and inventory stay low, we should be OK for now. For sellers who are “waiting for prices to come back”, consider that this is probably where they were supposed to be, and the fog-a-mirror financing that fueled the bubble won’t be returning.
The only problem with this statement.
“And why we are Stuck in the mud…”
“For sellers who are “waiting for prices to come back”, consider that this is probably where they were supposed to be”
Is that for a large portion of the would be sellers, they cannot afford the loss they would incur not selling for the 2005-7 price so they are stuck (and I am not just talking about the underwater owner either).
Also a Large portion of CA Cities set their revenue expectation at 2005 cash flow, so they will be going BK one after the other (unless that cash flow were to somehow magically return).
This is why we are Stuck in the mud…
I read the headline as “selling stetson hats” …
Nice data. 2% a year is basically flat. Hard to argue that we are massively over-priced. All the long term data I’ve seen shows that housing in general follows inflation.
Still, relative desirability (ex: Detroit vs NYC) has an impact too of course. Fortunately SD fares well on that metric, people are still wanting to live here:
SDC population in 2000: 2.8 M
SDC population in 2011: 3.14 M (+12%)
I personally believe the reason house vales are appearing to go up is inflation.
All that bailout money that was dumped into the money supply is starting to take effect.
If I cared to spend the time, I could probably come up with an argument to suggest it is still a bit overpriced, though not massively. Figures lie and liars figure 🙂
Also, housing markets go through periods where they are “underpriced” – that is, prices don’t follow inflation explicitly – and it is possible for us to drop under that “expected inflation” line for a while. The old “overshoot to the downside” argument.
It’s a good graph, though.
A rent-per-sqft chart up against that would be insightful.
Wonder if this graph tells the same story if you extend it past 2000? Like back to 1990? 1980?
Is that for a large portion of the would be sellers, they cannot afford the loss they would incur not selling for the 2005-7 price so they are stuck (and I am not just talking about the underwater owner either).
Also a Large portion of CA Cities set their revenue expectation at 2005 cash flow, so they will be going BK one after the other (unless that cash flow were to somehow magically return).
This is why we are Stuck in the mud…
If you and those potential sellers want to complain that you are stuck and mope around the next 10+ years, then that is your right.
But when we sold the exact amount of houses this selling season as we did in 2005, I’m not buying that the market is stuck in the mud – it appears to be working just fine.
This is America, where politicians will pander to anyone for votes. As a result, there are plenty of viable options:
1. Stick and stay, and make the best of it.
2. If underwater, short sale, and get back in line 3 years from now.
3. Refinance through the numerous government programs to lower your payment and take advantage of the low rates.
4. Pay down, or pay off your note.
Sure, they might take a big loss on their house, but if they want to buy again, they will be buying lower too – think of the property tax savings.
If they had a big equity position and would realize the loss if sold, they could have lost the money in the stock market or other investment and have no chance of getting it back. At least they have shelter, and a chance to make back the money if they wait it out for years.
Wonder if this graph tells the same story if you extend it past 2000? Like back to 1990? 1980?
I don’t have those records, and I didn’t keep any of the MLS listing books. The market is so different now I don’t think that data would provide much direction for the future.