[quote author="graphrix" date=1234205310][quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1234193315][quote author="ipoplaya" date=1234006548]Damn Woodbury continues to hold up at 19-20% off peak. Had two closes there this past week and both were still at 2005 price equivalents...</blockquote>
Like I said... the mid to higher new places are going to be very stubborn... they have a higher basis so I doubt prices can go much less than what people paid for them when they were first built. I don't recall that happening in Irvine in the 90s bubble (still waiting for someone to get me data on that).</blockquote>
In case you missed it, <a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/2791/#94212">Woodbury is getting whacked with the foreclosure syndrome</a>. This 20% off crap is just the beginning, and watch this thread for 30%-40% off in the near future, because the 20% off happened before the foreclosure syndrome hit Woodbury.
What exactly are you looking for again in the 90s stat, and how should I adjust for the amount of job losses being higher this time, and foreclosures being higher this time? What are you trying to point out? Stats from the 90s are now irrelevant, and you need to adjust for the severity of this down turn. What? Are you afraid you missed the boat? Are you afraid that newer homes won't fall much like they did in the 90s? Come on man... didn't we get you to the Kool-Aid detox center? If you really want the stats, I can get them to you, but just know this is worse... way worse than the 90s, and whatever happened then doesn't mean sh*t. All my foreclosure estimates have been blown out of the water, worse than I ever expected, and comparing new home sales from the 90s will too. Just sit back and relax, be thankful you have job, and home prices will come to you. Comparing this to the 90s is like comparing similar homes in Woodbridge to similar homes Quail Hill, it's not the same, it's different this time... it's worse.</blockquote>
Easy homeslice... historical data still means something.
The point is that people who bought <strong>new</strong> homes in <strong>Irvine</strong> in the <strong>higher</strong> ranges will be less likely to sell homes for that much of a loss due to Kool-Aid intoxification. Prices are going to be sticky at a certain point for psychological reasons... not fundamental ones. You may see a below basis foreclosure here or there... but some FCB or KC will scoop it up at a price that keeps the bubble inflated... at least for the short term. In Irvine, there are some factors that caused such a dramatic price increase that are non-fundamental... regardless of job losses, credit crunch, bank stinginess... these are still in play and will slow down the drops. IR may never mention it in the blog... but I think it is something to consider.
As for previous data, what I was asking for is for homes that were buiilt and sold new during the 90s bubble... did the prices drop significantly below the original sales price... in <strong>Irvine</strong>? A relative of mine bought a brand new KB home in Lake Forest during the up-peak... 1989... they ended up selling it in 1997 which was near bottom and the price was still more than what they bought it for. That same home right now is probably still priced double than what they sold it for.
And again... this only applies to new neighborhoods in the higher price category.
If we take IR's fundamentals... what should prices be at? What year? 2000 pricing? 1996 pricing? If we take the home I sold and roll it back 40%... that's still 70% higher than when it originally sold new in 1996.
I'm not afraid of missing any boat... I'm fine with sitting on the sidelines... in fact... I may become a life renter. I'm just commenting on how stubborn pricing will be in the <strong>newer areas at the higher end of Irvine.</strong>
If the house I'm renting in QH drops 40% from peak... that price is still only 13% less than what it sold for in 2002. I can see that happening... but like I said originally... not much lower than that.
