When would be next housing Bottom?

[Irvinecommuter]

If LiarLoan is going to contend that you can?t stick to a previous crash to demonstrate Irvine?s resiliency, how can you use one data point in 2012 as the end all be all of the drop?

This is how crashes are measured across all asset classes.  You start at the peak price and measure to the trough. Moving averages are for the purpose of smoothing trends, not for measuring peak to trough price declines.

Your push for novel new ways of measuring the crash in Irvine, to make it look better than it actually was, is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance.

What exactly is your point? Are you just arguing about the exact rate of fall? 

What about your points re NB and LB being better than Irvine?

Data clearly shows that Irvine did better than pretty much all OC comps in the last crash both in peak to trough drop and appreciation from preboom prices.  What exactly are you advocating?

I feel like you are just arguing to justify some disdain toward Irvine.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

If LiarLoan is going to contend that you can?t stick to a previous crash to demonstrate Irvine?s resiliency, how can you use one data point in 2012 as the end all be all of the drop?

This is how crashes are measured across all asset classes.  You start at the peak price and measure to the trough. Moving averages are for the purpose of smoothing trends, not for measuring peak to trough price declines.

Your push for novel new ways of measuring the crash in Irvine, to make it look better than it actually was, is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance.

That's not a new or novel way... but maybe we are talking wrong terms. From a buyer's point of view, peak to trough is just a reference, but by no means is that the actual discount one can get. As Irvinecommuter has said, in order to realize that drop, a buyer has to time it perfectly and has to find the exact same house at the high and the low. For most people, that's not going to happen. So maybe your definition of a crash doesn't line up with what I think it is.

In order to present a a more realistic scenario, you have to use a rolling average because that's the environment most buyers realized during the crash.

But let's get back to this:

Do you agree Irvine prices were more resilient than surrounding cities? Originally you did not, but after seeing the numbers, I think you may have capitulated a bit.

While meccos may disagree that's not important in the current slowdown, like IC, I think it's a major factor... even if you're just investing.

And I don't think I'm making Irvine look better than it actually was... it is better. Even with a 28% drop, look at IC's numbers, across the board, whether using peak-to-trough or rolling average, Irvine performed better than surrounding cities (as you admitted). That comparison is vitally important over the percentage. And that's just measuring the percentage of the drop, if you were to add the time element to that data, you would see that Irvine was slower to drop and faster to recover.

Repeatedly saying I have cognitive dissonance doesn't change those data points, it's a cool term to use on a message board (much like strawman, revisionist history, false equivalency, etc) but I think I've been fairly consistent in my stance in regards to Irvine.

 

[meccos12]

I just showed you the data and calculations.  Peak at abt $700k and bottom at abt $550k.  That is about 21%. 3 bed and 4 bd followed pretty similar trends as the median

I have never claim 10 o 15% but again...why are are so stuck on 30%.  I just showed you that LB and Newport were down way more than 30% and Irvine still had like 25% appreciation from preboom prices.

What exactly is your point?

If you actually used the numbers from the very site you linked, then you would realize peak was about 715K and bottom was about 515K.  If you have to fudge numbers (make the peak prices lower and the bottom higher) to make your point, then you lose credibility.  If you look at the 3bed the % drop is similar, whereas the 4bed drop was greater than 30%.    My point is use real data, dont fudge.

 

[meccos12]

Those 700 homes were on Redfin and either they didn?t fit my criteria, were too expensive, etc.

Of the 100+ I did look at, the ones I really had interest in were only 10-15% off peak. Some were more but when seen in person were not a good location or not in very good condition. I remember a QH home where they had ripped out the entire kitchen and still wanted quite a bit for it.

As for a 30% ?drop?, I already explained the time frame and inventory type flaw in that but you like to stick with that data point because it make you look like you are backed by data. If LiarLoan is going to contend that you can?t stick to a previous crash to demonstrate Irvine?s resiliency, how can you use one data point in 2012 as the end all be all of the drop? You have to average all those lows to get a realistic market condition because most people don?t complete a purchase from search to close of escrow in a month.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average

Ah, so you looked at 700 homes on redfin, 100 homes in person, but ONLY the ones you were interested in had 10-15% drop.  Just two questions for you.  Exactly how many homes were you interested in of the 700 you viewed?  Also, what was the range of price drop for homes you were not interested in?

Also, please please please refer to LiarLoans post about peak to trough prices.  You cant pick time frames yourself.  By looking at peak to trough prices, the time frame is literally built in to the peak of price to trough of price.  Thus your argument about picking one data point really a silly argument, because the trough of prices by definition has to be one data point.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I just showed you the data and calculations.  Peak at abt $700k and bottom at abt $550k.  That is about 21%. 3 bed and 4 bd followed pretty similar trends as the median

I have never claim 10 o 15% but again...why are are so stuck on 30%.  I just showed you that LB and Newport were down way more than 30% and Irvine still had like 25% appreciation from preboom prices.

What exactly is your point?

If you actually used the numbers from the very site you linked, then you would realize peak was about 715K and bottom was about 515K.  If you have to fudge numbers (make the peak prices lower and the bottom higher) to make your point, then you lose credibility.  If you look at the 3bed the % drop is similar, whereas the 4bed drop was greater than 30%.    My point is use real data, dont fudge.

I dont use absolute top vs absolute bottom...that would be SSS.  Quarterly numbers are skeweed...annual numbers are much better.  Using extreme is misleading.  If you want to do that...the numbers for other cities are worse.

Even taking your numbers...the drop is 28%.  Does 21% vs 28% vs 30% make that much difference? What about the comps versus other cities in the areas?

So this is a mathematical argument?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Those 700 homes were on Redfin and either they didn?t fit my criteria, were too expensive, etc.

Of the 100+ I did look at, the ones I really had interest in were only 10-15% off peak. Some were more but when seen in person were not a good location or not in very good condition. I remember a QH home where they had ripped out the entire kitchen and still wanted quite a bit for it.

As for a 30% ?drop?, I already explained the time frame and inventory type flaw in that but you like to stick with that data point because it make you look like you are backed by data. If LiarLoan is going to contend that you can?t stick to a previous crash to demonstrate Irvine?s resiliency, how can you use one data point in 2012 as the end all be all of the drop? You have to average all those lows to get a realistic market condition because most people don?t complete a purchase from search to close of escrow in a month.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average

Ah, so you looked at 700 homes on redfin, 100 homes in person, but ONLY the ones you were interested in had 10-15% drop.  Just two questions for you.

Exactly how many homes were you interested in of the 700 you viewed?

It's hard to answer this because I'm not sure what your definition of "interest" vs mine is. But of those 100, I think about 80% were within the 10-15% off range, only a few were 20% off. Two I distinctly remember were about 20% off because we put offers in on them. And just remember, this is from a time frame from 2009 to 2013, so that "discount" would fluctuate (again, why you have to use a rolling time frame).

Also, what was the range of price drop for homes you were not interested in?

Some were only 5% off so not a huge discount so we didn't even consider. There were maybe a few that were over 20%, but as I've said, they were in a bad condition or a bad location. For the most part, most of the homes we looked at were only 10-15% off. I'm trying to remember, but even in that 700 number, I could tell you that many were not discounted beyond 20%. You may find that amazing but again, you have to remember the time frame, this is over a period of 5 years.

I know you are trying to corner me into some position that belies your "data" but it is what it is. I think my 10-15% off is closer to the rolling average of 20% that I calculated so while you want to make some incredible comparison to 30% (really 28% from peak to trough), my experience is actually closer to reality than you think your data point says.

Also, please please please refer to LiarLoans post about peak to trough prices.  You cant pick time frames yourself.  By looking at peak to trough prices, the time frame is literally built in to the peak of price to trough of price.  Thus your argument about picking one data point really a silly argument, because the trough of prices by definition has to be one data point.

Again, you're not getting it. While you can use peak-to-trough as a reference point, that's not the actual market conditions mostly everyone experiences. For everyone who bought in June 2012 (I think that's where the trough was), do you think they all got a 28% discount?

Put it this way, why did you harp on the YOY numbers? Because it smoothes out seasonality right? I apologize I didn't understand what you were saying when you brought that up before but I was thinking about annual cycles, not YOY comparison. Same concept applies here, you have to smooth out the ups and downs to get the real picture. Irvinecommuter just said it above, the extremes don't tell you what really happened.

You can continue to argue semantics, but the point remains, Irvine outperformed neighboring cities when it comes to price stability. You said that was not true before, now that you see the data, do you still believe that?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I have to add one more piece of the puzzle to this analysis...foreclosures/short sales.  There were not nearly as many foreclosures in Irvine as other areas in OC...the ones that got in trouble mostly went to short sale because the price was still better than what the banks could get at auction.  So, that may have reduce the overall median price but not shown up for a buyer like IHO because most short sales are not really publicized. 

 

[Kenkoko]

I've always found it funny when previous post said Irvine should not be compared to Newport or Laguna. But turns around and compare Irvine to Tustin/Lake Forest. Has there ever been a time that Irvine was worse than Tustin/LF ? If not what does Irvine being better than Tustin and LF prove now?

You can't really compare Newport or LB with Irvine because of a number of reasons.  House size and proximity to ocean/beach are the two biggest differences.  You also can't compare them because NB and LB are basically mature markets with next to no new builds while Irvine boomed in the last 10-15 years. 

Irvine, Tustin, LF, Mission, and AV were pretty similar up until about 2003-2004.  Again, LF, Mission, and AV boomed mostly in the 1980s and 1990s.  Irvine and Tustin just boomed...in about 10-15 years Irvine will be way ahead of LF, Mission, and AV.

Go look at the pricing in 2003.  Mission and Irvine were pretty comparable at low $400K.  LF, Aliso, and Tustin were pretty comparable at about mid-$300K. 

Median sales price now:

Irvine:  $840K
Mission:  $730K
Lake Forest:  $675
Tustin:  $670K
Aliso:  $600K

Adding

Laguna Hills:  About $350K in 2003...about $700K now.  (bottomed at about 350K in 2009)
Laguna Niguel:  About $480K in 2003...about $800K now (bottomed at about 500K in 2012)
https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Laguna_Niguel-California/market-trends/

I agree that using Newport or Laguna Beach as comparison would be almost pointless. But using Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, and Mission Viejo are just as pointless.
These are 90% white cities with very little FCB presence. Mission Viejo is a retirement town with over 10 years resident median age than Irvine.

Using other desirable cities with 40% + Asian population like Irvine would provide a better comparison to why there's big downward price resistance. Using your same format and same Trulia data and here's what I got.

Irvine:  About $425K in 2003...top at $700K in 2007...bottom at $550K in 2009.  That's about 21% from the top...up 29% from 2003.  ($840K now)

San Gabriel About $350K in 2003...top at $630K in 2007...bottom at $490K in 2009.  That's about 22% from the top...up 28% from 2003.  ($785K now)

Arcadia:  About $465K in 2003...top at $750K in 2007...bottom at $585K in 2009.  That's about 22% from the top...up 26% from 2003.  ($1070K now)

Monterey Park:  About $300K in 2003...top at $535K in 2007...bottom at $410K in 2009.  That's about 23% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($640K now)

San Marino:  About $850K in 2003...NOT top at $1350K in 2007... even higher at $1450K in 2009.  Never had a bottom and now sits at 2130K.

 

[Kenkoko]

Here's Irvine compared to another 3 desirable cities with 40% + Asian population

Irvine:  About $425K in 2003...top at $700K in 2007...bottom at $550K in 2009.  That's about 21% from the top...up 29% from 2003.  ($840K now)

Walnut:  About $390K in 2003...top at $650K in 2007...bottom at $530K in 2009.  That's about 19% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($710K now)

Diamond Bar:  About $330K in 2003...top at $575K in 2007...bottom at $450K in 2009.  That's about 23% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($655K now)

Alhambra:  About $285K in 2003...top at $520K in 2007...bottom at $430K in 2009.  That's about 17% from the top...up 49% from 2003.  ($644K now)


Irvine performs almost exactly the same as every other city with 40%+ Asian population. Nothing extraordinary....

I know many on this board think Irvine has a special sauce keeping prices resilient but it's really just FCBs.

 

[eyephone]

Here's Irvine compared to another 3 desirable cities with 40% + Asian population

Irvine:  About $425K in 2003...top at $700K in 2007...bottom at $550K in 2009.  That's about 21% from the top...up 29% from 2003.  ($840K now)

Walnut:  About $390K in 2003...top at $650K in 2007...bottom at $530K in 2009.  That's about 19% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($710K now)

Diamond Bar:  About $330K in 2003...top at $575K in 2007...bottom at $450K in 2009.  That's about 23% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($655K now)

Alhambra:  About $285K in 2003...top at $520K in 2007...bottom at $430K in 2009.  That's about 17% from the top...up 49% from 2003.  ($644K now)


Irvine performs almost exactly the same as every other city with 40%+ Asian population. Nothing extraordinary....

I know many on this board think Irvine has a special sauce keeping prices resilient but it's really just FCBs.

* Add the MR to Irvine. The other cities that you mention don?t have it. (I believe)

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Here's Irvine compared to another 3 desirable cities with 40% + Asian population

Irvine:  About $425K in 2003...top at $700K in 2007...bottom at $550K in 2009.  That's about 21% from the top...up 29% from 2003.  ($840K now)

Walnut:  About $390K in 2003...top at $650K in 2007...bottom at $530K in 2009.  That's about 19% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($710K now)

Diamond Bar:  About $330K in 2003...top at $575K in 2007...bottom at $450K in 2009.  That's about 23% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($655K now)

Alhambra:  About $285K in 2003...top at $520K in 2007...bottom at $430K in 2009.  That's about 17% from the top...up 49% from 2003.  ($644K now)


Irvine performs almost exactly the same as every other city with 40%+ Asian population. Nothing extraordinary....

I know many on this board think Irvine has a special sauce keeping prices resilient but it's r
eally just FCBs.

Your numbers are off

DB' bottom was about $415k in 2011/2012

Alhambra bottomed at abt $400k in 2011/2012


Again...you are comparing matured real estate areas with a developing area.  Mature areas are less likely to suffer downs because there is already a stable base.

Also...did you notice the difference in current pricing?

 

[Kenkoko]

Your numbers are off

DB' bottom was about $415k in 2011/2012

Alhambra bottomed at abt $400k in 2011/2012


Again...you are comparing matured real estate areas with a developing area.  Mature areas are less likely to suffer downs because there is already a stable base.

Also...did you notice the difference in current pricing?

I was following what Irvinecommuter did, using 2009 to use as bottom. If you want to use the absolute bottom, Irvine is 515k not the 550k he used.

Other mature area around Irvine suffered a lot of downs. That's not the main difference. The main difference is amount of FCBs.

Current pricing, Irvine is in the middle of the pack. Irvine performed just like other desirable cities with 40% + Asian population.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Your numbers are off

DB' bottom was about $415k in 2011/2012

Alhambra bottomed at abt $400k in 2011/2012


Again...you are comparing matured real estate areas with a developing area.  Mature areas are less likely to suffer downs because there is already a stable base.

Also...did you notice the difference in current pricing?

I was following what Irvinecommuter did, using 2009 to use as bottom. If you want to use the absolute bottom, Irvine is 515k not the 550k he used.

Other mature area around Irvine suffered a lot of downs. That's not the main difference. The main difference is amount of FCBs.

Current pricing, Irvine is in the middle of the pack. Irvine performed just like other desirable cities with 40% + Asian population.

Irvine didnt have 40+% Asian until after the drop.  FCB money came in 2010 and after.

Irvine had a few month at $515 to 526..but it was about $550 most of the time

DB had two separate trough of about a year each where it was at about $410k

How is Irvine middle of the pack price wise currently?

 

[meccos12]

Your numbers are off

DB' bottom was about $415k in 2011/2012

Alhambra bottomed at abt $400k in 2011/2012


Again...you are comparing matured real estate areas with a developing area.  Mature areas are less likely to suffer downs because there is already a stable base.

Also...did you notice the difference in current pricing?

I was following what Irvinecommuter did, using 2009 to use as bottom. If you want to use the absolute bottom, Irvine is 515k not the 550k he used.

Other mature area around Irvine suffered a lot of downs. That's not the main difference. The main difference is amount of FCBs.

Current pricing, Irvine is in the middle of the pack. Irvine performed just like other desirable cities with 40% + Asian population.

Exactly!  The hypocrisy is unreal.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Your numbers are off

DB' bottom was about $415k in 2011/2012

Alhambra bottomed at abt $400k in 2011/2012


Again...you are comparing matured real estate areas with a developing area.  Mature areas are less likely to suffer downs because there is already a stable base.

Also...did you notice the difference in current pricing?

I was following what Irvinecommuter did, using 2009 to use as bottom. If you want to use the absolute bottom, Irvine is 515k not the 550k he used.

Other mature area around Irvine suffered a lot of downs. That's not the main difference. The main difference is amount of FCBs.

Current pricing, Irvine is in the middle of the pack. Irvine performed just like other desirable cities with 40% + Asian population.

Exactly!  The hypocrisy is unreal.

What hypocrisy? No one is disputing that FCBs had an effect on Irvine.  Question is why Irvine...and Irvine has captured most of the higher end FCB buyers as well.

Irvine is already out performing DB, Walnut, Cerritos and Alhambra price wise.  It should match Arcadia once it is fully built out

I ask again..what exactly is your point.

 

[Kenkoko]

Irvine didnt have 40+% Asian until after the drop.  FCB money came in 2010 and after.

This is absolutely false.

Please fact check your claims. Let's have a honest discussion based on facts.

Irvine already had 30% Asians in 2000. Reached 40% before prices hit bottom. FCB money came in long before 2010.

How is Irvine middle of the pack price wise currently?

Out of the 8 cities posted, Irvine is the 5th highest in % gained since last peak.
Out of the 8 cities posted, Irvine is the 4th highest in price per Sqft.
How is that not middle of the pack?

 

[fortune11]

Here's Irvine compared to another 3 desirable cities with 40% + Asian population

Irvine:  About $425K in 2003...top at $700K in 2007...bottom at $550K in 2009.  That's about 21% from the top...up 29% from 2003.  ($840K now)

Walnut:  About $390K in 2003...top at $650K in 2007...bottom at $530K in 2009.  That's about 19% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($710K now)

Diamond Bar:  About $330K in 2003...top at $575K in 2007...bottom at $450K in 2009.  That's about 23% from the top...up 36% from 2003.  ($655K now)

Alhambra:  About $285K in 2003...top at $520K in 2007...bottom at $430K in 2009.  That's about 17% from the top...up 49% from 2003.  ($644K now)


Irvine performs almost exactly the same as every other city with 40%+ Asian population. Nothing extraordinary....

I know many on this board think Irvine has a special sauce keeping prices resilient but it's really just FCBs.

Only way to prove it if you knew exactly what the contribution of Asian FCBs was to each of these neighborhoods - in absence of that , this is anecdotal as well .

Toll brothers earnings yesterday were pretty stark - most of their disappointment came from SoCal it seems. 

That being said , toll stock actually ended up outperforming the market , shows you it?s all about what news is priced in already . Lower rates should start to help home builders next year , at least on the margin .

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Irvine performs almost exactly the same as every other city with 40%+ Asian population. Nothing extraordinary....

I know many on this board think Irvine has a special sauce keeping prices resilient but it's really just FCBs.

It's more than FCBs. I'd much rather live in central/south OC than where Walnut/Diamond Bar/Alhambra are located (apologies to my friends who live in those cities). What university is within those city boundaries?

I've listed a number of reasons why Irvine is has the "special sauce". Of those, I think location, access to jobs and new housing stock are standouts. I don't know if those other cities have new home tracts, but I do think that FCBs have a preference for new homes because they can pick and choose (especially FCBs who are influenced by Feng Shui).

I also want to ask, you are singling out Asians, but I think those cities have mostly Chinese Asians... do the cities you mention also have a large populate of Middle Easterners (including Israelis), Indians, Koreans and Japanese?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Irvine didnt have 40+% Asian until after the drop.  FCB money came in 2010 and after.

This is absolutely false.

Please fact check your claims. Let's have a honest discussion based on facts.

Irvine already had 30% Asians in 2000. Reached 40% before prices hit bottom. FCB money came in long before 2010.

How is Irvine middle of the pack price wise currently?

Out of the 8 cities posted, Irvine is the 5th highest in % gained since last peak.
Out of the 8 cities posted, Irvine is the 4th highest in price per Sqft.
How is that not middle of the pack?

1)  Drop happened in 2008...Irvine was at about 39% Asian in 2010.

2)  FCB money did not start coming in until 2012/2013.  If you look at the charts...there was basically a double dip in price...once in 2009 and then again in 2011/2012.  Irvine was between $520K to $600K between 2009 and 2012...starting in 2013, prices began to shoot up (going from about $600K to $700K in a year...then peaking at about $870 in mid-2017).    That is the FCB effect.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-30/80-all-new-home-buyers-irvine-are-chinese
https://www.cnbc.com/2013/11/25/chinese-buying-up-california-housing.html

We bought our place in 2/2013 when the prices started going up but not crazy...about a few months later, the prices went through the roof.

3)  What 8 cities are we talking about? 

4)  $/sq. ft is actual a bad measurement because small units have a higher $/sq. ft than larger units.  It scales up to a certain point and then drops.  You really need to compare apples to apples when it comes to $/sq. ft.

Caveat:  Percentage gained is a misleading measurement when you start getting significant differences in median prices.  Going from $500K to $600K is a 20% gain while going from $600K to $700K is a 16.6% gain.  Going from $700K to $800K is a 14.3% gain. 

Irvine: 
From 2003:  $425K to $840K.  198% gain ($415K difference)
Post-boom bottom:  $550K to $840K.  168% gain ($290K difference)
Peak (2006) to Current:  $700K to $840K.  120% gain ($140K difference)

Diamond Bar: 
2003 to Current:  $275K to $654K:  237% gain ($379K difference)
Post-Boom Bottom:  $410/$415K (2011/2012)...current $654K.  159% gain ($245K difference)
Peak to Peak:  $520 (2007) to $654K:  125% gain ($134K difference)

Walnut:  This one is hard to estimate...market fluctuates a ton.
2003 to Current:  $400K to $750K:  185% gain ($350K gain)
Post-Boom Bottom:  $600K to $750K:  125% gain ($150K gain)
Peak to Peak:  $665K to $750K:  113% gain ($85K gain)

Alhambra:
2003 to Current:  $300K to $640K: 213% gain ($340K gain)
Post-Boom Bottom:  $400K to $640K 160% gain ($240K gain)
Peak to Peak:  $510k to $640K.  125% gain ($130K gain)

Cerritos:
2003 to current: $425K to $740K:  174% gain ($315K gain)
Post-Boom Bottom:  $520K to $740K:  142% gain ($220K gain)
Peak to Peak:  $690K to $740K:  107% gain ($50K gain)

Temple City:
2003 to Current: $375 to $800K:  213% gain ($425K gain)
Post-Boom Bottom:  $525 to $800K:  152% gain ($275K gain)
Peak to Peak:  $600K to $800K:  133% gain ($200K gain)

Pasadena:  (Pasadena had a pretty big jump between 2002 and 2003...$300K to $400K)
2003 to Current:  $400K to $800K:  200% gain ($400K difference)
Post-Boom Bottom:  $520K to $800K:  154% gain ($280K difference)
Peak to Peak:  $650K to $800K:  123% gain ($150K gain)

Brea: 
2003 to Current: $400K to $725K:  181% gain ($325K difference)
Post-Boom Bottom:  $475K to $725K: 153% gain ($250K difference)
Peak to Peak:  $690K to $725K;  104% gain ($35K difference)

Fullerton:  (also had a big jump between 2002 and 2003:  300K to 400K)
2003 to Current:  400K to 620K:  155% gain (220K gain)
Post-Boom bottom:  370K to 620K:  167% gain (250K gain)
Peak to Peak:  590K to 620K:  105% gain(30K gain)

Arcadia: (probably the gold standard)
2003 to Current: $525K to $1 million:  190% gain($475K gain)
Post-Boom Bottom:  $680K to $1 million: 148% gain ($320K gain)
Peak to Peak:  $750K to $1 million: 133% gain ($250K gain)

So..if you bought in 2002/2003...you are better off in the older/mature communities as compared to now.  This make sense because Irvine was largely selling new homes..which are often less than resale because resales are "fully loaded".  There is also significantly more supply in Irvine than mature markets because of the new homes.

Irvine also benefited the most from the bottom to current both in percentage and value gained (except Arcadia).  Again...this is amazing when you are comparing new home sales to resales. 

I expect Irvine to become more like Arcadia as Irvine starts filling out and new homes sales decrease.  Irvine has already blow past all of the markets except Arcadia when it comes to median prices. 

Edit:  A few more caveat...Irvine volume is significantly higher than all those other markets.  Irvine is selling 600 to 1000 units monthly while other places are between are between 100 and 200 (Fullerton is 200 to 300). 

Irvine is also significantly larger than those other places.  Irvine is about 66 square miles.  Pasadena/Arcadia/Temple City/Alhambra/Diamond Bar/Walnut combined is about 70 square miles. 

So to get a good comparison..you would probably want to average out all of numbers for those cities (weighted by their relative sales).  I'm too tired to do that now.

 

[Kenkoko]

Only way to prove it if you knew exactly what the contribution of Asian FCBs was to each of these neighborhoods - in absence of that , this is anecdotal as well

I agree it?s anecdotal. But is that really a problem? Most of the members seem to accept IHO?s anecdotal argument ?the houses I?ve seen only dropped 10-15%? as a valid point of discussion. My argument is certainly no worse.

I looked at about 30 cities from OC to LA county. About 8 cities have Irvine level downward resilience and all of them happen to have a large Asian population.  You can certainly disagree with the conclusion I came to from looking at the data. But is it just mere coincidence?