When would be next housing Bottom?

[Liar Loan]

Again, our NEW EXPERT is calling it top for Irvine and going down from here.

Are you saying its better to buy in San Bernardino and Inland Empire now, if you have to buy, in comparison to Irvine, so that you can come out on top?

As I said, I wasn't participating in March 2018 so somebody else called the top, and they did a hell of a good job!!

I'm selling property in SB right now - cashing out prior investments that were made.  I wouldn't advise buying anywhere in California as a first time home buyer, and I would advise extreme caution for investors.  If a prospective deal was good enough based on the numbers I might still pull the trigger, but that has become more difficult due to all the new investors chasing a rapidly shrinking number of good deals.  New investors have a lower required return than I do, so I'm likely to get outbid by them.  It's better to instead sell my properties to them (at inflated prices that I would never pay) and get out while the getting's good.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

And don't get me wrong, I know it's slower than previous years because prices are no longer climbing like crazy, but you slowdowners have to admit that based on volume drops, you thought prices were going much lower.

That's not how housing cycles work.  Look at any price chart of the last couple of downturns and it's roller coaster shaped.  We are still near the top where the drop is just beginning.  Only some of the people on the ride are feeling it (Irvine) while those in the safer seats near the back are still going up.

This is not what people were saying a year ago. They said that volume was already dropping in March 2018 so that's why they were making calls of the top being in July 2018 and that prices would be dropping from there.

Now a year later, prices not only went back up a few times, but prices this July were almost the same as last July.

So now you're saying this year is the top and now prices will be dropping? Is this going to be the same story next July?

Seems like the predictions are seasonal.

I don't think I was actively participating in the discussion in March 2018, but whoever called July 2018 was right on the money!  The California Association of Realtors, Zillow, and Trulia all showed a price drop of 2-5% for Irvine over the intervening 12 months.

I feel sorry for the bagholders that bought at the exact peak for Irvine home prices..  It will be some time before they are made whole again.  They need to plan on living in the same place for a minimum of 10 years, and shame on them for not reading TI and holding off on their purchases!

Good thing you're not a realtor.

If you keep telling buyers to hold off for 2% price drops, no one would ever get to be a home owner because every *season* prices drop at least that much.

Homes in Irvine don't usually take 10 years to recoup any price drops, but you don't know that because you don't live in Irvine. Put your money where your mouth is like CV asked... what's the comparison of where you live vs Irvine? I already posted the inaccuracy of your coastal cities theory (blame it on the FCBs!) when it comes to holding value... and you already admitted your previous home took longer to recoup (oh... but condos always recover slower than SFRs).

Keep throwing those rocks from your glass house with a yard and no orange balloon view.

 

[Liar Loan]

And don't get me wrong, I know it's slower than previous years because prices are no longer climbing like crazy, but you slowdowners have to admit that based on volume drops, you thought prices were going much lower.

That's not how housing cycles work.  Look at any price chart of the last couple of downturns and it's roller coaster shaped.  We are still near the top where the drop is just beginning.  Only some of the people on the ride are feeling it (Irvine) while those in the safer seats near the back are still going up.

This is not what people were saying a year ago. They said that volume was already dropping in March 2018 so that's why they were making calls of the top being in July 2018 and that prices would be dropping from there.

Now a year later, prices not only went back up a few times, but prices this July were almost the same as last July.

So now you're saying this year is the top and now prices will be dropping? Is this going to be the same story next July?

Seems like the predictions are seasonal.

I don't think I was actively participating in the discussion in March 2018, but whoever called July 2018 was right on the money!  The California Association of Realtors, Zillow, and Trulia all showed a price drop of 2-5% for Irvine over the intervening 12 months.

I feel sorry for the bagholders that bought at the exact peak for Irvine home prices..  It will be some time before they are made whole again.  They need to plan on living in the same place for a minimum of 10 years, and shame on them for not reading TI and holding off on their purchases!

Good thing you're not a realtor.

If you keep telling buyers to hold off for 2% price drops, no one would ever get to be a home owner because every *season* prices drop at least that much.

Homes in Irvine don't usually take 10 years to recoup any price drops, but you don't know that because you don't live in Irvine. Put your money where your mouth is like CV asked... what's the comparison of where you live vs Irvine? I already posted the inaccuracy of your coastal cities theory (blame it on the FCBs!) when it comes to holding value... and you already admitted your previous home took longer to recoup (oh... but condos always recover slower than SFRs).

Keep throwing those rocks from your glass house with a yard and no orange balloon view.

How long did it take Irvine to recoup from the early 90's housing downturn?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

How long did it take Irvine to recoup from the early 90's housing downturn?

This is probably a loaded question but I believe the overall price recovery for SoCal was somewhere from 1990 to 1999... and if I recall, there were quite a few new homes already selling in Irvine in the late 90s so it was probably less than 10 years.

The better question is how long did Irvine take to recoup vs other cities?

I think I posted about this a long time ago, but why do you think FCBs started buying in Irvine in the first place? Maybe because Irvine recouped better during the 90s downturn?

 

[Liar Loan]

How long did it take Irvine to recoup from the early 90's housing downturn?

This is probably a loaded question but I believe the overall price recovery for SoCal was somewhere from 1990 to 1999... and if I recall, there were quite a few new homes already selling in Irvine in the late 90s so it was probably less than 10 years.

The better question is how long did Irvine take to recoup vs other cities?

I think I posted about this a long time ago, but why do you think FCBs started buying in Irvine in the first place? Maybe because Irvine recouped better during the 90s downturn?

You are just deflecting from the question.  If you are going to make an authoritative statement that "homes in Irvine don't usually take 10 years to recoup" then it should be backed by actual data.  You are only basing this statement on one downturn (the most recent), yet it implies this was the case for every other downturn as well.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

How long did it take Irvine to recoup from the early 90's housing downturn?

This is probably a loaded question but I believe the overall price recovery for SoCal was somewhere from 1990 to 1999... and if I recall, there were quite a few new homes already selling in Irvine in the late 90s so it was probably less than 10 years.

The better question is how long did Irvine take to recoup vs other cities?

I think I posted about this a long time ago, but why do you think FCBs started buying in Irvine in the first place? Maybe because Irvine recouped better during the 90s downturn?

You are just deflecting from the question.  If you are going to make an authoritative statement that "homes in Irvine don't usually take 10 years to recoup" then it should be backed by actual data.  You are only basing this statement on one downturn (the most recent), yet it implies this was the case for every other downturn as well.

Uh... what does the word "usually" mean to you? That's not "authoritative" but again, based on the overall cycle for SoCal housing in the 90s, since most took 9 years to recoup, I am pretty confident that Irvine was less.

Do you have that data? Sounds like you do since you are citing it. Post the chart for irvine housing prices for the 90s and let's see. Then also post a comparison to other cities.

And it's not deflection... it's more to the point. You are going to "authoritatively" call out that it will take 10 years for Irvine to recover... but if it takes more for other cities to do that... isn't buying in Irvine better if you are going to buy anyways?

So jealous of my Irvine affinity.

 

[irvinebullhousing]

How long did it take Irvine to recoup from the early 90's housing downturn?

This is probably a loaded question but I believe the overall price recovery for SoCal was somewhere from 1990 to 1999... and if I recall, there were quite a few new homes already selling in Irvine in the late 90s so it was probably less than 10 years.

The better question is how long did Irvine take to recoup vs other cities?

I think I posted about this a long time ago, but why do you think FCBs started buying in Irvine in the first place? Maybe because Irvine recouped better during the 90s downturn?

You are just deflecting from the question.  If you are going to make an authoritative statement that "homes in Irvine don't usually take 10 years to recoup" then it should be backed by actual data.  You are only basing this statement on one downturn (the most recent), yet it implies this was the case for every other downturn as well.

Uh... what does the word "usually" mean to you? That's not "authoritative" but again, based on the overall cycle for SoCal housing in the 90s, since most took 9 years to recoup, I am pretty confident that Irvine was less.

Do you have that data? Sounds like you do since you are citing it. Post the chart for irvine housing prices for the 90s and let's see. Then also post a comparison to other cities.

And it's not deflection... it's more to the point. You are going to "authoritatively" call out that it will take 10 years for Irvine to recover... but if it takes more for other cities to do that... isn't buying in Irvine better if you are going to buy anyways?

So jealous of my Irvine affinity.

Haters hates, because they could not afford it? Just guessing.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

To more "authoritatively" answer LL's question although I already kind of answered it. I couldn't find Irvine specific (but if anyone else has it, please post):
https://www.realestateabc.com/graphs/calmedian.html

This shows the median prices for Cali real estate during the 90s "slowdown":

1988 $168,200 18.4% 
1989 $196,120 16.6% 
1990 $193,770 -1.2% 
1991 $200,660 3.6% 
1992 $197,030 -1.8% 
1993 $188,240 -4.5% 
1994 $185,010 -1.7% 
1995 $178,160 -3.7% 
1996 $177,270 -0.5% 
1997 $186,490 5.2% 
1998 $200,100 7.3% 
1999 $217,510 8.7% 
2000 $241,350 11.0% 

So about 7-8 years recovery (I was close) which I'm sure Irvine was at or less than.

 

[Liar Loan]

To more "authoritatively" answer LL's question although I already kind of answered it. I couldn't find Irvine specific (but if anyone else has it, please post):
https://www.realestateabc.com/graphs/calmedian.html

This shows the median prices for Cali real estate during the 90s "slowdown":

1988 $168,200 18.4% 
1989 $196,120 16.6% 
1990 $193,770 -1.2% 
1991 $200,660 3.6% 
1992 $197,030 -1.8% 
1993 $188,240 -4.5% 
1994 $185,010 -1.7% 
1995 $178,160 -3.7% 
1996 $177,270 -0.5% 
1997 $186,490 5.2% 
1998 $200,100 7.3% 
1999 $217,510 8.7% 
2000 $241,350 11.0% 

So about 7-8 years recovery (I was close) which I'm sure Irvine was at or less than.

I hate to break it to you IHO... but $200,100 in 1998 is less than $200,660 in 1991... lol

There's no reason to be sure that Irvine's length of decline was at or less than other cities.  Irvine was a much newer city and its residents had owned for fewer years than the rest of OC, so their equity would have been less on average, and their odds of negative equity much higher.  In other words, Irvine was the Ladera Ranch of that cycle, with the added problem of not one, but two nearby military bases shutting down (El Toro and Tustin).

So Irvine may have done just as well as the rest of OC, or better, or worse.  All that matters is the data, not our emotions or biases.  Unfortunately, the only way to get that data is through access to certain databases that I don't have, or plan on paying for.

 

[eyephone]

To more "authoritatively" answer LL's question although I already kind of answered it. I couldn't find Irvine specific (but if anyone else has it, please post):
https://www.realestateabc.com/graphs/calmedian.html

This shows the median prices for Cali real estate during the 90s "slowdown":

1988 $168,200 18.4% 
1989 $196,120 16.6% 
1990 $193,770 -1.2% 
1991 $200,660 3.6% 
1992 $197,030 -1.8% 
1993 $188,240 -4.5% 
1994 $185,010 -1.7% 
1995 $178,160 -3.7% 
1996 $177,270 -0.5% 
1997 $186,490 5.2% 
1998 $200,100 7.3% 
1999 $217,510 8.7% 
2000 $241,350 11.0% 

So about 7-8 years recovery (I was close) which I'm sure Irvine was at or less than.

I hate to break it to you IHO... but $200,100 in 1998 is less than $200,660 in 1991... lol

A little education doesn?t hurt. @_o

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

 

[irvinehomeowner]

So whenever LL makes a claim and I disprove him with his much touted data he dances for outs.

First it was FCBs and now it?s $560 when the trend line clearly shows prices going up (which is why I posted multiple years).  And I did say 7-8 years which puts it above the 91 price.

You?re worse at math than I am... lol.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

There's no reason to be sure that Irvine's length of decline was at or less than other cities.  Irvine was a much newer city and its residents had owned for fewer years than the rest of OC, so their equity would have been less on average, and their odds of negative equity much higher.  In other words, Irvine was the Ladera Ranch of that cycle, with the added problem of not one, but two nearby military bases shutting down (El Toro and Tustin).

Seriously? Whenever you say things like this it makes me doubt you even live in Orange County and are in the mortgage business. Irvine has performed better than other OC cities for decades, including during the 90s downturn. I should go find it, but we discussed this on the IHB and it was the basis of people who were pro-Irvine arguing against those who thought Irvine was going to drop over 50% during the last crash.

And you still haven't answered my previous question, just based on FCB buying history (your other excuse for better Irvine performance), Irvine had to recover quick than 10 years or else why did they buy in Irvine?

So Irvine may have done just as well as the rest of OC, or better, or worse.  All that matters is the data, not our emotions or biases.  Unfortunately, the only way to get that data is through access to certain databases that I don't have, or plan on paying for.

I'm using neither emotion or bias... just logic and experience (I lived/worked in the Irvine area during the 90s downturn). But if you want the data, maybe one of our realtors can post it.

No else here seems to be backing you, does anyone else think it took Irvine over 10 years to recover during the 90s downturn when *the data* shows California as a whole only took 7 to 8 years?

 

[irvinebullhousing]

California home prices to rise 2.5% in 2020, Realtors forecast

From CAR this is the same sources that reference many times before.

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/09/...to-see-small-gains-in-2020-realtors-forecast/

But sales will be flat due to ?economic uncertainty and affordability issues,? outlook says.

 

[Mety]

Just go to Johns Creeks.

 

[Liar Loan]

There's no reason to be sure that Irvine's length of decline was at or less than other cities.  Irvine was a much newer city and its residents had owned for fewer years than the rest of OC, so their equity would have been less on average, and their odds of negative equity much higher.  In other words, Irvine was the Ladera Ranch of that cycle, with the added problem of not one, but two nearby military bases shutting down (El Toro and Tustin).

Seriously? Whenever you say things like this it makes me doubt you even live in Orange County and are in the mortgage business. Irvine has performed better than other OC cities for decades, including during the 90s downturn. I should go find it, but we discussed this on the IHB and it was the basis of people who were pro-Irvine arguing against those who thought Irvine was going to drop over 50% during the last crash.

And you still haven't answered my previous question, just based on FCB buying history (your other excuse for better Irvine performance), Irvine had to recover quick than 10 years or else why did they buy in Irvine?

So Irvine may have done just as well as the rest of OC, or better, or worse.  All that matters is the data, not our emotions or biases.  Unfortunately, the only way to get that data is through access to certain databases that I don't have, or plan on paying for.

I'm using neither emotion or bias... just logic and experience (I lived/worked in the Irvine area during the 90s downturn). But if you want the data, maybe one of our realtors can post it.

No else here seems to be backing you, does anyone else think it took Irvine over 10 years to recover during the 90s downturn when *the data* shows California as a whole only took 7 to 8 years?

Living/working in Irvine is anecdotal evidence, not data. 

You claim that the exact model of house you prefer outperforms all others.  Hmmm...  It just doesn't sound unbiased when every aspect of the city, neighborhood, floor plan, and garage width that you prefer happen to be the ones that outperform all others. 

It also doesn't sound unbiased when somebody like me points out that Irvine is declining in value, and you get kind of upset about it.  That sounds like emotional attachment to your chosen city and home. 

Larry used to talk about confirmation bias all the time, and I think this is a prime example.  In your head, you have already concluded that Irvine outperforms all other markets, so you embrace any data that supports that position, and look to discredit any data that runs contrary to it.

When I realized my condo was declining in value in '06, I didn't try to avoid the bad news or rationalize it in my head, I went looking for information on why it was happening, which is how I discovered the Lansner blog.  Embracing reality helps you learn from mistakes and sets you up for future success.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

So is it LL rhetoric time now?

Living/working in Irvine is anecdotal evidence, not data. 

Except for the fact that being and owner and a buyer of several properties in Irvine allowed me to know more about the market at that time than you... or anyone who did not live or shop Irvine at that time. That experience is just as important as data... and at times, more important because it can see things that data can't. I remember I was one of the few who said FCBs will keep Irvine from dropping as far and as fast as other cities... all the data mongers (including Larry) thought otherwise.

You claim that the exact model of house you prefer outperforms all others.  Hmmm...  It just doesn't sound unbiased when every aspect of the city, neighborhood, floor plan, and garage width that you prefer happen to be the ones that outperform all others. 

Not all others.. just your condo. Sounds like your bias not mine.

As for garage width, I just cited what Larry posted on his blog. Since he seems to be the top authority on all things Irvine real estate to you... take it up with him.

It also doesn't sound unbiased when somebody like me points out that Irvine is declining in value, and you get kind of upset about it.  That sounds like emotional attachment to your chosen city and home. 

Hah. When have I ever got upset about it? I've actually joined in with you on Irvine bashing. I always have contended that Irvine is overpriced... even CV quoted a post back from 2013 when I said that. You're projecting your own bias again.

Larry used to talk about confirmation bias all the time, and I think this is a prime example.  In your head, you have already concluded that Irvine outperforms all other markets, so you embrace any data that supports that position, and look to discredit any data that runs contrary to it.

Uh... already proved that Irvine outperformed all the safe haven coastal cities you listed. That was data... not my bias. That's when you started dancing... "Oh well... it was the FCBs!" and "Oh well... what about in the 90s?".

Have you posted any data to show me that Irvine did not outperform other markets in the last 2 downturns? Isn't that your bias?

When I realized my condo was declining in value in '06, I didn't try to avoid the bad news or rationalize it in my head, I went looking for information on why it was happening, which is how I discovered the Lansner blog.  Embracing reality helps you learn from mistakes and sets you up for future success.

And as I've said before... this is where I made a mistake. Instead of listening to my own bias, I sold an Irvine home looking at the data and thinking it would decrease in value. There were other reasons too, but that was one of them. Had we held it, we would have been in a much better position financially, but at the same time, we would have probably had to give up some other things to afford that mortgage at that time (private preschool)... so we don't consider it a net loss.

So that's the reality, Irvine is more stable than surround cities (as proven by both data and experience)... embrace it.

BTW: Like Steve Thomas, Lasner and even Larry have their own biases too. If you think Larry was totally right, I have 2 words for you... interest rates.

 

[irvinebullhousing]

Two things I see why Liar Loans stand his ground.

1) His personal experience of buy at the top and possibly at the wrong location. In 2006, liars loans was rampant, banks just need a heart-beats and a signature to assume a loan. Properties were outbid by non qualify applicants forces potential buyers to look at the next best thing which maybe in a second tier location. Or possibly worse location, which during the recovery phase taken twice as long to recoup.

2) 2006 was the time where people leverage their own house to get another, or worse, they buy 2 more houses using negative arm and betting that the continue appreciations out-weigh the carry cost. We all know how that went.

3) Larry exposed those who highly leveraged in Irvine and he did saved lots of people from making disastrous mistakes of over leverage and over reach.

Since then many measures put into places to prevent ?The Big Short? scenarios from reoccurring.

The high price of today is different then the high price that Liar Loans bought into.

It?s always goes back to, do what you can afford and do what you can live with for several years.

 

[usctrojancpa]

The buyers that bought in 2010 to today in Irvine (at least the ones that I've represented or seen on the listing side) are very conservative by nature and put larger than average amounts down on their purchase.  In my 12+ years of real estate, I can count on one hand how many buyers I've seen put down less than 20%.  Irvine prices may drop but it won't cause a tidal wave of foreclosures or short sales because there are many buyers sit on the sidelines waiting to jump in now they see a material price drop (5-10%).  Because lending has been so strict and due to the conservative nature of the average Irvine buyer (forget about the cash buyers), Irvine will decline less than other surrounding Orange County cities...I'm confident of that.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

3) Larry exposed those who highly leveraged in Irvine and he did saved lots of people from making disastrous mistakes of over leverage and over reach.

Sure, but it's not like Irvine was the only place people over leveraged. For every foreclosure he highlighted on the old IHB blog, there were many more in surrounding cities. That's why it was a bit misleading because it made it seem like Irvine was the only city where people were "catching knives". The reality, is that Irvine was probably the safest place to buy as not only did it drop slower but it recovered quicker. Whether it be because of the FCBs, availability of new homes, TIC, location or 3CWGs, even if you bought in Irvine at the height of the bubble, you would have probably recovered by now if not in a better position as early as even 7 years after the last peak depending on what/where you bought.

 

[meccos12]

Two things I see why Liar Loans stand his ground.

1) His personal experience of buy at the top and possibly at the wrong location. In 2006, liars loans was rampant, banks just need a heart-beats and a signature to assume a loan. Properties were outbid by non qualify applicants forces potential buyers to look at the next best thing which maybe in a second tier location. Or possibly worse location, which during the recovery phase taken twice as long to recoup.

2) 2006 was the time where people leverage their own house to get another, or worse, they buy 2 more houses using negative arm and betting that the continue appreciations out-weigh the carry cost. We all know how that went.

3) Larry exposed those who highly leveraged in Irvine and he did saved lots of people from making disastrous mistakes of over leverage and over reach.

Since then many measures put into places to prevent ?The Big Short? scenarios from reoccurring.

The high price of today is different then the high price that Liar Loans bought into.

It?s always goes back to, do what you can afford and do what you can live with for several years.

Correct me if I am wrong but I have not seen LL compare todays climate in real estate to that of 2006.  If so, it appears you are simply putting words into his mouth.