When would be next housing Bottom?
- Thread starter OCLuvr
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
But all housing prices can decline...question is how much and how quickly recover. Irvine falls a lot less than most communities and recovers a lot faster.
I am not why this needs to be pointed out?
I don't need to be mayor...just stating reality. It's just weird to me why there is a need to create a counter narrative.
Because other people dont make false or extravagant claims as you do. All opinions are welcome and moreso if it can be backed up with some evidence or data instead of one person's single experience or anecdotal evidence. Do you see anyone else here claiming home prices dropped only 10% or that this slowdown is seasonal? I have no issues with your opinion but rather in the manner in which you post false and misleading posts to make Irvine seem immune to the current downward pressures. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, its a duck.... not Irvine.
LOL CV, only if I had that much power to influence prices. You are more foolish than I thought if you think one or two people had that much influence on a blog that is visited by a small fraction of home buyers. If you consider pointing out the obvious slowdown in housing "bashing" then I think I know where your hand is in the game. If I was in the market to buy a house now and wanted prices to drop, I wouldnt need to bash housing on a blog, all I would need to do is wait.
So you hate strawman but look what you just did.
Find the post where I said all of Irvine dropped 10%. You won?t just like you can?t find the one where I said all of Irvine dropped 15% either. Who is revisionist now?
And I asked if it was seasonal because this is the time of year when prices and volume slows. As it has during the peak and the trough. You keep forgetting the part where I asked if this is not a seasonal slowdown, how much and how long. But you always gloss over that.
So both USC and IC have said the same thing I did. Others have expressed the same sentiment which you say is not true. It?s not just my opinion now.
You are basing this opinion on a single data point ~ the last downturn. There have been previous downturns where this wasn't the case. Unless you can break down the reasons for why this occurred for the first time in 2008, and why it might happen again in the 2020's, it's not guaranteed that the same behavior will repeat.
For example ~ You can also say the 2001 recession had OC (including Irvine) outperforming the Bay Area. San Francisco lost about 10% while LA/OC was flattish to slightly up. Yet if you had predicted that to happen again during the next downturn (2008) the exact opposite occurred. The Bay Area held up much better than LA/OC during the Great Recession on a relative basis.
So again, you need to break down the reasons why Irvine fared better in 2008 and determine if those same conditions will still apply in 2024.
I've always viewed it as my job to "keep things interesting" here. However, it doesn't really show my hand in the game. I'm not interested in buying in Irvine so it's just for the sake of trying to counter some of the pro-Irvine bias that I see posted here all too often. I'm providing the perspective of a neutral third party.
I see what you're saying here but I believe I observed the same price stickiness for Irvine during the 90s crash. A relative of mine who lived in South County had a greater price fluctuation than my friends in Irvine (so much so they wished they bought in Irvine instead). If there is a site with city by city data that goes back that far, please link me and I'll do some data churning to see if that's true like it was in 2006-2013.
And maybe the last crash was the first time Irvine exhibited better price stability (are you admitting that?
), but that could be because of the influx of FCBs (!) and why the predictions of percentage of drop for Irvine were inaccurate. Which actually helps solidify Irvine doing better in the 90s or else why would FCBs put their money into Irvine? And that demographic has only increased from then to now so it's not far fetched to think that Irvine pricing would remain stubborn (not immune mind you) for current and future downturns.
Not sure you can compare areas that are that geographically distant.
The better comparison would be proximate cities like Irvine, Tustin, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Aliso Viejo etc.
I think they well.
Although I'm confused because you are saying that "Irvine fared better in 2008" but originally you said it was "revisionist history".
Irvinecommuter
New member
Kenkoko said:
But all housing prices can decline...question is how much and how quickly recover. Irvine falls a lot less than most communities and recovers a lot faster.
I am not why this needs to be pointed out?
Irvinecommuter
New member
Mety said:
I don't need to be mayor...just stating reality. It's just weird to me why there is a need to create a counter narrative.
irvinehomeowner said:
Because other people dont make false or extravagant claims as you do. All opinions are welcome and moreso if it can be backed up with some evidence or data instead of one person's single experience or anecdotal evidence. Do you see anyone else here claiming home prices dropped only 10% or that this slowdown is seasonal? I have no issues with your opinion but rather in the manner in which you post false and misleading posts to make Irvine seem immune to the current downward pressures. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, its a duck.... not Irvine.
Compressed-Village said:
LOL CV, only if I had that much power to influence prices. You are more foolish than I thought if you think one or two people had that much influence on a blog that is visited by a small fraction of home buyers. If you consider pointing out the obvious slowdown in housing "bashing" then I think I know where your hand is in the game. If I was in the market to buy a house now and wanted prices to drop, I wouldnt need to bash housing on a blog, all I would need to do is wait.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
meccos12 said:
So you hate strawman but look what you just did.
Find the post where I said all of Irvine dropped 10%. You won?t just like you can?t find the one where I said all of Irvine dropped 15% either. Who is revisionist now?
And I asked if it was seasonal because this is the time of year when prices and volume slows. As it has during the peak and the trough. You keep forgetting the part where I asked if this is not a seasonal slowdown, how much and how long. But you always gloss over that.
Irvinecommuter said:
So both USC and IC have said the same thing I did. Others have expressed the same sentiment which you say is not true. It?s not just my opinion now.
aquabliss
Well-known member
Uh oh, ish just got real 
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/11/27/irvine-tustin-homebuying-cools-sales-tumble-14/
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/11/27/irvine-tustin-homebuying-cools-sales-tumble-14/
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
And I actually don't think meccos is bashing Irvine... as I've said, he has to have some belief in Irvine's price stability because he bought here (at least I think he did).
But at the same time, he's making the same assumptions the numbers people made 10 years ago, fundamentals are not the only thing that affects Irvine pricing.
And I'm not sure where he and LL get this notion that Irvine didn't fall slower and recover faster. Maybe it's just anecdotal but even by the data, if a city has a smaller percentage fall than surrounding cities, doesn't that mean just that?
And I will stand by my contention that 28% is an extreme measurement and doesn't characterize the *sustained* drop in Irvine prices. I think Cares or Kings did a rolling 6 month average for 2016-17 compared to 2018 and that same methodology should be applied back during the crash. I even posted this before in Housing Analysis thread (and did mention the same 28% number in red):
As Irvinecommuter said, you really have to cherry pick to get that 28% number, but LL likes to use that as his basis for Irvine not being "safer".
But let's visit his "safe" list and use his same measurement:
I'll do Newport because I used to want to live there:
https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Newport_Beach-California/market-trends/
High: ~Jul 07 - $1.6m
Low: ~Jul 12 - $862,500 (there is a lower low in 09 of $800k but I wanted to keep the time frame similar to Irvine)
Drop: 46%
So let's be fair and use a rolling average, a little hard to do with the graph but:
High: ~07-08 - $1.4m
Low: ~11-12 - $1.05m
Drop: 25%
Hmm... so using LL's extreme high/low, Irvine's 28% is much "safer" than Newport's 46%. Using the rolling average, Irvine's 20% to Newport's 25%, they are much closer to each other which is what I would expect.
Eyeballing Trulia data for both CDM and Laguna Beach shows even a higher drop using LL's method.
Now... I didn't really shop NB, CDM or LB back then but I would imagine the discounts were less depending on the stock you were shopping but that goes to my point that just the numbers don't tell the true story. They give you an idea but you really need to take into account what buyers and sellers were actually experiencing to get a better picture.
So, unless I did my calculations wrong, which city is "safer"?
But at the same time, he's making the same assumptions the numbers people made 10 years ago, fundamentals are not the only thing that affects Irvine pricing.
And I'm not sure where he and LL get this notion that Irvine didn't fall slower and recover faster. Maybe it's just anecdotal but even by the data, if a city has a smaller percentage fall than surrounding cities, doesn't that mean just that?
And I will stand by my contention that 28% is an extreme measurement and doesn't characterize the *sustained* drop in Irvine prices. I think Cares or Kings did a rolling 6 month average for 2016-17 compared to 2018 and that same methodology should be applied back during the crash. I even posted this before in Housing Analysis thread (and did mention the same 28% number in red):
irvinehomeowner said:
As Irvinecommuter said, you really have to cherry pick to get that 28% number, but LL likes to use that as his basis for Irvine not being "safer".
But let's visit his "safe" list and use his same measurement:
Liar Loan said:
I'll do Newport because I used to want to live there:
https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Newport_Beach-California/market-trends/
High: ~Jul 07 - $1.6m
Low: ~Jul 12 - $862,500 (there is a lower low in 09 of $800k but I wanted to keep the time frame similar to Irvine)
Drop: 46%
So let's be fair and use a rolling average, a little hard to do with the graph but:
High: ~07-08 - $1.4m
Low: ~11-12 - $1.05m
Drop: 25%
Hmm... so using LL's extreme high/low, Irvine's 28% is much "safer" than Newport's 46%. Using the rolling average, Irvine's 20% to Newport's 25%, they are much closer to each other which is what I would expect.
Eyeballing Trulia data for both CDM and Laguna Beach shows even a higher drop using LL's method.
Now... I didn't really shop NB, CDM or LB back then but I would imagine the discounts were less depending on the stock you were shopping but that goes to my point that just the numbers don't tell the true story. They give you an idea but you really need to take into account what buyers and sellers were actually experiencing to get a better picture.
So, unless I did my calculations wrong, which city is "safer"?
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
So I've been looking at Trulia a bit more and it seems to confirm what several us have been saying in regards to Irvine's slowness to drop and quickness to recover.
Pick any city surrounding Irvine, and you will see one or more of these trends:
1. Prices start dropping earlier than Irvine's does
2. Prices drop farther than Irvine's does
3. Prices rise back up to peak later than Irvine does
Am I reading that data wrong?
Pick any city surrounding Irvine, and you will see one or more of these trends:
1. Prices start dropping earlier than Irvine's does
2. Prices drop farther than Irvine's does
3. Prices rise back up to peak later than Irvine does
Am I reading that data wrong?
Liar Loan
Well-known member
Irvinecommuter said:
You are basing this opinion on a single data point ~ the last downturn. There have been previous downturns where this wasn't the case. Unless you can break down the reasons for why this occurred for the first time in 2008, and why it might happen again in the 2020's, it's not guaranteed that the same behavior will repeat.
For example ~ You can also say the 2001 recession had OC (including Irvine) outperforming the Bay Area. San Francisco lost about 10% while LA/OC was flattish to slightly up. Yet if you had predicted that to happen again during the next downturn (2008) the exact opposite occurred. The Bay Area held up much better than LA/OC during the Great Recession on a relative basis.
So again, you need to break down the reasons why Irvine fared better in 2008 and determine if those same conditions will still apply in 2024.
Liar Loan
Well-known member
Compressed-Village said:
I've always viewed it as my job to "keep things interesting" here. However, it doesn't really show my hand in the game. I'm not interested in buying in Irvine so it's just for the sake of trying to counter some of the pro-Irvine bias that I see posted here all too often. I'm providing the perspective of a neutral third party.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Liar Loan said:
I see what you're saying here but I believe I observed the same price stickiness for Irvine during the 90s crash. A relative of mine who lived in South County had a greater price fluctuation than my friends in Irvine (so much so they wished they bought in Irvine instead). If there is a site with city by city data that goes back that far, please link me and I'll do some data churning to see if that's true like it was in 2006-2013.
And maybe the last crash was the first time Irvine exhibited better price stability (are you admitting that?
), but that could be because of the influx of FCBs (!) and why the predictions of percentage of drop for Irvine were inaccurate. Which actually helps solidify Irvine doing better in the 90s or else why would FCBs put their money into Irvine? And that demographic has only increased from then to now so it's not far fetched to think that Irvine pricing would remain stubborn (not immune mind you) for current and future downturns.Not sure you can compare areas that are that geographically distant.
The better comparison would be proximate cities like Irvine, Tustin, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Aliso Viejo etc.
I think they well.
Although I'm confused because you are saying that "Irvine fared better in 2008" but originally you said it was "revisionist history".