Liar Loan said:
irvinehomeowner said:
Although I'm confused because you are saying that "Irvine fared better in 2008" but originally you said it was "revisionist history".
Irvine did fare better than other areas in OC. What I was saying was revisionist was this idea that it only fell by 10-15%, when the raw numbers dispute that.
This is what you wrote:
Liar Loan said:
It's revisionist history to say that Irvine was safer, and is really a form of cognitive dissonance for those that want to convince themselves that prices can't go down. If you really want safety, there are other places that will protect your "investment" much better. Try CDM, NB, LB, etc. Areas with long time owners and old money will weather the storm best.
I posted the Trulia data that shows that CDM, NB, LB, etc actually had larger drops using your high/low method and even using a rolling average they still dropped more so I don't think it's revisionist... raw numbers seem to side with Irvine.
It's been repeated so many times that I have seen new/infrequent posters repeat it as if it were fact. They don't have the analysis skills or data to know any differently, so they take what is consensus here as the truth about Irvine.
Really? I know that in my own posts I state that it was in the specific housing I was looking at. For others, I think they've tempered it with their own experience. I don't feel anyone has said Irvine housing as a whole only dropped 10 or 15%. You and meccos have to start posting links to back up these assertions.
The fact is a first time buyer would still have been much better off waiting until 2010-11 to buy than suffering that massive 30% drop in 2008.
This is just like saying prices only dropped 10-15% as a whole. You can't know this as a fact. There are many people who bought in 2008 and actually better off because they couldn't find the same houses in 2010-11. Cheaper houses aren't always the good ones.
As I've said many times before, the numbers of homes you could buy for a 30% discount was few and far between. Your measurement of drop is extreme, you're taking the highest high and the lowest low, but you are not accounting for how much of that inventory was purchasable by the average buyer. If you have the data that shows the volume of homes you could buy at a 30%, I think it will show a different story. That's why I said that you have to use a reasonable time frame to calculate what a true drop was. Using your method, can I really say Newport Beach homes dropped almost 50%? No, because I know that would be a very small percentage of what actually was bought at a discount.