Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (5716)	10/1/2002 12:21:26 AM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

I don't see where you are getting your numbers, but I do see where the 12-year change in Southern California home prices was 28.9% on that link. So that's roughly 2% compounded for 12 past years. Close enough to your number from the link. 2% is a very hard reality to believe or accept. I have to assume the 12 year period is based on peak year (1990 was a peak I am guessing) to current (peak, so far) year. Because if one uses a different start point -- the 6-year change figure given in the link -- it becomes 60% appreciation, and that's about 8% compounded over the six years - a much more 'comfortable' figure. Timing is everything. I'm not saying you're wrong or right about the stock market or an index (DOW) being a better investment. Or that Calif. real estate is or is not or was a lousy investment. I am saying, that based on the people I know from Southern California, none of them is going around moping what a lousy investment real estate (or their home) has been for them. I don't know that many people though, and it's also true some of these Californians may have a "reality" that is different from most folks. I'd like to believe though that if they really only saw 2% annual appreciation on their real estate, they'd know it and be loud about it. They don't seem to be.