Comments on: Case-Shiller: Bay Area Showing Early Signs of Eventual Bottom? http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/2009/05/case-shiller_bay_area_showing_early_signs_of_eventual_bottom.html Redfin Bay Area Sweet Digs Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:03:22 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Ed http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/2009/05/case-shiller_bay_area_showing_early_signs_of_eventual_bottom.html/comment-page-1#comment-8931 Ed Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:07:27 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/?p=6287#comment-8931 Ultimately, most house purchases need someone with a job to make a payment - mortgage or rent. Investors that do not rent are a smallish minority. So, prices will be linked to current job losses. Ultimately, most house purchases need someone with a job to make a payment – mortgage or rent. Investors that do not rent are a smallish minority. So, prices will be linked to current job losses.

]]> By: Jeremy R http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/2009/05/case-shiller_bay_area_showing_early_signs_of_eventual_bottom.html/comment-page-1#comment-8928 Jeremy R Fri, 29 May 2009 18:30:17 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/?p=6287#comment-8928 Thomas, you are a bit confused. the reason Case Shiller is reporting 46% is precisely because they ARE considering the broader market! Vallejo, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Livermore, Brentwood, are all considered to be "San Francisco", and many of these homes have fallen tremendously. If you say a Case Shiller of San Francisco proper you would see more like 15% drop. D10 has fallen at least 30%, while pac heights hasn't fallen at all, but there are only 2 sales a month in rich areas, so why even include them in an aggregate market metric anyway? Case Shiller is by FAR the best metric out there. Median is an absolutely terrible metric. Thomas, you are a bit confused.

the reason Case Shiller is reporting 46% is precisely because they ARE considering the broader market! Vallejo, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Livermore, Brentwood, are all considered to be “San Francisco”, and many of these homes have fallen tremendously. If you say a Case Shiller of San Francisco proper you would see more like 15% drop. D10 has fallen at least 30%, while pac heights hasn’t fallen at all, but there are only 2 sales a month in rich areas, so why even include them in an aggregate market metric anyway?

Case Shiller is by FAR the best metric out there. Median is an absolutely terrible metric.

]]> By: Thomas http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/2009/05/case-shiller_bay_area_showing_early_signs_of_eventual_bottom.html/comment-page-1#comment-8924 Thomas Wed, 27 May 2009 19:29:52 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/?p=6287#comment-8924 Really 46% drop for "San Francisco"??? Really??? Because I live in the Bay Area and we're not anywhere close to that. I've read Shiller's methodology and I think what people don't understand is that his index tracks the places that went up the most and are falling the hardest. SHILLER'S INDEX DOES NOT TRACK THE BROADER MARKET. Try getting into any desirable neighborhood with expectations of 46% down. Will. not. happen. Really 46% drop for “San Francisco”??? Really??? Because I live in the Bay Area and we’re not anywhere close to that. I’ve read Shiller’s methodology and I think what people don’t understand is that his index tracks the places that went up the most and are falling the hardest. SHILLER’S INDEX DOES NOT TRACK THE BROADER MARKET. Try getting into any desirable neighborhood with expectations of 46% down. Will. not. happen.

]]> By: JA http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/2009/05/case-shiller_bay_area_showing_early_signs_of_eventual_bottom.html/comment-page-1#comment-8923 JA Wed, 27 May 2009 13:57:24 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/?p=6287#comment-8923 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/26/MNRB17JFHB.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/26/MNRB17JFHB.DTL

]]> By: vp http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/2009/05/case-shiller_bay_area_showing_early_signs_of_eventual_bottom.html/comment-page-1#comment-8922 vp Wed, 27 May 2009 05:37:35 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/?p=6287#comment-8922 100 is just the level of real estate price in year 2000. It’s not bottom. It could go lower than 100, min number is 0! 100 is just the level of real estate price in year 2000. It’s not bottom. It could go lower than 100, min number is 0!

]]> By: vp http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/2009/05/case-shiller_bay_area_showing_early_signs_of_eventual_bottom.html/comment-page-1#comment-8921 vp Wed, 27 May 2009 05:36:51 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/?p=6287#comment-8921 100 is just the level of 2000. It's not bottom. It could go lower than 100, min number is 0! 100 is just the level of 2000. It’s not bottom. It could go lower than 100, min number is 0!

]]> By: MJD http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/2009/05/case-shiller_bay_area_showing_early_signs_of_eventual_bottom.html/comment-page-1#comment-8920 MJD Wed, 27 May 2009 05:14:48 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/sfbay/?p=6287#comment-8920 You could change the headline to "Bay Area home values continue to decline at near-record rate" and it would be just as accurate if not more so. You could change the headline to “Bay Area home values continue to decline at near-record rate” and it would be just as accurate if not more so.

]]>