patrick.net

Yahoo! Jobs must be back full force. Wow, just a couple of weeks ago I thought I saw an article saying our unemployment rate was over 11% (the real number, not any voodoo or adjusted). Amazing how time flies and the world gets better in a few weeks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/02/09/dont-be-fooled-the-obama-unemployment-rate-is-11/

No job improvement, then you can bet your grandmother's china that we will not see any housing improvement. The government is out of bullets to shoot. Time will be our witness here. Don't say I didn't warn you.

SFace says

Companies (particurarly banks) pay a lot of money to access subscription services generated by Fiserv and Moody's. Their good reputation is on the line

Their prediction contradicts 400 years of recorded data. There has never been a V-shaped recovery after a bubble collapse. There has never been a housing bubble even close to the proportion of this one we just had. A bubble of this magnitude justifies a crash of an equal magnitude followed by at least 2 decades of flat prices. Forget house buying until 2030 and look for 1975 prices coming back.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Yahoo! Jobs must be back full force. Wow, just a couple of weeks ago I thought I saw an article saying our unemployment rate was over 11% (the real number, not any voodoo or adjusted). Amazing how time flies and the world gets better in a few weeks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/02/09/dont-be-fooled-the-obama-unemployment-rate-is-11/

No job improvement, then you can bet your grandmother's china that we will not see any housing improvement. The government is out of bullets to shoot. Time will be our witness here. Don't say I didn't warn you.

So Morningstar is biased, but Forbes is OK?

tatupu70 says

So Morningstar is biased, but Forbes is OK?

I've been following Peter for years. There are honest individual contributors that don't have to sell their soul to survive. Just good reportable facts do them justice.

http://blogs.forbes.com/peterferrara/

Also, it is about the money trail. Forbes are not paid by anyone to report a particular way about jobs. Most main stream media outlets get a good source of money from the real estate industry. In return they keep quiet on anything negative about the housing market. Just the nature of the beast. If you dumped 10's of thousands to a paper each month running listing and kept seeing that same paper talk badly about the prospects of the housing market, you would most likely complain or move your listings somewhere else. I didn't invent this stuff, it is basic survival 101.

SFace says

Companies (particurarly banks) pay a lot of money to access subscription services generated by Fiserv and Moody's. Their good reputation is on the line

sometimes these forecasts are a self fulfilling prophesy. If the forecast is up banks and businesses position themselves accordingly in terms of lending and business deals and ends up going up. same thing happens on the way down.

tdeloco says

That graph is ludicrous. The whole point of the Case-Shiller index is to point out that home prices always go back to 100. Overvalued is over 100, undervalued is under 100, but prices will always go back to 100.

I don't agree with this.

Wikipedia (I know) says: "The national index is normalized to have a value of 100 in the first quarter of 2000."

But nothing about this representing some "right" value, above which houses are overpriced, and below which houses are underpriced. I don't see why values would have to revert to some norm, especially as population grows (and land doesn't), or some event or transformation happens to make a location more valuable.

I bet Houston prices are higher than they would otherwise be if it weren't for the importance of oil...I bet the completion of the Erie canal was followed by a rise in values in newly connected cities. Statehood for Hawaii probably started a trend of increasing house (land) values.

tdeloco says

That graph is ludicrous. The whole point of the Case-Shiller index is to point out that home prices always go back to 100. Overvalued is over 100, undervalued is under 100, but prices will always go back to 100.

(include Thomas' stupid graph he posted about 100 times about reverting back to the mean)

That may be true if there are no transformative changes (that impact real estate prices) over the past decade. Transformative changes may include:

1) Interest Rates.
2) Supplies and household growth.
3) Income and net wealth
4) Taxes

5) Others such as lending environonment

So with regards to SF over the last decade:

1) Interest rate went from 6-7% - 4%
2) No new SFH homes were added while new households were added. (Of course Condo's balanced that out as a competitive choice somewhat..
3) Income grew but millionaires and wealth grew even faster.
4) MID is more lucrative and property tax rate is the same. Add-on's property tax in SF are non-existent. Combined, taxes have been landlord friendly.

So no, it cannot revert to 100 given the above. Where it should be is of course where everyone likes to know.

swebb says

Wikipedia (I know) says: "The national index is normalized to have a value of 100 in the first quarter of 2000."

The original Case-Shiller spans 120 years and is normalized at 1890 values. That puts the version you mentioned normalized at approx 125 (eyeballed). What's fascinating is that we've had exponential population growth during the past century, yet the chart remains stable hovering near the 100 index.

Population Growth:

Full Case-Shiller graph:

swebb says

I don't see why values would have to revert to some norm, especially as population grows (and land doesn't)

Your argument should've shown changes in the 120-year chart. I only see a 10-point shift for the years 1945-1997, a new norm for the 52-year span. Lots of things happened within this time frame, including steady decline in income taxes. Then, everything seemed out-of-whack after the year 2000. As I've argued, it is better to re-normalize the graph and move the 100-point mark.

SFace says

1) Interest Rates.
2) Supplies and household growth.
3) Income and net wealth
4) Taxes
5) Others such as lending environonment

Income Taxes rates are at their lowest in decades. Interest rates have also been at their lowest. I don't think either rate can move further down, so home prices should stabilize rather than grow exponentially.

That constrains home prices to be a function of income. Just for the sake of example, if home prices stabilize at 5x a person's salary, when the average Joe earns $10k, home prices stabilize at $50k, and when average Joe earns $100k, home prices stabilize at $500k, assuming all other things remain constant.

swebb says

I bet Houston prices are higher than they would otherwise be

If you look at the people actually living in them, the average should still be some number (say 5x) compared to the person's salary. Do realize that people who buy property in downtown areas tend to be highly paid. Prices are a function of their affordability (assuming all other things remain constant).

SFace says

So no, it cannot revert to 100 given the above. Where it should be is of course where everyone likes to know.

I agree. Furthermore, the 100-point mark chosen by Moody's or Wikipedia seems completely arbitrary to me. Why is it 25 points higher with respect to the full graph?

tatupu70 says

I think it's amusing that anyone who has a different opinion than the bears must either be a real estate agent or a homeowner desperate to prop up prices. Nevermind that it is totaly ridiculous to think that posting on pat.net will affect home prices...

I think you guys might want to bone up on "groupthink". Start with the Bay of Pigs.

Only because about 99% of the time it turns out to be true.

thomas.wong1986 says

New record: Nearly a half-million real estate licenses

Holy crap. Make no wonder we are screwed so bad. These clowns are now littering the unemployment lines. We just can't stop them from reaching in our pockets. Dammit.

dunnross says

SFace says

Companies (particurarly banks) pay a lot of money to access subscription services generated by Fiserv and Moody's. Their good reputation is on the line

Their prediction contradicts 400 years of recorded data. There has never been a V-shaped recovery after a bubble collapse. There has never been a housing bubble even close to the proportion of this one we just had. A bubble of this magnitude justifies a crash of an equal magnitude followed by at least 2 decades of flat prices. Forget house buying until 2030 and look for 1975 prices coming back.

+1

tdeloco says

What's fascinating is that we've had exponential population growth during the past century

Not really. It is closer to linear since 1960 and now is actually slowing. Many predict that we will be actually stagnant past 2030.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

tatupu70 says

I think it's amusing that anyone who has a different opinion than the bears must either be a real estate agent or a homeowner desperate to prop up prices. Nevermind that it is totaly ridiculous to think that posting on pat.net will affect home prices...

I think you guys might want to bone up on "groupthink". Start with the Bay of Pigs.

Only because about 99% of the time it turns out to be true.

lol--I rest my case.

tatupu70 says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

tatupu70 says

I think it's amusing that anyone who has a different opinion than the bears must either be a real estate agent or a homeowner desperate to prop up prices. Nevermind that it is totaly ridiculous to think that posting on pat.net will affect home prices...

I think you guys might want to bone up on "groupthink". Start with the Bay of Pigs.

Only because about 99% of the time it turns out to be true.

lol--I rest my case.

Glad you feel good. It'll offset the 20% drop that is coming your way soon.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

tatupu70 says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

tatupu70 says

I think it's amusing that anyone who has a different opinion than the bears must either be a real estate agent or a homeowner desperate to prop up prices. Nevermind that it is totaly ridiculous to think that posting on pat.net will affect home prices...

I think you guys might want to bone up on "groupthink". Start with the Bay of Pigs.

Only because about 99% of the time it turns out to be true.

lol--I rest my case.

Glad you feel good. It'll offset the 20% drop that is coming your way soon.

You could be right. You could be wrong. I'm pretty comfortable with the direction of my local market, but it's certainly possible that there are more losses to come.

I'm open to either possibility--I am not a bear, but I come here to see what others think. Bulls, bears, neither...

I just get the impression that your mind is made up and you only want to read things that agree with your viewpoint.

tatupu70 says

I just get the impression that your mind is made up and you only want to read things that agree with your viewpoint.

Data changes my mind. The real kind, not that fake stuff. Show me the data! No one has yet. Momentum is a bitch. I only see a wind pushing things down and lots of people crying that it cannot continue with absolutely no data to back up their claims. What kind of data?

- Improving Jobs
- Improving Salaries
- Growth in GDP
- Lowering of the Debt (not adding another trillion or more each year!)
- A reduction in distressed properties (nothing but an increase happening)
- No real inflation (did you see the price at the pump lately)
- etc. etc.

Everything is pointed in the absolute wrong direction for home prices. Not a few things, not a mix of things. Everything. The only thing the bull pundents got to grab onto is that we have low interest rates. What they are not realizing is that we have them because we just fell off a cliff. Imagine for one second the price of a BA home now, if interest rates stayed at the 6% range. That would show you how much has changed since 2007. Rates have had to drop over 100% relative just to stop the country from going bankrupt. Then we had to start buying up our own paper? Simply ludicrous.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Data changes my mind. The real kind, not that fake stuff.

There's the rub. Any data I show will be the "fake" kind. Any data you show will be the "real" kind.

Or stated another way--any data that agrees with your viewpoint is real, any that opposes your viewpoint is fake.

tatupu70 says

There's the rub. Any data I show will be the "fake" kind. Any data you show will be the "real" kind.

Your point is "confirmation bias"; I get it. Sadly, I agree with RentingForHalfTheCost. There is a mountain of data pointing towards the other direction compared to a few positive data points, and everyone is already claiming "bottom" and that it's all recovery from here.

Also, the way they measure unemployment had always been rigged. I understood this over a decade ago (well before the bubble). My understanding hasn't changed. It was true then; it is still true now. When people no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, they drop out of this count (even if they didn't get a job).

More bearish data: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/ECRI-Weekly-Leading-Index.php

If you watch the video, it seems like we are headed for a recession. ECRI measures the economic cycle. I regularly look at the WLI (weekly leading index), as one of my lead economic indicators.

From what I understand, the definition of a recession is when the annual GDP expansion is lower than the population growth (be it 1% or 2%). Fact of the matter is, it has been negative for the past few months. We're not growing, we're contracting.

tdeloco says

From what I understand, the definition of a recession is when the annual GDP expansion is lower than the population growth (be it 1% or 2%).

There are probably several definitions that people like to use, but that is not the generally accepted definition. Most define it as negative GDP

SFace says

Calculators and graphs are useless and explains nothing. Application and how things interwined and reaction is more interesting and useful.

That's pretty funny. Ever since you've been on here you've been proffering some rinky dink prediction of imminent appreciation in housing based upon this that or the other chart. Objective analysis of consumer beahavior is not evident in anything you've conveyed. It's just up up up with you.

SFace says

That may be true if there are no transformative changes (that impact real estate prices) over the past decade. Transformative changes may include:
1) Interest Rates.
2) Supplies and household growth.
3) Income and net wealth
4) Taxes
5) Others such as lending environonment
So with regards to SF over the last decade:
1) Interest rate went from 6-7% - 4%
2) No new SFH homes were added while new households were added. (Of course Condo's balanced that out as a competitive choice somewhat..
3) Income grew but millionaires and wealth grew even faster.
4) MID is more lucrative and property tax rate is the same. Add-on's property tax in SF are non-existent. Combined, taxes have been landlord friendly.
So no, it cannot revert to 100 given the above. Where it should be is of course where everyone likes to know.

There isnt anything new form the above points. They been around for decades.. still prices do correct to the long run. Where you born yesterday ? sure sounds like it. From the local economic boom of the 80s to the eventual corrections, it has happened all before.

tatupu70 says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Data changes my mind. The real kind, not that fake stuff.

There's the rub. Any data I show will be the "fake" kind. Any data you show will be the "real" kind.

Or stated another way--any data that agrees with your viewpoint is real, any that opposes your viewpoint is fake.

Now you are showing that you are suffering from the exact things you are claiming I am suffering from. Instead of making up situations and assuming behavior, show some data! I got more than the 20% in waiting, and if you can show me data that it makes sense to buy in the BA, shit I'll use you for the realtard. ;)

tatupu70 says

There are probably several definitions that people like to use, but that is not the generally accepted definition. Most define it as negative GDP

Ok, so I was wrong.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a need to increase the GDP relative to the growth of the workforce. This shouldn't be the population growth per se, but the difference between the people entering the workforce minus leaving the workforce. If the GDP remains constant despite the increase in workforce, then either real unemployment is growing or everyone's salary is decreasing.

Workforce - 2. (Economics) The total number of people who could be employed

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I got more than the 20% in waiting, and if you can show me data that it makes sense to buy in the BA, shit I'll use you for the realtard. ;)

No--I certainly wouldn't make a recommendation to buy in the BA. When I lived in northern, CA, I rented too.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Instead of making up situations and assuming behavior, show some data!

The Morningstar article I posted has lots of data.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/housing-bottom-120000751.html

If you read the article instead of disregarding it, you would have seen the data. Ignore the conclusions if you like, but the numbers don't lie.

tatupu70 says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Instead of making up situations and assuming behavior, show some data!

The Morningstar article I posted has lots of data.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/housing-bottom-120000751.html

If you read the article instead of disregarding it, you would have seen the data. Ignore the conclusions if you like, but the numbers don't lie.

I just read and and got a little sick to my stomach in the process.

It is amazing how so much can be said without any reference to data. I kept looking but all I got was fluff. When data did reveal itself it didn't justify the wording. This is a common gimmic by writers because they know people really don't understand the data. They just want someone to say "we are going up", or "we are going down" and not have to think math.

Here are some examples directly from the article. Check out this "no data" writing.
-----
Housing Numbers Continue Climb This Week
This week, there was a lot of housing data, all of it good. Both new- and existing-home sales looked in better shape, as did pricing data from the Federal Housing Finance Administration (lagged and averaged Case Shiller data is due next week). Not only did the January data look great, but also there were massive upward revisions to December's statistics. Last month I was puzzled when some of the originally reported housing data looked incredibly weak, especially given the positive buzz that our homebuilding analysts were hearing from the field.
------

Thinks like "look great", "all of it good", "positive buzz", are all subjective terms and should not be used in reporting on housing.

Here is the teller. After all the hype about the positive conditions and how great the data looks, the writer then shows his true assumption.

"Low Inventories Could Mean Higher Prices". Read it. He is saying "Could" for crying out loud. He can not even say they are, they have, they will. He really isn't saying anything at all, just straight up BS. Here is more from that same BS line. "Low inventories should put a damper on future price declines. Low inventories will also encourage buyers to act more quickly when a desirable house does become available." Lots of cool non-factual assumptions about price direction. This is just bad reporting in my book. To say inventories are short for 2012 when we know the shadow inventory gorilla is walking into the room is crazy. The inventories are going to explode incredibly in 2012, just wait.

Then I did a second read and finally found the data the writer doesn't want the article to focus on. Ready for this? Here it comes and it is buried in the fluff of the article deep in the dungeon.

"Looking at year-over-year, quarterly data, prices declined 2%"

Booyah! Down! This article is so biased I now have to go get a shower to feel clean again. Just sick stuff. Thanks for pulling me in there and justifying my claims. Ugh

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Booyah! Down! This article is so biased I now have to go get a shower to feel clean again. Just sick stuff. Thanks for pulling me in there and justifying my claims. Ugh

Wow. So, I take it you didn't listen to my advice then:

tatupu70 says

Ignore the conclusions if you like, but the numbers don't lie.

The article actually contained a great deal of data. It didn't agree with your thinking, however, so it appears you ignored it. Which is your right.

One other thing that I did a doubletake on--it's bad reporting to conclude that lower inventories might lead to higher prices? But it's good reporting to claim that the shadow inventory gorilla is about to explode?? Really?

tatupu70 says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Booyah! Down! This article is so biased I now have to go get a shower to feel clean again. Just sick stuff. Thanks for pulling me in there and justifying my claims. Ugh

Wow. So, I take it you didn't listen to my advice then:

tatupu70 says

Ignore the conclusions if you like, but the numbers don't lie.

The article actually contained a great deal of data. It didn't agree with your thinking, however, so it appears you ignored it. Which is your right.

One other thing that I did a doubletake on--it's bad reporting to conclude that lower inventories might lead to higher prices? But it's good reporting to claim that the shadow inventory gorilla is about to explode?? Really?

I didn't conclude that lower inventory leads to lower prices. They were the ones making the conclusions. I posted the actual factual results that prices are still dropping yr-to-yr. If you disagree with that fact, that that is your choice.

About inventory. We are not dropping in inventory Sherlock like the article is trying to say and the basis for all the positive comments. The inventory in California alone is at a 9yr supply. 9 yrs! We are all screwed in my opinion.

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/california-has-nearly-9-years-of-housing-supply-58-county-mls-supply-and-foreclosures/

tatupu70 says

The article actually contained a great deal of data. It didn't agree with your thinking, however, so it appears you ignored it. Which is your right.

I wish I had ignored it. It proves to me that people are dishonest. Maybe not solely intentionally, but it still makes it dishonest in my opinion. I have a EE degree, a degree in mathematics with a specialization on statistics. How the general public throws around numbers to make hair brain conclusions is amazing to me. What really pisses me off is that this main stream reporting is what all my friends and relatives use to make their purchase decisions in life. There are a small percentage of people that have enough critical thinking training to see through this stuff easily. However, the vast majority, most of my relatives and friends, don't have that training.

To me it is just like the denial of smokers in the 80's and early 90's. The real hurdle to get over was to actual convince people that smoking was bad for their health. Even after so much evidence that proved without any doubt, they still were bombarded by a few reports from people with a vested interest saying things were not conclusive. They hung onto them reports like it squashed all the good science that was already done. You know what it finally took? For people to have friends and family around them get seriously sick and die, unfortunately. Now, you ask anyone if smoking is good for you and everyone knows. Back then, it was 50/50. I wish everyone knew how to filter the data. It would make us all a little sharper and maybe stop or slow down these boom/bust cycles that almost kill us all.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I didn't conclude that lower inventory leads to lower prices.

And I never said that you did.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

About inventory. We are not dropping in inventory Sherlock like the article is trying to say and the basis for all the positive comments. The inventory in California alone is at a 9yr supply. 9 yrs! We are all screwed in my opinion.

The article wasn't talking about CA. inventory, so let's try to keep with apples to apples. Do you dispute their inventory numbers?

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I just read and and got a little sick to my stomach in the process.

There is nothing wrong with that article. It is weakly positive, but positive none the less. No need to shun it. Just point to the mountain of data pointing in the other direction, otherwise you're discrediting yourself.

tatupu70 says

If you read the article instead of disregarding it, you would have seen the data. Ignore the conclusions if you like, but the numbers don't lie.

I read it and thought the article itself barely justified the headline. I won't argue with you or anyone about the article any further.

CrazyMan says

Tina, sounds like you're a RE agent that has something to lose as well.

Nope, not an agent. Just someone who agrees with SF Ace. I think he's smart enough to realize that a post on patrick.net is not going to affect the BA market overall.

tatupu70 says

Do you dispute their inventory numbers?

No, not at all. Although, they are ignoring the shadow inventory lurking but that is fine.

What I am disputing is that they are trying to say a bottom is happening. Now, when someone says a bottom, I am thinking in pricing. As a potential home buyer I just need to buy one home for a good price. How many homes are being sold (sales) is nothing to do with a bottom to me. It could infer that we are close to a bottom when you back date the data with historic patterns (never done in this article), or it count infer many other things also. Like for instance that many home owners who would be sellers are trapped and defaulting and living in their homes for years without being foreclosed. Hence, why the shadow inventory is important here. If you are going to grab at lower inventories as a positive then wouldn't it be good to understand why they are lowering? That is just how my brain works. They are not lowering because people are excited to buy. They are lowering because less people can sell (underwater mortgages). That is nothing but a negative. We know this because there is continual downward price pressure (medium values are down, 2.4% just in the last Q).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/home-prices-in-u-s-decline-2-4-as-focus-shifts-to-distressed-properties.html?source=patrick.net

The people that can sell are dropping their prices to meet the buyers. That is not the sign of health, exactly the opposite.

So, my dispute is that they are highlighting a rise in sales, lower inventory and then jumping to incorrect conclusion about what to infer out of that data. Their data is actually fine. Good data, just doesn't mean what they think it means.

tdeloco says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I just read and and got a little sick to my stomach in the process.

There is nothing wrong with that article. It is weakly positive, but positive none the less. No need to shun it. Just point to the mountain of data pointing in the other direction, otherwise you're discrediting yourself.

That is true. I'll refrain from the colorful language and just stick to facts. It is easy to try to add entertainment sometimes.

tdeloco says

tatupu70 says

If you read the article instead of disregarding it, you would have seen the data. Ignore the conclusions if you like, but the numbers don't lie.

I read it and thought the article itself barely justified the headline. I won't argue with you or anyone about the article any further.

I'm glad others see the disconnect. You see barely, and I see no where close. Maybe I'm a bit spoiled because I hold this type of reporting partly responsible for the mess we are in now.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

How many homes are being sold (sales) is nothing to do with a bottom to me.

As someone well versed in statistics, I am surprised you would say that. I can almost guarantee that there is a correlation between home sales and prices (especially prices 3-6 months later).

RentingForHalfTheCost says

If you are going to grab at lower inventories as a positive then wouldn't it be good to understand why they are lowering? That is just how my brain works. They are not lowering because people are excited to buy. They are lowering because less people can sell (underwater mortgages).

Well, that's certainly one opinion. You could be correct, but sales volume is rising. Regardless, supply and demand rules are pretty simple--as supply decreases (with constant demand), prices will rise.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

(medium values are down, 2.4% just in the last Q).

Do you mean median values? As you probably know, that's not a great indicator. Especially with a large number of distressed sales.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

So, my dispute is that they are highlighting a rise in sales, lower inventory and then jumping to incorrect conclusion about what to infer out of that data. Their data is actually fine. Good data, just doesn't mean what they think it means.

OK--you're free to disagree, but don't complain that nobody is showing you any data.

Any way you slice it, paying $500,000 for a crappy house in a bad neighborhood is crazy. I don't care how nice the weather is.

It probably costs less (per day) to vacation in California than it does to live there.

Want nice weather? Move to North Carolina or Virginia. For $500,000 you can have a mansion. Yeah, summers are humid but that's why there's air conditioning. And swimming pools. And at least the summer vegetation is green.

Take the money you save on housing and use it to vacation in California during the winter.

At this point we're all still guessing- and so too are those who write articles about predictions. There are way too many possible wrenches that could get tossed into the spokes. For example, what if gas prices continue to go up? What if interest rates are raised? What if the foreclosures clogging the market continues to be an issue?

Secondly, when they talk about prices rising they're talking about coming off of a median comprised heavily of foreclosures and short sales- which in many ways has masked the true nature of the housing market. Sure- perhaps a bunch of crappy foreclosures were sold but what about actual middle class type property? The median for the Bay Area last check was around $325,000. In other words, DRASTICALLY cheaper than reality for the types of homes you actually find for sale that any of us would want to live in. If the median for the area goes up another 5%, that makes the median around $340,000? Whoopee.

One more thing I'll add which is strictly ancedotal is that at least around where we live, which is your typical East Bay bedroom community- aka- the "Bay Area middle class" meaning they probably have a couple of cute-ish newer cars in the driveway, a couple of gadgets, smart phones, etc etc floating around the house and 2 kids who attend a respectable local school and thus parents paid more for the house to be near it.... so in other words, semi-affluent by national standards- is that there seems to be a recent spike in short sales and foreclosures - again, at least around our immediate area. This is surprising because we're talking about houses being put up as short sales owned by seemingly well-to-do professionals. Perhaps it doesn't mean anything, but if this somehow translates into a surge in foreclosures and short sales in more affluent chunks of the Bay Area then this too could have an impact on future medians.

I'm really glad that I bought last year. I may buy another rental property if I find something that works but there's no real pressure.