Are you planning to sell your primary anytime soon?

Submitted by flu on March 18, 2014 - 12:53pm
Yes
7% (3 votes)
No, my home price hasn't exceeded peak prices yet
37% (17 votes)
No, even though my home price has met or exceeded peak prices
57% (26 votes)
Total votes: 46
Submitted by flu on March 18, 2014 - 12:57pm.

So for folks that answered "No, even though my home prices has met or exceeded peak prices"...

I'm curious what your opinion was back in 2006 or whenever peak prices was reached... Did you sell then or consider selling... If so, but you aren't considering it now.... What's the difference that is making you think differently now....

Submitted by NotCranky on March 18, 2014 - 1:10pm.

I sold, bought a lot , and built two houses almost completely with the bubble money and some skills and sweat.

I am not going to sell now. Maybe sell 1/2 the acreage and a house but I can only sell to a neighbor that way....not a huge long shot as there may be some interest. Not like a listing though where a sale would happen at the right price.

I can't really see another desirable way to capitalize on proceeds,and we like it here, so other than that, not thinking about selling.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on March 18, 2014 - 1:47pm.

I sold my Primary just before the peak in 2005.

I have no plans to sell my primary anytime soon now.

IMO the bust in 2007-9 was not because of home prices.

It was because of stupid loans.

Anyway IMO for what its worth.

Good luck.

That does not mean I think home prices will rise forever though, it just means I don't think a 30%-50% crash is likely.

IMO the gov cannot afford long term Deflation, therefore it will not be tolerated long term.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on March 18, 2014 - 3:09pm.

I think the more important questions to ask is,

If you are planning to sell your primary why ?

Is it because you feel the market topped ?

Or is it for more pedestrian reasons like relocating?

Submitted by AN on March 18, 2014 - 4:11pm.

The main reason why I won't be selling my primary is because "I have to live somewhere". If I sell, I would have to rent and my ITI - tax deduction is cheaper than renting a 2/2 apartment in the same area. My PITI - tax deduction is only slightly more than a 2/2 apartment. I would have to pay well over $1k/month more to rent a similar sized place and the condition would be much worse (rental grade vs upgraded house). There's also the intangible factors, such as moving kids, painting kids' rooms, etc. Then there's the problem of finding the right house to rent in as well. Lastly, something tells me we won't see another 30% decrease again this soon.

Now, if you ask about investment properties, I would totally sell if we hit bubble price. It's much easier to sell a rental, because you're not living there and you don't have to move when you sell. You don't have to compare PITI vs rent but you have to compare rental income vs the amount of $ you save when you sell high and buy back lower.

Submitted by UCGal on March 18, 2014 - 6:32pm.

The home is back up to peak prices - but I'm not selling. It meets our needs, is almost paid off, and the granny flat generates rental income. Why would I sell?

I like living in San Diego and this is an affordable, pleasant place to live. I don't need a bigger/fancier house that costs more in upkeep.

Submitted by CA renter on March 19, 2014 - 12:37am.

We sold our primary in 2004 because we wanted to buy a bigger house in a better neighborhood (got married, had kids, etc.). Made good money on that house and then rented for almost 8 years because prices were so insane and I was convinced that we were in the middle of a housing bubble. Found our "dream home" in late 2011 (not fancy, but we're not fancy people), and our hope is to live here for the rest of our lives.

If we were living in a house we didn't love and intend to spend the rest of our lives in, we would be seriously thinking about selling now. One problem, though, is that rents have really risen, so it's not as easy to justify selling and renting.

Submitted by paramount on March 19, 2014 - 10:03pm.

The other question being: what about investment properties?

Yellen has been hinting at rate hikes - something about a "6 month type of thing/time frame."

Financial Armageddon may really be on the way.

Ok, maybe not Armageddon, but we could see a pull back in residential RE.

Submitted by SD Realtor on March 20, 2014 - 10:15am.

The correlation between higher rates and RE pricing is a little less predictable then you would think it should be.

While many buyers get squeezed out or have to settle for less due to the higher payments, many other investors view those conditions as opportunity to move money from equities to RE if the RE pricing starts to move substantially.

The magnitude of the rates is what determines the conditions. A movement from say 4% to 6% will hurt and would probably result in a marginal price decrease. Now a movement from say 6 to 8 or 6 to 10 and then we have another ball game.

However things are much different this time. The amount of debt that the govt is carrying is fairly staggering. The short term defecits are not the problem, the long term debt coupled with the sheer number of people that will require entitlements are tsunami like.

See what the cbo says...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susa...

If you top all of that off with a high interest rate environment....

That would be pretty harsh. Yellen is actually proceeding in really the only direction she can but the throttle needs to be very slow and accompanied by pretty substantial tax hikes on basically everybody or else there will be problems.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on March 20, 2014 - 11:03am.

First I don’t think they “CAN” raise interest rates significantly (but maybe I am wrong)
(anything that would cause deflation cannot be afforded long term "there are long term bills to pay" and that would be too disruptive).

But if they did I think it would affect different markets much differently.

First it cost a certain amount to build a home (a lot of it being land and land entitlements etc… )
Those are fairly fixed costs and cannot be reduced significantly, so if they cannot get a certain price they will most certainly “STOP” building.

And besides those that are left standing now days most have fixed rate loans that they will not give that up easily (unless forced).

So you would just end up with very little inventory unless there was some major economic disruption which is always possible (ie.. war or something worse).

Anyway just my two cents.

Submitted by CA renter on March 20, 2014 - 3:45pm.

Land costs (even entitlement costs) are not fixed. The price of land needs to come down as interest rates, and entitlement costs, rise.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on March 20, 2014 - 4:33pm.

OK sure, the city needs it's money though and it costs a lot to terraform a mountain with a view.

Submitted by joec on March 20, 2014 - 6:37pm.

Another reason people won't sell is Prop 13. If you are in a place you're ok with for the next 10+ years or even longer as some posters here state (eg: found home for the rest of my life)...with the recent run up, you'll be sitting pretty for a long time if housing either doesn't move, goes up or goes down slowly even. Your carrying cost is cheaper than rent and I'd guess anyone who bought on this board (and there were quite a few of us), are up 25%+ if they were to sell.

Even if it drops a lot, you're probably still ok with the payments and still "need a place to live" and your rate was probably lower too.

I have doubts that interest rates can go that high though since I have a tendency to believe we can't take the sharp hard pain and will prolong anything like before and like Japan/Europe. It's human nature and we'll just do the same.

The economy is probably also recovering from everything I've seen so rates will probably mildly go up and settle in the 5-5.5% area...

Submitted by CA renter on March 20, 2014 - 7:13pm.

What are you seeing that leads you to believe that the economy is recovering?

We're always trying to keep an eye on things and it looks to us like things have slowed down quite a bit.
I'm always interested in hearing what others are seeing/hearing, so please share if you're seeing something different. It would be awesome if things are getting better, but haven't really seen it, at least around here.

Submitted by alf_pog on March 20, 2014 - 9:25pm.

I'm having a hard time seeing where home pricing makes sense even if we are supposedly recovering.

I'm a single person approaching 30 making in the mid-70s, and home purchasing makes no sense even if there were 2% year over year increases over the next 7 years. I guess the argument would be to raise the rent, but at that point I'd move back in with family or roommates.

Submitted by booter1 on March 20, 2014 - 9:28pm.

I think another dynamic is that a great many homeowners have "locked in" loans at all time low rates over the last few years.
We bought in 2011 in Temecula at an attractive price and have "settled in" for the long term.
If you monthly payments are low/affordable and you like your home/area then why move?
If rates move up then this will cause even fewer people to move unless they are relocating outside the area....

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 21, 2014 - 6:45am.

Saw some retired looking people eating at Chipotle last night. Kinda looked like me and wife. I asked if we could move out, convert to rental, live in a van, retire and eat at Chipotle every night.

She didntcsnswr. I assume that's a no.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 21, 2014 - 6:48am.

booter1 wrote:
I think another dynamic is that a great many homeowners have "locked in" loans at all time low rates over the last few years.
We bought in 2011 in Temecula at an attractive price and have "settled in" for the long term.
If you monthly payments are low/affordable and you like your home/area then why move?
If rates move up then this will cause even fewer people to move unless they are relocating outside the area....

Even if I were to retire abroad to live cheap not sure I'd do better.

2600 total. Maybe 2000 afterctaxes. 700 equity 1300 month Lost to interest. Can't even get a decent spot in Thailand for 1300. Maybe costa rica. But then I'd be away from chipotle.

Submitted by livinincali on March 21, 2014 - 6:51am.

booter1 wrote:
I think another dynamic is that a great many homeowners have "locked in" loans at all time low rates over the last few years.
We bought in 2011 in Temecula at an attractive price and have "settled in" for the long term.
If you monthly payments are low/affordable and you like your home/area then why move?
If rates move up then this will cause even fewer people to move unless they are relocating outside the area....

I tend to believe a lot of people will stay put but what does that mean for the typical move up areas. I.e MM to RP. It's going to be difficult to maintain pricing in those areas, because your traditional move up buyer won't find it nearly as attractive to lose that great rate they had.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on March 21, 2014 - 7:34am.

The Upgrade/Remodel/repair biz should do OK I think.

Yep I think we got a whole generation with nomoveitis.
Well at least in Socal, seems the same in NorCal as well IMO.

Although I Do know I a few Boomers who are planning to cash out (sell) in a more expensive area to pay cash in lower cost area (but most still plan to stay/retire in SoCal).

Submitted by flu on March 21, 2014 - 9:03am.

Do people really feel that the low mortgage rates (and hence presumably low mortgage payments) is what is going to keep people from selling?

Because if that's the case, where is the inventory going to come from, even if rates move slightly higher?

If what is going to glue people from selling is the low mortgage interest/payments...Seems to me you got a lot of owners that are now going to hold on indefinitely, unless prices go even much higher much higher or unless there is a much better use of money in other investments that is safer but with a higher rate of return....

Persumably all the "new buyers" are (1) pretty strong buyers that have much more financial staying power and (2) got in at a low rate and possibly at a decent price

Submitted by flu on March 21, 2014 - 9:22am.

AN wrote:

Now, if you ask about investment properties, I would totally sell if we hit bubble price. It's much easier to sell a rental, because you're not living there and you don't have to move when you sell. You don't have to compare PITI vs rent but you have to compare rental income vs the amount of $ you save when you sell high and buy back lower.

I thought about this very question but I'm not so sure about this..

Let's say hypothetically you could sell a rental for a $100k profit...And let's say for argument sake your net income from rental property after 20% income tax (including deductions) is around $9k/year

Does it really make sense to sell?

$100k profit (let's say long term) is taxed at 15% + 3.8% surcharge so around 18.8%
and there's a 25% tax on the recapture of depreciation you are going to have to pay. For argument sake, let's just say that's $10k (I pulled this number out of the air)...

So we're looking at a net $72k...And you still need to figure out what to do with it. What would you end up doing with it?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 21, 2014 - 9:40am.

FHA loans transferable?

Submitted by The-Shoveler on March 21, 2014 - 10:19am.

flu wrote:
Do people really feel that the low mortgage rates (and hence presumably low mortgage payments) is what is going to keep people from selling?

Because if that's the case, where is the inventory going to come from, even if rates move slightly higher?

If what is going to glue people from selling is the low mortgage interest/payments...Seems to me you got a lot of owners that are now going to hold on indefinitely, unless prices go even much higher much higher or unless there is a much better use of money in other investments that is safer but with a higher rate of return....

Persumably all the "new buyers" are (1) pretty strong buyers that have much more financial staying power and (2) got in at a low rate and possibly at a decent price

I think even for move up buyers a lot will choose to rent out the "starter-house" if they got in at a decent price/rate but I could be wrong here.

Seems more popular today than it did when cash flow would be mostly neg for the first ten or so years in most cases.

This would be NoSellItis

Submitted by AN on March 21, 2014 - 9:54am.

flu wrote:
AN wrote:

Now, if you ask about investment properties, I would totally sell if we hit bubble price. It's much easier to sell a rental, because you're not living there and you don't have to move when you sell. You don't have to compare PITI vs rent but you have to compare rental income vs the amount of $ you save when you sell high and buy back lower.

I thought about this very question but I'm not so sure about this..

Let's say hypothetically you could sell a rental for a $100k profit...And let's say for argument sake your net income from rental property after 20% income tax (including deductions) is around $9k/year

Does it really make sense to sell?

$100k profit (let's say long term) is taxed at 15% + 3.8% surcharge so around 18.8%
and there's a 25% tax on the recapture of depreciation you are going to have to pay. For argument sake, let's just say that's $10k (I pulled this number out of the air)...

So we're looking at a net $72k...And you still need to figure out what to do with it. What would you end up doing with it?

I agree that it's not 100% straight forward and I though about the question of "what to do" with the funds as well. I guess I would only sell if I see tide turning and prices going down. I would more likely to sell. It's not a guarantee I would sell either. I might just HEL/Refi/2nd loan to take out most of the profit at the peak to hedge for any kind of crash and use that $ to buy back in if things does crash. If it doesn't crash, I can always pay back the HEL/2nd loan and my cost would only be the interest for the duration I hold on to that $.

One possible reason why I would want to complete sell is if I sell and buy my dream home doing a 1031 exchange. Rent it out for a year or two, then sell my primary and essentially combine the primary + rental(s) to pay for my dream home and have the new dream hope be either paid off or nearly paid off.

Submitted by flu on March 21, 2014 - 11:14am.

AN wrote:
flu wrote:
AN wrote:

Now, if you ask about investment properties, I would totally sell if we hit bubble price. It's much easier to sell a rental, because you're not living there and you don't have to move when you sell. You don't have to compare PITI vs rent but you have to compare rental income vs the amount of $ you save when you sell high and buy back lower.

I thought about this very question but I'm not so sure about this..

Let's say hypothetically you could sell a rental for a $100k profit...And let's say for argument sake your net income from rental property after 20% income tax (including deductions) is around $9k/year

Does it really make sense to sell?

$100k profit (let's say long term) is taxed at 15% + 3.8% surcharge so around 18.8%
and there's a 25% tax on the recapture of depreciation you are going to have to pay. For argument sake, let's just say that's $10k (I pulled this number out of the air)...

So we're looking at a net $72k...And you still need to figure out what to do with it. What would you end up doing with it?

I agree that it's not 100% straight forward and I though about the question of "what to do" with the funds as well. I guess I would only sell if I see tide turning and prices going down. I would more likely to sell. It's not a guarantee I would sell either. I might just HEL/Refi/2nd loan to take out most of the profit at the peak to hedge for any kind of crash and use that $ to buy back in if things does crash. If it doesn't crash, I can always pay back the HEL/2nd loan and my cost would only be the interest for the duration I hold on to that $.

One possible reason why I would want to complete sell is if I sell and buy my dream home doing a 1031 exchange. Rent it out for a year or two, then sell my primary and essentially combine the primary + rental(s) to pay for my dream home and have the new dream hope be either paid off or nearly paid off.

But in theory, even if prices go down say a modest 20% (beyond which I would find difficult to happen)/// as long as your are positive cash flowing decently, why would it matter? Over a longer period of time, the rental income ends up covering your paper loss anyway...and if we still had very little alternative uses of that money to invest during that time period, you're in no worse shape than say having kept your money in cash for 10-15 years earning 0.0 or close to that

1031 is a completely different thought process, which I get...Just curious about when would be a good time to sell a rental.

Submitted by flu on March 21, 2014 - 11:15am.

The-Shoveler wrote:
flu wrote:
Do people really feel that the low mortgage rates (and hence presumably low mortgage payments) is what is going to keep people from selling?

Because if that's the case, where is the inventory going to come from, even if rates move slightly higher?

If what is going to glue people from selling is the low mortgage interest/payments...Seems to me you got a lot of owners that are now going to hold on indefinitely, unless prices go even much higher much higher or unless there is a much better use of money in other investments that is safer but with a higher rate of return....

Persumably all the "new buyers" are (1) pretty strong buyers that have much more financial staying power and (2) got in at a low rate and possibly at a decent price

I think even for move up buyers a lot will choose to rent out the "starter-house" if they got in at a decent price/rate but I could be wrong here.

Seems more popular today than it did when cash flow would be mostly neg for the first ten or so years in most cases.

This would be NoSellItis

That move would however be limited based on how much one could qualify for a second loan while maintaining the first one though, right?

Submitted by Jazzman on March 21, 2014 - 11:16am.

Majority so far goes with "No, [I wouldn't sell] even though my home price has met or exceeded peak prices". That says it all. Does it makes you feel richer, and have you been consuming more? Have you taken out a home equity loan? If the majority answer no to those questions, can someone explain the point of it all please.

Submitted by TheSeaward on March 21, 2014 - 12:49pm.

Put me down for "not selling and haven't exceeded peak price" (according to zillow). I'm not sure how long it would take to see $700k for mid 70's construction 5/3 in MM, if ever, but I probably wouldn't sell then either if US home prices were also similarly inflated. I'm sure my PITI would be cheaper than rent in that scenario anyway. Also it would be a shame to sell and then be priced out in the future. (Yes I know that is bubble era thinking).

Lots of people in the neighborhood seem to be celebrating the increased home values by relandscaping or remodeling their houses. New Hmart and now Daiso here too.... Might be worth sticking around to see where MM goes.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 21, 2014 - 2:02pm.

Looking toward the future, you guys planning burials, cremation or donating to science?

Personally I'm planning to have my flesh stripped and keeping the skeleton in the family.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on March 21, 2014 - 3:08pm.

Now that is way out there.

you realize that three or generations down the line you will most likely end up at some med school or amusement park haunted house.

My ashes on the beach.

Submitted by flyer on March 21, 2014 - 3:25pm.

Jazzman wrote:
Majority so far goes with "No, [I wouldn't sell] even though my home price has met or exceeded peak prices". That says it all. Does it makes you feel richer, and have you been consuming more? Have you taken out a home equity loan? If the majority answer no to those questions, can someone explain the point of it all please.

I'm sure everyone has different reasons they chose this option in the poll. In our case, we won't ever sell our primary, because it is our dream home in RSF, and we could never replace it for what we paid for it 20+ years ago.

We would also like to pass it along to our kids, and we know a lot of people who are planning to do the same. That may only constitute a blip on the inventory radar now, but it may have a more pronounced affect over time.

Submitted by flu on March 21, 2014 - 3:24pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
Looking toward the future, you guys planning burials, cremation or donating to science?

Personally I'm planning to have my flesh stripped and keeping the skeleton in the family.

i take it you aren't going to go for the cryongenic deep sleep preservation option?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 21, 2014 - 4:34pm.

Actually I'm signed up with medcure. They do free pickup, free dissection free cremation. Cheap even in death.

Though I'd prefer to be a skeleton.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 21, 2014 - 4:36pm.

A skeleton is actually a valuable asset. Worth 10k or so.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 21, 2014 - 4:47pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
Now that is way out there.

you realize that three or generations down the line you will most likely end up at some med school or amusement park haunted house.

My ashes on the beach.

I would love love love to be a skeleton in a haunted house.

I'd love to be a skull on a lawyers desk.

In the future I'd prefer to be alive right here in my dream home. Napping and dreaming. Cocktails at 5. Weightlifting at 11 am. Reading at 3.

I just purchased 1 million life insurance policy though.

I have this feeling bad things can happen and plans derailed.

Submitted by flyer on March 21, 2014 - 6:31pm.

Another good reason to keep the dream home in the family, scaredy. You can "visit" after you've moved out of this world.

Submitted by svelte on March 21, 2014 - 10:36pm.

I keep a replication skull on my desk.

It serves to remind me of the fleeting nature of life.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 22, 2014 - 7:26am.

memento mori.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 22, 2014 - 7:28am.

flyer wrote:
Another good reason to keep the dream home in the family, scaredy. You can "visit" after you've moved out of this world.

im gonna wear this shirt, too...

https://store.theonion.com/p-4816-mens-w...

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 22, 2014 - 7:30am.

let me ask you a question. if i opened a business that turned corpses into skeletons, and it cost say 3500 to get it done, but your skeleton, which would be given to your loved ones was worth 10,000, , would you be interested? you'd be up 6500. plus th eskeleton is likely to appreciate. and you get the free body disposal thrown in....

seriously...i was thinking this would eb a neat business. im thinking here in CA, a business unfriendly state, licensing might be a problem. maybe this would be a good hot desert business...in a business friendly, decay friendly environment.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 22, 2014 - 8:04am.

if you dont have the cash, we could just do the head....

I saw a reality animal show where guys do r this process w beetles.

Submitted by CA renter on March 22, 2014 - 5:17pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
let me ask you a question. if i opened a business that turned corpses into skeletons, and it cost say 3500 to get it done, but your skeleton, which would be given to your loved ones was worth 10,000, , would you be interested? you'd be up 6500. plus th eskeleton is likely to appreciate. and you get the free body disposal thrown in....

seriously...i was thinking this would eb a neat business. im thinking here in CA, a business unfriendly state, licensing might be a problem. maybe this would be a good hot desert business...in a business friendly, decay friendly environment.

Definitely something to look into! I like your outside of the box thinking, scaredy. :)

If it's possible, it really does make sense.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 22, 2014 - 5:29pm.

CA renter wrote:
scaredyclassic wrote:
let me ask you a question. if i opened a business that turned corpses into skeletons, and it cost say 3500 to get it done, but your skeleton, which would be given to your loved ones was worth 10,000, , would you be interested? you'd be up 6500. plus th eskeleton is likely to appreciate. and you get the free body disposal thrown in....

seriously...i was thinking this would eb a neat business. im thinking here in CA, a business unfriendly state, licensing might be a problem. maybe this would be a good hot desert business...in a business friendly, decay friendly environment.

Definitely something to look into! I like your outside of the box thinking, scaredy. :)

If it's possible, it really does make sense.

Perhaps I could buy a 1000 acres in Nevada and just let the dead dessicate naturally. Maybe in cages to protect from predators?

It would be a little weird to have dead rotting people all over, but I bet id get used to it.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 22, 2014 - 5:33pm.

I have a big stack of owl pellets wit rat and gopher skulls from a palm tree nest. If only there were a way to do that with people...

I'd like to sell at peak, buy an autonomous island and produce skeletons from corpses. Or maybe I could do this unregulated on a boat ?
Could I trail the corpse in a cage in th ewater and let smaller fish eat?

Submitted by CA renter on March 22, 2014 - 6:26pm.

How do they treat the skeletons used in universities, etc.?

Submitted by paramount on March 22, 2014 - 8:54pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
I have a big stack of owl pellets wit rat and gopher skulls from a palm tree nest. If only there were a way to do that with people...

I have an owl that lives in my palm tree, just as a fyi owls are federally protected.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 22, 2014 - 9:17pm.

CA renter wrote:
How do they treat the skeletons used in universities, etc.?

Not sure. I think they're valuable cause they're old. Some come from china. Skeletons are difficult to come by.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on March 22, 2014 - 9:18pm.

paramount wrote:
scaredyclassic wrote:
I have a big stack of owl pellets wit rat and gopher skulls from a palm tree nest. If only there were a way to do that with people...

I have an owl that lives in my palm tree, just as a fyi owls are federally protected.

I am willing to protect my owl alongside the feds. I love our owls.

Submitted by Rich Toscano on March 23, 2014 - 8:33am.

flu wrote:
So for folks that answered "No, even though my home prices has met or exceeded peak prices"...

I'm curious what your opinion was back in 2006 or whenever peak prices was reached... Did you sell then or consider selling... If so, but you aren't considering it now.... What's the difference that is making you think differently now....

I think this is kind of a strange way of looking at it... the peak was over 8 years ago -- nearly a decade now! -- and since that time, both rents and per capita income in San Diego are up 20%. "Peak pricing" in nominal terms just isn't a meaningful number, when the purchasing power of money has been declining while nominal incomes and rents have been rising over that period.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an interesting question -- are you selling your primary right now? But I don't see why peak nominal pricing would really come into it. Peak "valuation" (as measured by comparing home prices to incomes/rents, or even just inflation-adjusting them) is a more meaningful comparison. This shows that in aggregate, we are nowhere close (and I doubt any area is at peak valuation):

San Diego Home Valuation Index

Still, valuations have risen, so I think it's a legit question.

Personally, fwiw, I have zero interest in selling right now. We had the good luck to lock in a low rate at the valuation low, on a house that we really like and would be happy to stay in indefinitely. If we were wanting to move anyway, it might be a different story. But as it stands valuations would have to get quite a bit higher before we were willing to go through the hassle and risk of becoming renters again.

That said, if we were to get back to peak valuation again, there is no question that I'd take the money and run!