More Case-Shiller Charts

Submitted by Rich Toscano on April 29, 2009 - 10:31pm

...for to go with that last article. No explanation needed (well, none provided, anyway).

(category: )

Submitted by nostradamus on April 30, 2009 - 9:51am.

Thanks! Those graphs are great. Back to '01 people!

Submitted by paranoid on April 30, 2009 - 9:59am.

Case-Shiller index uses paired-sales. no sales no representation; more sales more representations. This is why San Diego CSI has really become Oceanside/Chula Vista CSI.

Yes CSI has become back to 2002. that's because it's Oceanside/Chula Vista CSI, not really SD CSI. Just look at the housing price in CV, 4S, Ranch pinasquitos etc., and you will know what I mean.

BTW a much better measure is Zip-code based CSI, refer to esmith's sdhpi.blogspot.com

Submitted by SDEngineer on April 30, 2009 - 10:03am.

paranoid wrote:
Case-Shiller index uses paired-sales. no sales no representation; more sales more representations. This is why San Diego CSI has really become Oceanside/Chula Vista CSI.

Yes CSI has become back to 2002. that's because it's Oceanside/Chula Vista CSI, not really SD CSI. Just look at the housing price in CV, 4S, Ranch pinasquitos etc., and you will know what I mean.

BTW a much better measure is Zip-code based CSI, refer to esmith's sdhpi.blogspot.com

Well, it's also Mira Mesa, East County, Vista, Escondido, San Marcos, and other areas as well.

But you're right, the high end hasn't seen as much pain as the other areas. Still C-S is representative of the majority of San Diego (the high end/coastal housing inventory is a minority - though, of course, for a lot of Piggs it's the particular minority they're interested in).

Submitted by biggoldbear on April 30, 2009 - 10:39am.

Why does it seem everyone is waiting for the high tier to drop as much or as fast as the low tiers when they didn't rise nearly as fast or as far? Am I missing something? Thanks paranoid for the sdhpi.blogspot.com link, I like the neighborhood breakdowns!

Submitted by peterb on April 30, 2009 - 11:26am.

C-S tracks transactions. So no transactions, no data. I guess there really isnt much action about the $700K line.

Submitted by jpinpb on April 30, 2009 - 3:41pm.

biggoldbear wrote:
Why does it seem everyone is waiting for the high tier to drop as much or as fast as the low tiers when they didn't rise nearly as fast or as far? Am I missing something? Thanks paranoid for the sdhpi.blogspot.com link, I like the neighborhood breakdowns!

I saw Carmel Valley triple in price from about 2001 to peak.

I also don't know how CV can be measured accurately since a great majority of homes were built after 2001, during the bubble itself at the high-end prices. Goes the same for 4S.

Submitted by sdrealtor on April 30, 2009 - 6:50pm.

FWIW I pulled up a bunch of sale between May and August of 2001 for the 92130 ZIP and couldnt find anything that doubled from that level. The cheapest sale was Trliogy 1400 sq ft model at 400K that peaked at 700K. The higher end stuff increased far less on a percentage basis. In 1999 the Trilogy comp was 320K.

Triple from the 2001 level?????....... a bit of hyperbole.

Those are now back in the low 500's which puts them about 30% above 2001 pricing.

Submitted by jpinpb on April 30, 2009 - 11:30pm.

How about 4519 Da Vinci sold in 2000 for 381k.

4618 Da Vinci sold in 2005 for 755k.

That was the pattern in that general area. This was just one example. There are others that have similar price jumps. Maybe 2001 the climb started already. Look at 2000 prices and then check 2005.

So it didn't triple. The normal was double the price in 5 years, give or take a year from start to peak.

Submitted by sdrealtor on May 1, 2009 - 11:03am.

A couple points on the Da Vinci property.

4519 faces the 56 while 4618 backs to the park. I'm guessing there's a premium (not inconsequential) for not overlooking a major freeway).

2000 is not 2001.

Attached homes inflated more on a percentage basis and have already deflated more on a percentage basis.

A double is not a triple. A triple is another 100% increase over the starting point and there is a HUGE difference.

I checked the comps and couldnt find doubles between 2001 and 2005. Perhaps there was an exception or two but certaintly not a pattern in the general area.

Take a mulligan on this one..........

Submitted by jpinpb on May 1, 2009 - 2:12pm.

12469 Cavallo sold in 2000 for 410k.

12472 Cavallo sold for 410k.

12448 Cavallo sold in 2004 for 765k.

12548 Cavallo sold in 2004 for 750k.

4537 Da Vinci sold in 2000 for 389k.

4549 Da Vinci sold in 2001 for 400k.

4516 Da Vinci sold in 2005 for 750k.

4540 Da Vinci sold in 2004 fosr 740k.

12342 Mona Lisa sold in 2001 for 403k.

12448 Mona Lisa sold in 2004 for 856k.

As I already said, not triple. I stand corrected on that.

Submitted by sdrealtor on May 1, 2009 - 3:27pm.

They are condos and I only see one double in the bunch. The odd numbers are also inferior to the evens.

Your one double is the highest sale in the tract by more than $100,000. Hardly a general price level. It also 4Br with 2,663 sq ft compared to 2210 sq ft 3BR for the lower sale on Mona Lisa.

Prices did not go up anywhere near what you portended. Not even a legitimite double in the bunch.

You're reaching for straws. Take the loss gracefully..........

Submitted by jpinpb on May 1, 2009 - 3:31pm.

Technically they are twin homes, not condos. There is no monthly HOA.

Submitted by sdrealtor on May 1, 2009 - 3:37pm.

Call em whatever you want. They are attached homes that still havent done anything close to doubling let alone tripling:)_

Submitted by 4plexowner on May 1, 2009 - 6:31pm.

"twin homes, not condos"

I guess calling them 'twin homes' instead of 'condos' makes the owners feel better when they are listening to their neighbors TV through the common wall that they paid $400K+ for?

Submitted by CAwireman on May 2, 2009 - 4:56pm.

Yeah, Pnoid good charts from esmith site.
http://sdhpi.blogspot.com/

So looking at the Jan 01 to Jan 09 rise and fall graph, the last time/s these areas/zips were at Jan 09 values...

The ever popular CV, 4S ==> Jan/Feb 04
RB/PQ ==> Oct 03
Clairemont, LV, MM ==> Apr 03
CB, Encinitas ==> Jan 04 (comparable to CV/4S rise/fall)

The little lady is quite fond of the CV area so it would be a good idea for us to keep an eye on the chart values for it and the sorrounding zipcodes....

Definitely the properties in the hwy 54/94 area are back to 2001/20002 values. Would guess that those could be bottoming out and becoming more and more attractive to investors and flippers.

Submitted by an on May 3, 2009 - 9:23pm.

jpinpb wrote:

12448 Mona Lisa sold in 2004 for 856k.

This one also was sold in 09/14/2000 for $644,900 and in 11/25/1992 for $352,000, so if it gets down to $400k, it'll be closer to 1992 price than 2000 price.

Submitted by sdrealtor on May 4, 2009 - 10:06am.

So would you say going from $644,900 in 2000 to $856,000 in 2004 is less than a triple in value, how about a double in value? Do you think it was ever worth $1.3M at the peak;)

Looks like this horse is beaten to death and beyond.......

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.