761 Sq. Ft. in Ventura. $819,000.
Posted on 06/15/2005 12:48:38 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
Southern California home prices rocketed to new highs again last month, but the rate of appreciation appeared to have flattened out, data released today.
The median price paid for a Southern California home rose 15.2% on a year-over-year basis to $456,000 in May, setting a record. Yet, the pace of the increase was on par with the rate of change in April, when the median rose 15% to $445,000.
Pushing prices higher has been a relentless stream of eager buyers. Home sales in May were nearly as strong as a year ago when they set a record. Last month, a total of 30,886 new and resale homes changed hands in the six-county region. That was down just 0.9% from a year ago.
"There just aren't enough homes for sale to meet demand," said John Karevoll, chief analyst for DataQuick Information Systems, which reports regional housing information each month.
Nonetheless, Southern California's housing market is slowing from its peak, which looks to have been reached a year ago when the year-over-year price increase soared nearly 27%.
In many ways, the Southland is fast becoming a tale of two housing markets.
Prices in the Inland Empire are still accelerating at a red-hot pace of more than 25% year over year, while the rest of the region is showing definite signs of chilling out.
For the first time in almost five years, Orange County's median price dipped to a gain of less than 10% in May, and San Diego's year-over-year increase was 7.5%, the slowest rate of change in five years. Los Angeles prices, too, are losing speed, rising 16.5% last month to $459,000, the slowest rate of appreciation in three years.
Indeed, Southern California's housing market is no longer on the same fast track.
"The region now is starting to behave differently,"
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
No but crack ho's hanging in front of it are a free feature.
Interest Only Loans are scary beasts...
They say that when something regarding financial trends appears on the cover of that rag Time Magazine, then watch out. Well, the real estate froth was a recent topic. We're about due for state wide correction. Of course, with the lack of easily buildable flat land, as with all such corrections, it will only be temporary and the highly atypical (versus the rest of the US) California real estate appreciation dynamic will kick back in. It will never cease being a relatively scarce commodity.
You just keep trading up with your equity gains. I have made about $150K from my last two houses which allows me to get into a lot of good property. If you have good credit scores and a decent bank balance you can get in.
Interest only and option ARMs also make a lot of stuff possible. The financial people complain about them but if you are not going to stay in house for long periods of time then 30 year fixed is wasted money.
But those who have held off buying due to a combination of sticker shock and aversion to risky financing will finally be rewarded for their patience. They'll have a window of opportunity to get in at the low point. Just like what happened from about 1990 through about 1996 or 97.
not is you are holding the property short term. If you are going to stay for longer than 5-7 years then go full blown mortgage. If you don't then what's the big hub bub?
The trick is to automatically deduct the funds for the S&P account, and not to touch it until I use it to pay back the mortgage.
There is a risk of course that the S&P won't appreciate over say 20 years, but it's never happened before.
761 Sq. Ft. in Ventura. $819,000.
Like you said, it takes planning and discipline. I know many who don't apply that on their IOL's, it's gonna get ugly for them one day..
The issue is for people who plan to hold short term, but then can't get out as planned becasue of a declining or even flat market. The numbers seems to indicate that many ppl are using IOL's to buy beyond their means, and speculate on housing.
I don't know the answer, but have you looked at the period from 1928-30 to 1948-50? I think you saw 20 year net declines in those times, and that is before you adjust for inflation.
I don't recall plenty. I do remember the day the judge said it was OK for Reno and the government to sue Microsoft I called my brokern whlie the news was breaking and told him to sell everything. I lived through the S&L debacle so it was the best move I could have done.
I do agree with you that stock brokers did pimp shell corporations but only to those dumb enough to not know what they were buying.
The best 20 year period was 1942 to 1961, which saw an average 17.32% annual return.
The worst 25 year return still kicked back an average 6.00% return, which means that every 12 years, you'd have doubled, so over 25 years, you'd have quadrupled.
Also, don't forget that by investing every month with a fixed amount, you're buying more shares when the market goes down and fewer shares when the market goes up. So that'll effect returns as well of course.
It is depressing that we have a 2000+sq foot house in North Missouri for only $79,000 and no serious offers because the local economy is dirt poor. There is lots of excellent buys out in the Midwest and South for any Californians smart enough to sell out.
True. We'd move, but all of our families are out here. Grandmas and Grandpas are only 45-60 minutes away. I'd be disowned.
The problem is the low rates of interest, and the government also benefits from it.
IMO the banks were getting a 200% increase in profit on home loans a bit over a year ago, now as the rates rose, banks have held back increases having that extra 100% padding to play with.
I think right now their margin is something like 130% profit compared to years ago on a loan.
The states love homes going for 400% more because then they get that high price locked in as the base for property taxes.
I think California got a surprising extra 4 billion in property tax payments which I think Arnold applied to the debt.
The whole thing kind of stinks, how can an average person life in an area where just the property taxes could be $800 a month on a very below average home?
It's where I bought my first home at age 26 for 174K five years ago. My neighbor just sold for a half a million. Now I am RICH RICH RICH! What a great country! ;-)
No but it does come with a 20 minute drive to the beach or downtown people are just now figuring out.
Good thinking.
I concur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.