Why Your House Will Lose 12% Of Its Value In 2010

nonsense

how does shiller deal with high depreciation of the housing stock due to poor building standards?

what's the % of housing stock that has been built for 1 (or 2 at the most)? and that they become so dilapidated they are demolished? that houses prices go down to even less than $0 sometimes (when the land cost little and you have to pay to get it demolished). how does shiller handle this? as i understand he just gets rid of that observation in the sample. but it should be included somehow imho if demolition is the fate of a sensible % of the housing stock.

those that use lumber cannot last a whole lot. they are closer to cardboard houses than to well built houses. if the 1st holding period was say, 30 years, what the owner would be selling is a highly depreciated shack that will need tons of maintenance and could be hardly useful for the kids of the new buyer.

Thanks for the posting. Pretty fascinating article.

I've done a "$1 Grows To" chart on Manhattan coops and compared it to the standard Case-Shiller 10-City "$1 Grows To" chart. No surprise, Manhattan is way above the 10-City chart which suggests even more downside risk in Manhattan. Pretty sobering.

Manhattan has no downside risk, because it's an island off the coast of the United States of America, so American laws of physics don't apply. No jurisdiction.

I guess I could have saved myself some keystrokes by just typing "What jim_hones10 says". My bad.

Sink now or float forever

There is little to be gained by mimicking anything that j ho' says.

And of course the other thing is that the ho' is serious when he says "nonsense" while I believe that you are being facetious, alan.

I'm not sure "serious" ever applies to the ho ... maybe something similar, though.

takes himself seriously, in any case. I'm mystified why.

Perhaps he's a mental defective.