No home price gains until 2013

money mag (last print issue) also added a stat, from moody's, by metro... estimating how much more decline is coming based on pattern of fall, I believe. says nyc metro has another 9% (on top of 20% decline) and will that Q4 2011.

I love how all the people who didn't see home price declines are suddenly experts.

Absolutely. I've been saying that at the brokers for a while.

Though money mag, surprisingly, caught a lot of things ahead of the curve. They were the first place to publish the Shiller "we're in a crazy bubble" piece, with the "nytimes chart", the one that shows the relationship of housing prices to income historically and said we were in a bubble. This was a clear year (maybe a couple) before Bear. I don't know why, but they seem to be on the ball more so than a lot of the "reputable" sources.

The article is a giant turd. Aside from the towns that became ground zero for the sub prime hot tub party, there are gains being reported all over the map. Like right here in NYC. Moving to Vegas? Don't buy, don't rent, just find a house and let yourself in for free.

A big flaw in the bubble was the assumption that real estate across the country is alwasy uncorrelated. It's not, and for several years it all went down. Its also a flaw to assume this is the new normal. Going forward markets may not move in sync so much.

> Aside from the towns that became ground zero for the sub prime hot tub party, there are gains being reported
> all over the map.

Of course, the article is about foreclosures, and it notes that 75% of large cities ROSE in the first half. This isn't about past gains or declines, its about the potential for further declines.

The "gains" you're talking about are also small relative to the declines, and arguably caused by the home buyer credit.

But, again, this article isn't talking about just the worst, its saying 75% of large metro areas.

I'm with swe on this one, spinny. The gains, to the extent they occurred, were small, especially given the amount of governmental support and unwillingness of banks to deal with their problem properties.

yes AR, we all know that you are surprised that prices didn't go up more. I forgot what a bull you've been

Tsk, tsk printer. You sound testy.

I had earlier thought that across much of the country we might see small decreases in prices due to expiring home owner tax credit. However I'm now of the opinion we will see more short sales vs outright foreclosures. Short sales usually occur 15% below broker transactions, Foreclosures 20%. The change in mix may suggest a more flat real estate environment as opposed to a slight negative one.

And for easy street since Manhattan does not have significant Foreclosure, I don't believe this is all too relevant for our market. I think we may be up slightly due to improving local economy (thank you wall street)

I also believe we are twelve months away from a peak in foreclosure so in my view 2011 will see the worst head-lines after that foreclosure and liquidation rates come down.

OK then, the OP's subject line is a giant turd as is his/her reference to an article with no relevance here. There's an interesting pattern developing nationwide where pockets of remarkable strength are emerging within depressed markets. The aspiring young and well employed previously priced out of the most desirable neighborhoods are now moving in and bidding up prices. We're going to continue to see this sort of consolidation take place, which will make gauging the recovery challenging.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-07-29-homeprices29_CV_N.htm

Overall, the housing market is clearly distressed -- I'm not arguing with that, but this article, similar to what was already posted, indicates that despite the rising foreclosures in metro areas, the Northeast is faring well relative to others. It's noted that New York wasn't specifically mentioned.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/29/real_estate/new_face_of_foreclosure/index.htm

Idiots at Money magazine. Do they realize it always looks worst closest to the peak?

> but this article, similar to what was already posted, indicates that despite the rising foreclosures in metro
> areas, the Northeast is faring well relative to others.

If 20%+ declines is "faring well relative to others"... wow, we've come a long way, baby!

> Idiots at Money magazine. Do they realize it always looks worst closest to the peak?

Of course it does. Thats why you use it as an idicator to show you are AT a peak. They basically called the bubble before anyone else.

Money magazine called the housing bubble? When?