Archives
March 2008
3/16/08
3/16/08
How You Look at It: Markets Since 2003
3/16/08
3/16/08
3/16/08
3/16/08
Sunday, March 16, 2008
3:05:00 PM EDT
18 Out of 25 Markets Are Up Since 2003; 7 Are Down
The Wall Street Journal and Radar Logic put together this graphic to illustrate the price per square foot in 25 major cites from 2003, 2005 and 2007 (2008 data not available yet.)
On the main page, the number you see is the year prices were the lowest. So if you see a blue square for 2007, that would be bad, because that means prices are lower than they were in 2003 or 2005. No cities are green, ergo the prices in 2005 were always higher than either 2003 or 2005.
Out of the 25 cities, seven, or slightly less than a third, show price depreciation since 2003 per square foot. Four of these cities are in the Midwest, including Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit and St. Louis. The other three are Denver, Boston and Sacramento.
So, the question from my perspective is, if you were told you had a 66 percent chance of your home being worth more in four years than it is was when you bought it in 2003, that seems like a pretty good bet, doesn't it? If you take Detroit out of the mix, the odds actually go to 6 out of 24, so you had a 75 percent chance that your house would be worth more after four years.
If you bought in 2005, you probably aren't happy in some of these cities, but if you expected to show a profit on your home after two years, that just hasn't been the case historically. I suggest wait another year or two, rent your house out if you need to, and read this article about lowering your property tax assesment
I'm hearing a lot about how bad things are in Miami, but this graphic has prices up 40 percent from 2003 to 2007, although down 10% from 2005. In Atlanta, you have a market that has barely changed, with prices rising 1.2% from 2003 to 2007.
So, some much appreciated historical perspective on how we got where we are.
Written by unstructuredblog Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
3:05:00 PM EDT
How You Look at It: Markets Since 2003
The Wall Street Journal and Radar Logic put together this graphic to illustrate the price per square foot in 25 major cites from 2003, 2005 and 2007 (2008 data not available yet.)
On the main page, the number you see is the year prices were the lowest. So if you see a blue square for 2007, that would be bad, because that means prices are lower than they were in 2003 or 2005. No cities are green, ergo the prices in 2005 were always higher than either 2003 or 2005.
Out of the 25 cities, seven, or slightly less than a third, show price depreciation since 2003 per square foot. Four of these cities are in the Midwest, including Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit and St. Louis. The other three are Denver, Boston and Sacramento.
So, the question from my perspective is, if you were told you had a 66 percent chance of your home being worth more in four years than it is was when you bought it in 2003, that seems like a pretty good bet, doesn't it? If you take Detroit out of the mix, the odds actually go to 6 out of 24, so you had a 75 percent chance that your house would be worth more after four years.
If you bought in 2005, you probably aren't happy in some of these cities, but if you expected to show a profit on your home after two years, that just hasn't been the case historically. I suggest wait another year or two, rent your house out if you need to, and read this article about lowering your property tax assesment
I'm hearing a lot about how bad things are in Miami, but this graphic has prices up 40 percent from 2003 to 2007, although down 10% from 2005. In Atlanta, you have a market that has barely changed, with prices rising 1.2% from 2003 to 2007.
So, some much appreciated historical perspective on how we got where we are.
Written by unstructuredblog Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | digg this
