We’re reading more market doom and gloom about the housing market today in the Sacramento Bee.

In fact, I seem to be running into a lot of market nay-sayers. I’m more of an agnostic myself about the future. I believe that the most sensible position one can take with respect to future events is “how the heck should I know?”

We have some figures in this article given rather glibly — it’d be nice to see what underlies them.

“Eight of the nation’s 15 riskiest housing markets – those most likely to see home prices decline within the next two years – are in California. Sacramento is No. 12. Homes in Santa Barbara are overvalued by 69 percent, in Stockton by 58 percent and in Sacramento by 54 percent.”

Of course, I’m a purveyor of figures in my market reports as well, but there I know — and I hope I make plain — what underlies the figures. It’s all MLS data for a given period, and I state that in the article. But this stuff above, how are we to take it. “Most likely to see home prices decline” — based on what model? Sacramento is said to be overvalued by 54 percent — is that based on income? I thought supply and demand set the value.

Still, I find a lot to agree with in the article.

“What makes today’s economy so worrisome is the extent to which people’s livelihoods are tied to overpriced housing. Some 40 percent of all new jobs created last year were tied to real estate.” Tell me about it. I’ve been kidding new agents for several months now like so: “You know, there used to be seven people in the area without a real estate license, but now that you’ve signed up, we’re down to six.”

“Signs of a slowdown abound. Prices are not rising as fast, and homes are staying on the market longer.” True, as I pointed out as recently as this morning — but I’m not sure what you can conclude.

But the article’s moral — don’t overbuy — is good advice in any market.

blog comments powered by Disqus