The map seems to contradict the SF Bay Guardian story a little bit, which reports that only three states (West Virginia, South Dakota, and Texas) have “enjoyed” increases in their home prices over the past year. But if I read the map correctly, New York and some of the rectangular states also increased in home values.
Anyway, the real story is California, which has had the largest home value drop. It probably means we had the largest bubble. We’ve lost home values at 28.3 percent over the past year. Only the states marked red have endured drops greater than 10 percent. Great news if you’re a speculator with some change in your pocket. Bad news if you have a mortgage and you’re hoping you have enough equity to refinance.
Did Wyoming have a bubble?? Or is VP Dick Cheney moving back home? Budda boom.
According to the article, the valley’s been hit the worst. But it’s only a matter of time before it spreads.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 30, 2008 at 9:34 am
Eric Kirk
okay, I don’t know how the comments got “closed” for this thread, but it’s working now. I was having some problems posting last night. Hopefully WordPress has it fixed.
December 30, 2008 at 11:30 am
Moonshadow
Actually that map is quite interesting . . . I went directly to the source and pulled the September ’08 map and got this . . .
compare that with the October ’08 map . . .
That’s a dramatic change for New York.
December 30, 2008 at 11:31 am
Moonshadow
Okay . . . I guess you can’t embed images in the comments . . .
the September ’08 url is:
http://www.loanperformance.com/pressreleases/HPI/pr1108_12mo.aspx
and the October ’08 url is:
http://www.loanperformance.com/pressreleases/HPI/pr1208_12mo.aspx
December 30, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Moonshadow
personally with regards to home values I believe our society has gone wrong in equating the home as investment. The problem with that view is, as we have just seen with the collapse in the financial sector, that there comes a point when something has to decline in value because constant growth is unsustainable.
What sense does it make to expect our homes will increase in value and do so with no end? It gains value just because it sits there and gets older? This model of home valuation in the long run if wages fail to keep pace quickly prices the middle and lower classes out of homeownership. A more reasonable way to value homes is to have the expectation that you will sell it for what you paid PLUS the value of any (generally useful) improvements you have made.
Think about it . . . a business buys a building to use and depreciates its value over time on the assumption that at some point its value is used up. The same viewpoint can (should?) be applied to our homes . . . we live in them and cause wear and tear which logically reduces value rather than adds.
We need to rethink how we think of home values.
December 30, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, it should at least appreciate at the rate of inflation. It certainly shouldn’t depreciate.