<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Inexact And Unscientific Price Study</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socalbubble.com/2008/07/an-inexact-and-unscientific-price-study.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2008/07/an-inexact-and-unscientific-price-study.html</link>
	<description>Southern California is Experiencing a Real Estate Bubble like never before</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:43:56 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: California Kid</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2008/07/an-inexact-and-unscientific-price-study.html/comment-page-1#comment-63630</link>
		<dc:creator>California Kid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:40:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/2008/07/an-inexact-and-unscientific-price-study.html#comment-63630</guid>
		<description>Chuck,  Have you ever done an analysis based on average appreciation over the past 10-15 years tied to median income levels?  If you take a mix of homes in most area&#039;s at the 1995-1998 sales price, the numbers are interesting to digest when you use say a 3-5% annual apprecitation rate in comparison to where the prices are currently.  I really enjoy the Realtors radio commercial indicating a hosue doubling in price over 10 years with the disclaimer at the end, which is obviously using the recent 10 years....... My math works out that the annual appreciation would need to be north of 7% annually... Assuming that we get back on track for traditional financing methods, is their any real traction on mixing the price appreciation and income levels to get a better picture?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chuck,  Have you ever done an analysis based on average appreciation over the past 10-15 years tied to median income levels?  If you take a mix of homes in most area&#8217;s at the 1995-1998 sales price, the numbers are interesting to digest when you use say a 3-5% annual apprecitation rate in comparison to where the prices are currently.  I really enjoy the Realtors radio commercial indicating a hosue doubling in price over 10 years with the disclaimer at the end, which is obviously using the recent 10 years&#8230;&#8230;. My math works out that the annual appreciation would need to be north of 7% annually&#8230; Assuming that we get back on track for traditional financing methods, is their any real traction on mixing the price appreciation and income levels to get a better picture?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dafox</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2008/07/an-inexact-and-unscientific-price-study.html/comment-page-1#comment-63338</link>
		<dc:creator>dafox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/2008/07/an-inexact-and-unscientific-price-study.html#comment-63338</guid>
		<description>So according to http://www.ocregister.com/money/ocregister-median-sales-1893717-www-homes the median was 570k in last Sept&#039;s report. That would be a 24% decrease YoY if you&#039;re right.

Does that sound about right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So according to <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/money/ocregister-median-sales-1893717-www-homes" rel="nofollow">http://www.ocregister.com/mone.....-www-homes</a> the median was 570k in last Sept&#8217;s report. That would be a 24% decrease YoY if you&#8217;re right.</p>
<p>Does that sound about right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
