I wanted to read the article with an open mind. The basic argument seems to be that the markets in these places are overpriced and will eventually fall, so a po

I wanted to read the article with an open mind. The basic argument seems to be that the markets in these places are overpriced and will eventually fall, so a potentially buyer should wait for that opportunity. For the two markets where I have some familiarity - Seattle and Portland - there are reasons why they have appreciated quickly outside historic norms, and there aren't indicators that would show these markets (especially Seattle) are going to go into a precipitous decline any time soon. Thus, it's hard for me to really follow their argument - maybe the other cities they list are in a different position? I'll declare by bias here too: I am a realtor in WA, near the Oregon state line, and I continue to believe that real estate is a fantastic wealth-building activity that should be at least considered when one is evaluating their overall portfolio. I feel blessed (and I don't use that term lightly) to live in an area with a very high % of home ownership, even though local incomes are relatively low. I fear a world where home ownership is consolidated in the hands of investors, as has happened and continues to happen in high-cost areas (which I do not believe is a coincidence).