3 ms·

This doesn't make sense to me. Land values have skyrocketed in the last two years. If prices fall, I don't know, thirty percent, what percentage of owners wou

This doesn't make sense to me. Land values have skyrocketed in the last two years. If prices fall, I don't know, thirty percent, what percentage of owners would be underwater? 10%? 20? That doesn't seem like any sort of feedback loop, it seems like a correction.

helf 3y ago
[dead]
legitster 3y ago
To put things in perspective, the 2007 economic crash was triggered by only a 6% dip in housing value! But that 6% dip was enough to snowball into a 34% crash. I don't think we are looking at nearly the same situation here, but so much of the value of real estate is tied into the future value of all neighboring real estate that it can be much more intertwined than people realize. Like, if the city announced that it was going to have 30% less jobs in downtown SF, you would better believe that you have just not turned a commercial real estate crisis into a residential real estate crisis in SF as every home loan now takes a huge hit on it's future value. But again, most of the crisis is on the city planning level. It's one thing for the real estate market to correct, but SF would only get to enjoy a fraction of the savings from real estate but still expect huge outlays per resident.