Not sure what you mean by “actively editing out posts.” The only editing I do to comments is to modify them for formatting, such as changing a pasted-in URL into a proper HTML link.

As far as the graphs go, let’s keep that discussion on the appropriate post.

I realize now that the above graphs are showing where the markets peaked, however you will also notice that the LA & SD markets peak was ~40% higher than Seattle’s peak! Thus, my conclusion is that our market would most likely decline ~40% less than them as well…seems quite logical.

Brian – I met Shiller once at WSU when he came to speak to our class and give a presentation. He even signed my copy of Irrational Exuberance. I read it again last summer, but he is an economist (which means its filled dry statistical terms), but a good book.

Good analysis though. I think it’s really funny how people can say that 70% in 5 years is no big deal. Oh how their tone will change over the next decade.

Have you read Shiller’s “Irrational Exuberance”? I recently finished it and did a writeup on my blog if you’re interested.

The result is that stats can still show double-digit price increases when, in reality, the market may have slowed substantially. It certainly seems that way to Lennox Scott.

On the bright side – a year ago there was no way the MSM would have printed anything like the above two statements.

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers, but they don’t seem accurate, at least not compared to the CS Index.

The Boston market (hey, sounds like a chicken chain!) was up 82% from the beginning of 2000 when it peaked in Sept 2005. It has since dropped 13% in a little under 2 years to sit today at 68% appreciation this century.

By contrast, Seattle was up 59% from the beginning of 2000 in Sept 2005 , and has since added another 29% of appreciation to sit at 88% appreciation.

In other words, we’ve outgained Boston by 42 points in less than two years. Sounds like it’s getting worse, not better.