Comparing Boom and Bust Cycles Across Markets

The point has been made many times here that exposure to downturns needs to be viewed in the context of how much a market rose during the boom.  I thought it would be interesting to test this by comparing the total percentage gain during the boom years to the total percentage drop from peak to date across a bunch of markets, to see if I could establish a clear relationship or correlation between the two.

For the purposes of this comparison, I used the following definitions:

  • “Boom” returns are the total appreciation between 09/2001 (based on the oft cited relationship between the Fed taking down short term lending rates and the housing boom) and the peak for each market.
  • “Bust” returns are the total decline from peak to the latest reported numbers.

I used the Case-Shiller report for May as the source of all the numbers. The results are kind of interesting:

Boom and Bust Cycles
Click to enlarge

This snapshot does appear to support the assertion that there is a good correlation between boom and busts cycles across markets -and that generally speaking,  the more you go up, the more you go down. But there appear to be outliers versus the trend: Namely, Detroit on the down side, and Seattle, Portland, Charlotte, and possibly New York on the up side. This is interesting to me because the relationship between up and down markets is usually cited as evidence that the Seattle market will remain relatively stable compared to other markets – when according to this view, we appear to be bucking the trend and perhaps poised for a fall.  We are down 7% to date when the trend line suggests we should be off 15-20%

What does it mean?  Who knows. There isn’t any hard and fast rule that says every market must follow all other markets, but the inverse relationship between booms and busts does appear to be pretty strong. And it certainly is the case that Seattle has not seen as much “bust” as would be expected when compared to all other markets.

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes


  1. 1
    Alex says:

    Awesome chart – this makes the point it in a way that’s so simple and concise that even your John “great time to buy” McRealtor would have a tough time disputing it.

  2. 2
    SeattleMoose says:

    Patience…..Seattle was late to the party.

    Side note…two young engineers in our office who were saving to buy a house have given up on Seattle and are moving to the midwest. Proves the point that you don’t want to be the one market that DID NOT CORRECT when all others did. You become the least affordable place to live and eventually…it catchs up with you.

  3. 3
    been there says:

    What a fascinating chart. Eben if it doesn’t end up ‘meaning’ anything it sure makes for interesting looking.

  4. 4
    Eric Arrrrr says:

    Say, waitaminute — aren’t most of those outliers the same cities whose booms, and subsequent busts, occurred substantially later?

  5. 5
    vboring says:


    i agree on both counts. we probably have more dogs days ahead of us than other markets do.

    and if the cost of owning here stays so high, employers are gonna have to start offering salaries closer to what you’d expect from the same job in SF.

  6. 6
    Ivan says:

    In the the cities which are bellow the line (Detroit) the bust started earlier. In the cities above the line the busts started later.

  7. 7

    You might want to re-analyze this by calculating the drop some common time (say 12 months) after the peak. As you pointed out a few posts back, many markets have had more “run time” into their drops than Seattle. In your chart, all the data points would move “up” except for seattle.

  8. 8
    TheHulk says:

    No Ivan,

    The line thru the middle indicates correlation between percent increase and decrease till now (using the year 2001 as the price baseline).
    Cities above the line have seen greater increases in price and lesser declines in general (i.e. on today’s date). For example Seattle saw 65% increase in price from 2001 and prices have come down only 6% from that high. Hence it is high above the line.
    Cities below on the other hand saw smaller increases but greater decreases in price from the high point. Detroit for example saw an 18% ish increase but a 25% decrease from that high.
    Majority of the cities are pretty close to the middle reminding people not only that “what goes up must come down”, but also “the bigger they are the harder they fall”.

    Nice graph Tim.

    All in all Portland/Seattle price will have to fall another 15-20% (draw a line vertically from the current position to the middle) from the 2007 highs before they gravitate to the mean. Don’t worry folks we will be there soon (within 2 years).

  9. 9
    jon says:

    If you actually believe that there is some invisible hand that will move real estate towards the line, they you should fly out to Detroit (or any other city in the rust belt) right now and start grabbing those GEMS!

  10. 10
    AndyMiami says:

    “All in all Portland/Seattle price will have to fall another 15-20% (draw a line vertically from the current position to the middle) from the 2007 highs before they gravitate to the mean. Don’t worry folks we will be there soon (within 2 years).”

    I think that it may happen faster than 2 years. Markets like SF, SD, and of course Miami, have fallen very quickly in one year. And that was when the economy still had some legs, which are now just stumps…

    Enjoy the weekend…

  11. 11
    Sorin says:

    Deejayoh, nice idea and good graph.

    Detroit in particular has been hit hard economically by the domestic auto makers, so it’s no surprise it would have taken a steeper drop at this point that most cities relative to its past appreciation.

    Let’s also not forget that not one of these cities has clearly hit bottom yet. This would be interesting to look at on a quarterly or semi-annual basis to see how it changes over time.

  12. 12
    jon says:

    “And that was when the economy still had some legs, which are now just stumps…”

    Actually the recently revised statistics show that 2007Q4, when Seattle experienced the bulk of its price drop, really was negative growth. Since then, growth has been slow but positive and Seattle has been pretty flat pricewise.

  13. 13
    AndyMiami says:

    You will see continued revisions downwards. The consumer is too leveraged to spend anymore. This will be a long recession and will eventually affect already is when you look at local unemployment starting to increase at a pretty rapid rate..look at WAMU and Starbucks…

  14. 14
    Sniglet says:

    This is definitely a great chart. However, one suggestion would be to use the peak for the individual market. Denver, for example, likely had it’s peak further back than 2005, which would change it’s position considerably.

  15. 15
    Groundhogday says:

    I agree with ConsultantNinja, you need to put all of these locations on the same process timeframe (peak to trough) as opposed to chronological time frame. After all of the markets have hit bottom in the next 5-10 years, you will be able to retroactively compare peaks and troughs.

    Seattle started up last and will hit bottom last, though with the implosion of bad lending all the markets might eventually sync on the way down.

  16. 16
    jcricket says:

    Of course it’s not really my place to say this, but I can’t resist. If you’re still tracking the housing market 5-10 years from now as a hobby, you have too much time on your hands.

    Go out, enjoy life. If you rent and your happy, keep it that way. If you own a house and you’re happy (or not), deal with it.

    Everyone has their mind made up (e.g. 95% declines are coming!, we’re at the bottom, deflation is imminent, inflation is rampant, etc.) and so on. At this point (when we’re in the middle of something happening) the armchair analysis has become incredibly repetitive.

    What I really object to is that there’s some static set of inevitable outcomes. No recession is exactly like the previous one, and none (save the “great depression”) has really ever been as bad as the perma-bears seem to want/desire/claim is required.

  17. 17
    Uncle John says:

    Thanks deejayoh for the great chart. Please update it monthly as the new data comes out.
    What program did you use to generated it?
    Thanks to Hulk for the redirection as to what the chart presents and does not present, I too was getting off on another track like Ivan. I was thinking along the lines of “What percent of the loans” during the last ten years where of the various types offered such as ARM’s, option pay ARM’s, liar loans etc.
    And how did those loans impact the results on the chart. Your redirection got me back to the chart and what it is saying. Thanks again to you and deejayoh.
    As I see the chart. The horizontal line is fixed. The “Boom” appreciation is not going to change. The “Bust decline” percentage form each city’s peak will change with time.
    The most likely direction is down and I agree for at least the next two year. Thus as the “Bust” from Peak percent gets larger the data set of Cities will move down the negative percent scale. And the linear regression line that is generated each month from the new data set will also move down. What I am going to be watching is Seattle’s relative position to the Line and if the line starts to “Flatten out” or get horizontal, which I would take to mean the “Bottom”

  18. 18
    Markor says:

    Prices in the Bellevue neighborhood I’m tracking seem to be about 10% off the peak, and nothing has sold in the last six weeks or so.

  19. 19
    mikal says:

    Seattle moose, what is your point. That housing won’t go down so people can’t afford it and leave? Or that they should have waited for this “inevitible” big fall that never seems to materialize? If it isn’t affordable, then there would be empty houses everywhere. Some people will never be able to afford houses. That is life. Affordability doesn’t mean shit.

  20. 20
    TheHulk says:

    jcricket: The main reason most bubbleheads monitor the market is because they will be buying a house in the near future. This is one of the few sites that puts out facts based on statistics and asks you (the reader) to draw their own interpretations.

    Deejayoh, my bad praising Tim for the chart, but this is really a great way of illustrating the boom/bust cycle across all markets and proving that there was no such thing as a “local real estate market” in the past few years of easy lending.

    Another thing: A house in 2001 for 100K appreciates to the top of the boom by 140% (that would be say some house in Miami). That would bring its price to 240K at the top of the boom. It needs to decline by only 60% (from the top) to bring the value back down to 100K. Of course this does not take into account inflation and all that jazz. I would suspect Miami still has around 10% to drop (and respectively scaled down drops for the other markets)

  21. 21
    deejayoh says:

    one suggestion would be to use the peak for the individual market.

    Each market is compared to it’s own peak – as other point out, this makes the time frames of how long they’ve been falling different.

    I ignored the timing difference for this, as I really didn’t want to get into the time-shifting discussion. At the end of the day, one might logically expect that they’ll all fall in line over time – but only time will tell.

    If you actually believe that there is some invisible hand that will move real estate towards the line, they you should fly out to Detroit (or any other city in the rust belt) right now and start grabbing those GEMS!

    I don’t believe in an invisible hand. It’s just interesting to see if you are an outlier or not.

  22. 22
    TheHulk says:

    Also, it would be nice to add a red line below the current correlation line (that kind of illustrates how much more the respective markets would have to drop to get back to historical norms taking inflation into account of course).

    For example:
    A house at 100K in 2001 in location xxx.
    Say it appreciates by 70% like Seattle did.
    That brings its “peak-of-the-boom” value to 170K.
    Now, assuming 3% inflation in 7 years that 100K would be 121K.
    Thus, the house should depreciate by about 28% to get back in line with the norm.
    Calculate thusly for various values of appreciation.
    I get the following for 3% inflation for Year 2008 assuming base is 2001:

    Appreciation to Peak(%) Expected Drop for 3% inflation
    30 6.923076923
    40 13.57142857
    50 19.33333333
    60 24.375
    70 28.82352941
    80 32.77777778
    90 36.31578947
    100 39.5
    110 42.38095238
    120 45
    130 47.39130435
    140 49.58333333
    150 51.6

  23. 23
    Joel says:

    If you actually believe that there is invisible hand that will move real estate towards the line, they you should fly out to Detroit (or any other city in the rust belt) right now and start grabbing those GEMS!

    I couldn’t help but grin. You used the phrase “invisible hand” very sarcastically in order to put people that think Seattle home prices will eventually approach the overall trend. However the “invisible hand” is a term commonly used in economics to refer to the natural forces that move the markets. So really, seriously, a lot of people do believe that the invisible hand will push Seattle’s data point down towards the trendline (although I’m betting the trendline will be pushed farther down the chart too).

  24. 24
    being patient says:

    Tim, Great job on the chart. It was interesting seeing the different markets and what each had done.

    However I agree with the post that each area will be hit a little differently with regards to falling prices. There are so many factors that determine house prices, and again that has been said here again and again.

    There is not any hard fast rule what a house will be worth at a certain time.

    Jcricket – I argee.

  25. 25
    jesse says:

    Isn’t Seattle delayed by about a year compared to other markets? Your % change since peak and YOY % change graphs I find far more meaningful.

  26. 26
    KB says:

    To add to TheHulk’s explanation @ 8:

    Cities below the line didn’t necessarily experience smaller increases (Miami has seen the largest percentage incease in value but is below the line) but they have experienced greater decreases in value and vice-versa (example of Dallas which has experienced the smallest increase but is above the trend line).

    The trend line represents a decrease in value of .17% for every 1% increase in value since the base date of 9/2001. That means that any city above the line has experienced a decrease less than .17% per 1% increase and cities below the trend line have experienced decreases in value greater than .17% per 1% increase.

    Thanks deejayoh for the graph

  27. 27
    jon says:

    TheHulk – Your numbers use the assumption of 3% inflation. I searched around a little for the rate of increase in rent in this area. These numbers aren’t great, but it appears that in King County in 1999 the average monthly rent was $806 and now for the Seattle Metro area it is $1211. That is a 50% gain, which works out to 4.6% increase per year compounded. In that same time frame, the CSI went up about 80%. Once rents go up by 20% more, they will have caught up (180 divided by 150) to the year 2000 ratio. Rents are currently going up by 10% per year here. It is hard to see why prices would fall by 20% over two years while rents are rising, if that will simply make those prices 20% too low (relative to the ratio in 2000).

  28. 28
    TheHulk says:


    You are comparing median rent (which would include simple apartments / studios / townhouses and even full fledged houses.) Tell me how much the cost of renting a house (comparable to the houses used in the CSI index) has risen in that time frame. I would suspect that it has barely budged while the cost of owning those homes went up by over 50%. Explain that dichotomy to me.

    Personal experience: My rent for a simple apartment has barely budged during the last 10 years or so (least 800, but that was student housing and the most is around 1000 which I am paying right now).

  29. 29
    jon says:

    TheHulk, I agree that house rentals are the figure to focus on, but I don’t have that number. This article has a graph of rental increases:

    Looks a lot like the house price graph.

  30. 30
    biliruben says:

    Median Rents from HUD – Enjoy!

  31. 31
    jon says:

    Thanks biliruben. The 2001 number for Seattle-Bellevue-Everett for 4 bedroom rental is 1392. In 2008 it is 1760. A 26% increase. 1 Bedroom increase is 24%.

    I didn’t see the data for 1999 on the HUD site. That was the baseline for my earlier post. According the graph in the article I cited above, rents were increasing rapidly prior to 2001 and then flattened out for a while. If one adds 2 years of 10% increases to the 26% observed from 2001 to 2008, then the result is about the 50% I calculated previously.

    House prices are presumable based on people’s estimates looking years forward, whereas rents are a spot rate of the current market. So one would expect rents to fluctuate more rapidly, but house prices would ideally anticipate those moves. It is analogous to stock prices being more stable than yearly profits, and will move ahead of changes in profit. So I am not that surprised that house prices would move up a few years ahead of big rent increases, which can be expected given the growth in this region.

  32. 32
    deejayoh says:

    So Jon, the comparative MSA increase in the median home price was 72% in Seattle – versus a 24% increase for a 1 Bdrm, 18% for a 2 Bdrm, 21% for a 3 bdrm, and 26% for a 4 bdrm (Who rents a 4 bdrm, BTW)

    That is a 3-4x ratio of home prices vs. rents.

    If you want to see the longer trend, I’ll point you back again to the chart I posted a few months ago. Rents have risen pretty steadily at a rate of ~4% since 1985 – except for a flat spot after the dot bomb implosion. I got this from Conway-Pedersen – but I am pretty certain it is HUD data for 2bdrms.

  33. 33
    TheHulk says:

    Jon: Those rent increases for houses that you are coming across can easily be explained as follows.

    For comparison let us assume that the same house is being rented (And is not a primary residence.) Its 2001, a nice 3 br house on the east side costs around 350K. For 20% down and 7% FRM that works out to 1800 bucks or so.

    Fast forward to 2006/2007. The same house is in excess of 500K. It doesnt matter though because with 0 down and an ARM a “landlord” can have the same place for a measly 2500 bucks a month. Sure, its an ARM but he is gonna flip it in the next year anyways.

    Now 2500 over 1800 represents a 34% or so increase. So, the 26% increase that you were seeing was simply being passed by these landlords to renters. I wonder what was the volume of units that was actually rented at these ridiculous prices.

    Please get back to me as to how much rents have actually increased in plain old apartment complexes (which is what impacts majority of the renters). I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like a 4% increase (which is what I have seen) and many of my peers have seen as well.

    And as a side note, if poor renters cant even afford to pay the 1800 bucks in rent how in the world are they supposed to be able to afford the grossly expensive houses in the ever tightening credit market?

  34. 34
    jon says:

    deejayoh, The graph you link to can be looked at as the relationship of price to rent broken down into two ratios: 1) rent to income, and 2) price to income. Since 1985 those two diverged, reaching a maximum separation in 2001. At that point rents went flat for a few years and house prices took off, and now they have come back together, to the same ratio they had in 1985. I am observing that they had a different ratio in 1999, and that they perhaps may return to that 1999 ratio two years from now. I have no reason to believe that is true, but it appears to be what the market is saying.

  35. 35
    jon says:

    TheHulk, you can see the reported increases and rents for various cities here:

    Many areas have higher rents than Seattle and somehow they survive.

    You may see slow increases in rent while you stay in one place because the landlord does not want to risk a vacancy. Then at some point you will need to find a new place and re-enter the market at the current rate, which will likely be a big jump from before.

  36. 36
    Garth says:


    I somehow posted my other comment on the wrong thread. I don’t know that the unemployment data over the whole period is usefull, because of the people who quit looking being dropped off. I do think we could probably find the start of the increase by adding 6 months or so to the point after 2001 that unemployment settled at a low number.

  37. 37
    magnolia44 says:

    For those with the year behind theory.

    So when the markets stabilize and credit becomes available for qualified borrowers you are telling me other states that bottomed may stabilize along with the other factors above as well as having prices dropped. So when they stop dropping and buyers are back in, places like Seattle will still fall for a year because we are “a year behind”? I dont buy it, when the financial markets stabilize, and a bottom is in we will be down but will not continue down while places like LA, LV and Fla have the bottom in and see a return of buyers.

    I dont buy that scenario, so i see us down 6-7% through the start of the crisis, we have a way to go but not bad all things being considered. I say 12 – 15% drop overall until we stabilize and then when things are back for the economy as a whole (3-5 years from now) we join the party back to stable, slightly appreciating markets. No way do we drop for a whole year more since we are “a year behind” i think its a weak theory.

  38. 38
    what goes up comes down says:

    mag44 you don’t buy any scenario because you bought a house recently.

  39. 39
    what goes up comes down says:

    Jon I think you are really working it, but too no avail.

  40. 40
    magnolia44 says:

    what goes up

    Yes i bought a home but have no intention of leaving anytime soon. Yes i bought locked in on a 30 yr fixed payment under 6% , 25% of income. Is there such a thing as a buyer who is just fine with his payment willing to face a 10- 15% decline but since he is in it for the long haul, can he have a view that the doomsday scenario wont happen?

    Lol so one sided here, let me guess you are in all cash you have lost nothing on the equity declines… you make all the right moves

    Seattle Housing – down 6% if you bought at peak (i sure didnt)
    Equity Markets well diversified- easily down 10 – 12% minimum right now.

    but no one here is invested in stocks now are they lol.

  41. 41
    Herman says:

    Cool graph. It’d look great as an animation, with the cities dropping like raindrops over time.

  42. 42
    Herman says:

    Magnolia – if you’re going to compare RE to stocks, you have to consider a few other things. One is that RE is usually leveraged. With a down payment of 20%, your losses or gains are on the full value of the house, so the impact on your investment is magnified 5x.

    Also, RE costs about 10% of its value to liquidate. For a typical buyer, that wipes out half their paper equity the day they take the keys.

    Unless you’re buying on margin, stocks are not leveraged. They are also inexpensive to convert to cash.

    $100k down for $500k house.
    6% depreciation = loss of $30,000.
    10% cost to liquidate = loss of $47,000.

    That’d be an 77% loss on the original investment!

    $100k in stock mutual fund
    12% decline = loss of $12,000

    That’s a loss, but not nearly as bad.

  43. 43
    Scotsman says:

    Ya’ll be sure to wander over to: and see what some industry professionals are saying about falling markets and bottoms. They’re as negative as anything you’ll find here.

  44. 44
    Jackson Wallace says:

    All I need to know is that in Seattle 350k homes now used to be 175k in 1998, and 650-800k homes today used to be 300-450k. Then take a look at the weather in this lead closet as natives call it. There are a lot of cool things about Seattle, but there’s also a lot of not-worth-it parts of town without the amenities, so maybe that keeps up the values in the quality locations. Seattle is also kind of done, really. I dont know what factor that plays. The jobs keep things bouyant for now, but in the past, that could turn on a dime. I want to live in a lot sunnier place that isnt full of criminals, so that kind of rules out a lot of souther US urban areas. Where is paradise anyway? I guess its living in AZ in the winter….

  45. 45
    Buceri says:

    It seems inventory recovered yesterday at about 4 PM and added some 450 units. And nothing happened overnight (no month end cleansing).

  46. 46
    rentalbliss says:

    Anyone see this a article by Forbes, it lists Downtown Seattle as #3 most overpriced zip codes in America.

  47. 47
    Buceri says:

    I guess I wrote off the cleansing too early. It happened at 8am.

  48. 48
    deejayoh says:

    deejayoh, The graph you link to can be looked at as the relationship of price to rent broken down into two ratios: 1) rent to income, and 2) price to income. Since 1985 those two diverged, reaching a maximum separation in 2001. At that point rents went flat for a few years and house prices took off, and now they have come back together, to the same ratio they had in 1985

    Jon – The chart has two vertical axis, so the relative slopes are misleading. Home prices are up 4x in the time of the chart, while rents are up about 2.25x. I probably could have done a better job matching scale – but the reality is that the slope of the lower line is much steeper and they are diverging at an increasing rate, not converging as you suggest.

  49. 49
    deejayoh says:

    Buceri –
    there are a bunch of “new listings” today that if you click through on them do not seem to exist. I am increasing of a mind the the MLS is having some system problems. Perhaps they are running out of available system memory on the HP9000 ;^)

  50. 50
    explorer says:

    magnolia44, your denial of past market history in Seattle, and the general boom/bust lag with the rest of the country is apparent (and somewhat understandable). However, I do agree that the conditions setting this up for the perfect storm are unprecidented.

    Jon, you are correct in stating that someone looking for a new place to rent right now, after being in another place for awhile, will see very significant jumps in prices. That’s were your analogy ends.

    I often notice that those most critical of the rent vs. buy ratios, both in publications like Forbes, and locally, have much higher than the median income themselves. They are just are not recognizing that the per capita income is what HUD bases rents on, and the median income of an INDIVIDUAL, not a household has been a weighted factor in determining affordability. At least last I checked. The goal posts for determinining “affordability” both in rentals and in purchases has been out of whack in the Seattle area for quite some time.

    Others have quoted frequently stated and demonstated that rents spike up in a bubble, just before the crash. We seem to be at that stage. I don’t see these rents holding up for most of these places for long. Median income renters have been the traditional first-time buyer targets, before things got bubbly. Until it returns to that basis, you will not have many first-time buyers to feed that market, and those that depend upon them to move up themselves will be stuck.

    Something always has to give eventually. It is starting to give, and I agree with others that in the Seattle area, it’s only in the second inning.

  51. 51

    Doesn’t strike me that Magnolia 44’s opinion is that far off what other folks here feel.
    Yes, Seattle was late to the party as other cities began dropping earlier than we did, so we might or might not continue dropping after other cities level out..If I read her correctly, she’s predicting a 6-8% additional decline here before we hit bottom…I think the bottom might be slightly worse than that, that we might see an additional 12% decline til the bottom, so I’m seeing an additional 6-12% drop, but I don’t see us falling for the next few years, I see us bottoming by late 2009 at the latest. But then I think we’re going to wallow there for a few years before we see any real appreciation.
    I’ve been wrong before. I bet money that John Kerry would be elected President.

  52. 52
    DavidB says:

    “Lol so one sided here, let me guess you are in all cash you have lost nothing on the equity declines… you make all the right moves”

    In some cases, yes. I sold my house last year (Feb 07). It wasn’t right at the peak but close to it. I’ve conservatively invested my equity since then and I’m ready to buy a house when the market has stabalized. I don’t see any reason to try to “catch a falling knife”. I was confident enough that prices in Seattle would decline like they have throughout the rest of the US that I decided to rent for a year. Keep in mind this was also back when everyone including my friends didn’t think prices in Seattle would ever decline!

    I’m very happy that I didn’t buy anything last year!!!!!!!!!!

    If you’re happy with your home purchase why are you here? Your decision has already been made so why stress yourself out by reading other’s opinions about the possibilty of real estate prices declining?

  53. 53
    cheapseats says:

    I think it is a legitimate opinion (Magnolia’s) that it is better for a locale to be late to the decline party, assuming that the first to the party do level out in time to stabilize the market.

    Conversely, it may be worse if prices decline at an accelerated rate to catch up with the early declining areas; as some of Tims charts show with the comparisons of Seattle decline from peak vs San Diego etc…

    The key being when other cities hit bottom.

  54. 54
    matt says:

    interesting graph for sure. question i have for you all is when you are looking at outliers, isn’t it plausible that there is a reason that they exist as outliers? For instance, we all know what is going on in Detroit and chances are, Detroits housing market will never recover. It had tremendous job loss. Seattle exists as an outlier possibly because of our unique job market. Isn’t that a fair assumption? We are heavily dependent upon military, Boeing, the tech world and other companies like Starbucks and Microsoft. There is validity to that argument and something that the graph and conversation here don’t take into account.

  55. 55

    […] in July I posted a comparison of the total percentage gain during the boom years to the total percentage drop from peak to date […]

  56. 56

    […] no prognosticator, but I do like reading others’ predictions. Seattle Bubble has a nice chart comparing the amount of upwards price movement during the boom against the amount of downward price […]

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.