For anyone who wonders why I pay little to no attention to Forbes when it comes to real estate, here’s a little flashback from late November 2007, four months after home prices peaked in Seattle.
Scaled-back lending practices, risky loans, oversupply and low demand continue to plague the nation’s housing markets, driving down prices and stalling sales.
But it’s not so in [Seattle], where prices have continued to climb without so much as a hiccup.
…in Seattle, prices rose 6% to $394,700 [year over year].
Seattle ranked as the 8th best housing market in the nation. Woo-hoo.
The Emerald City housing market continues its ascent on the back of a strong local economy and the prudent construction rates of the past five years. Although prices are reaching record highs, the city remains a cheap alternative for Northern California residents and businesses looking for better value.
As I pointed out at the time, to say that Seattle’s housing market was “continuing its ascent” was to ignore practically all of the available data. The only way things looked good for Seattle in late 2007 was if you looked at year over year prices and completely ignored supply, demand, and the quarter over quarter price change.
The number of homes on the market had been climbing for 20 months. The number of sales had been falling for 25 months. The median price of single family homes had fallen 7.7% between July and October, compared to an average rise of 2.2% from 1994-2006 between those months, and a maximum drop during that time of 2.4%. When prices fall over three times faster than they ever have before during a quarter, it seems like something one might notice.
If you want entertaining—but ultimately meaningless—lists, go ahead and read Forbes’ pieces on real estate. If you want actual market insights, I strongly suggest looking elsewhere.