Thanks for pointing that out. The first example I gave was a one bedroom condo. The second a townhome in bellevue that is technically SFR but operates like a condo. The 4-plex sold at lot value and was torn down for new townhomes.

I’ll have to check SFH examples, though none come to mind so doubt there are major swing stories. Great Observation!!! You’ve got my brain turning…not that it ever stops. Turning in a different direction may be more appropriate. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm…

At the second half of 2006, Snohomish condos were perhaps the hottest thing around here. The end of 2007, possibly one of the worst. But overall condos in this area have held up surprisingly well, despite the strong gains, which is why I don’t try to predict where things will head.

And multi-family–the valuations those are crazy (although perhaps not at the 4-plex level). If you owned an apartment house, it was a potential condo conversion not matter where it was located or what it looked like. And it gets priced accordingly.

I would say finding a condo for David in May of 2005 at $100,000 and being able to sell it for him today for $200,000 is a “wild swing” for sure. I’d say finding that 4 plex in Ballard in 2004 for Jerrle for $590,000 and selling for him last summer for $855,000, was a pretty wild swing. I’d say finding that condo for Travis for $130,000 in summer of 2004 and selling it for him for $207,500 in summer of 2006 was a pretty wild swing.

I can see these wild swings in the properties my clients buy and sell. So I can’t agree that Seattle has no wild swing activity. None of these were flips with money invested into the properties to any degree. Just market valuation swings.

I realize that my clients do not necessarily represent “a market” and each of these is in a completely different area. But clearly had they lost as much as they gained, it would be major news. Luckily that didn’t happen, but one would have to guess that if they could gain as much as they did, they could also have lost as much as they did…no?

Carrying the second paragraph further, there isn’t even a single market within the city limits of Seattle. There isn’t even a single market within the NWMLS areas that are within Seattle.

If and when we have a sustained upswing for as long a period of time, we would not necessarily be immune to economic principles.

More to the point, Seattle hasn’t had the wild swings that other cities have had–both up and down.

Trying to claim real estate is national is absurd. As I posted somewhere here, I think the next NWMLS numbers will show that real estate prices aren’t even county wide! Specifically, I think Auburn and Federal Way will show huge drops, and parts of the Eastside will show significant increase (median prices YOY–but volume will be down in almost every area).

You think small Ardell. If you’re going to think along those lines, think last guy on earth!