Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Kiplinger's Personal Finance: The 13 Riskiest Housing Markets

According to Kiplinger's Personal Finance below are the 13th riskiest markets.

1. Boston, MA 8. Sacramento, CA
2. New York, NY 9. Providence, RI
3. Fort Lauderdale, FL 10. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
4. Washington DC 11. Denver, CO
5. Detroit, MI 12.Miami, FL
6. Los Angeles, CA 13.Tampa-St. Petersburg
7. San Francisco, CA

I beg to differ. Sure, most of these are risky markets but they are not the 13 riskiest. In Fresno, prices are up 111% in 5 years, Washington, DC is up 93%. Not only that but as the article itself admits "It's increases in federal spending, which support a strong job market." The strong job market is a big part of the huge price appreciation in Washington, DC. Fresno, CA is much riskier then Washington, DC. Where is Fresno on this list? Which markets do you think are the riskiest?


  1. Yah..Where is Fresno and most of the Central valley as well?...We are Agriculturally based and hence incomes are lower then the big urban areas.Add to that chronic high unemployment usually in the double digits and you get an area that can't sustain 20-30% yearly RE gains.. I have been the naysayer around here at the office for awhile always pointing out that job and income growth just aren't there and if you get an raise it is offset by Health care and now by shoring up our defined benefits. Just a thought

  2. This sort of thing should be taken with a grain of salt IMO. Just like the "10 safest cities", the "10 nicest places to live", and othe such rankings.

  3. I would say San Diego definitely should be among those on that list.

  4. Can't say I have noticed any mass migration out of the New York City area. If anything it gets more crowded every year.

    I am sure many retiring Baby Boomers will leave but other retirees are actually moving in to the area (Manhattan specifically). Some that do move will retain an apartment in the area.

    Then there is the annual College grad migration.

  5. "This sort of thing should be taken with a grain of salt IMO. "

    This list should be taken with a whole tuckload of salt.

  6. I nominate Hwy 99 from Bakersfield to Sacramento, CA.

    Pick any major city along that highway route and you have insupportable prices with no regard for the economic reasons why these places were less expensive.

  7. I'm surprised that Hawaii wasn't mentioned. Granted, it took longer for prices to start taking off after the RE slump they had been in.

    As a side note: On a recent trip, I was seated next to a guy who turned out to be a flipper. We talked for a couple of hours. He was headed home from Hawaii after purchasing a couple of very small lots (he showed me the county maps and dimensions, nothing special) that he intended to hold on to for about a year, fully expecting to double his money. And for only __ million!

    How old was this guy?
    About 30.

    His financial situation?
    Betting the farm on this one.

  8. Reno. The appreciation there over the past several years has been incredible and totally unsupported by job or income growth. They are counting on Californians to continue being the bigger fools, as the locals know better than to buy into this market. The Californians are either getting wise or running out of capital. This is a desert; they're not running out of land, but they're running out of water. Reno is going to pop loudly.

  9. they forgot vegas from their list...IMO, it will be one of the worst in terms of of post-pop