Four Texas cities markets as worst short-term investments? (Austin, Amarillo: rent, house)

[sxrckr]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/15-worst-housing-markets-next-five-years-124724891.html?sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

Here are the Worst Housing Markets For The Next Five Years
1. Miami, Florida
2. Atlantic City, New Jersey
3. Nassau County, New York
4. (tie) Fort Lauderdale, Florida
4. (tie) Midland, Texas
4. (tie) Washington, D.C.
5. Abilene, Texas
6. Morgantown, West Virginia
7. (tie) Austin, Texas
7. (tie) Waterloo-Cedar Falls, Iowa
8. (tie) Baton Rouge, Louisiana
8. (tie) Amarillo, Texas
8. (tie) Lancaster, Pennsylvania
8. (tie) Monroe, Louisiana
8. (tie) Shreveport, Louisiana

[bluescreen73]

Have we learned nothing over the last 4 years? A house is not a short-term investment. Treating them as such is the single biggest reason for the financial meltdown we're still trying to claw ourselves out of.

[sxrckr]

Originally Posted by bluescreen73

Have we learned nothing over the last 4 years? A house is not a short-term investment. Treating them as such is the single biggest reason for the financial meltdown we're still trying to claw ourselves out of.

I don't think people are flipping homes anymore.

Problem is, it's not uncommon for many to stay in a house for 5 years or less because of job transfers, upsizing, downsizing etc.

[loves2read]

Frankly I don't get where they think Austin will only grow 1% or so in the next 5 yrs---
I think Baton Rouge is likely to grow more than projected as well

Midland I would think would be doing well since oil/gas drilling is still fairly strong in that part of TX

there were no reasons given for the poor growth prospects of those towns--so I can't speculate about all of them
but without any specifics then I don't know why those statistics are worth considering with any meaningful weight...

this is comment from poster from Amarillo--

These results are obviously from a flawed mathematical model - one that weights the prospects for growth over the next 5 years very heavily. I live in Amarillo, Texas. Our housing market never experienced the rapid price increases that other areas did. Similarly, it has only declined 10% over the past 6 years. In the future, it will likely rise and fall slowly. Residents of Amarillo never experienced factitious equity growth of the housing bubble, and they did not purchase homes within the past 5 years which have left them upside down greater than 10%. I, for one, like to live in an area with a relatively stable housing market. We also have a job market/ unemployment rate that is the envy of most of the US. When I did not see California, Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan on this list, I knew that it was not informative -- ask buyers in those states if they wish that they had purchased a home in Amarillo and maintained their equity. Key issue: when you have lost a large percentage of your value, it is easy to project higher growth rates over the next few years. Would you rather lose 10% and regain 1% per year over the next few years or lose 50% and gain back 5% over the next few years.

And people--some people--ARE flipping homes in some areas--just depends on how low they can buy the property at--what it takes to put it back together--and how long they are willing to wait to sell and make profit
many people/investors are planning on renting them out for 2-3 yrs--as long as the rent covers their expenses with taxes/management--