We're not familiar with that rule, and you're not seeing it play out because rates and prices aren't linked by a clean formula. The rule of thumb we'd point to instead is about demand. Each roughly one-point move in rates adds or removes a large chunk of potential buyers, on the order of a few million, by changing who can qualify at a given payment. Higher rates thin the buyer pool. But thinner demand only pushes prices down if supply is there to meet the shrinking crowd. Through the recent cycle, inventory stayed persistently low, so even with fewer qualified buyers there weren't enough homes to force sellers to compete on price. Low supply absorbed the demand hit. The deeper reason big drops don't just materialize is that home prices are sticky. An owner generally won't list below the last comparable sale in the neighborhood unless something forces their hand. The sizable, double-digit corrections in history required exactly that force: a wave of people who had to sell, usually from a local economic blow. Houston's 1980s oil bust and Southern California's late-1980s defense-industry layoffs are the classic examples, where mass job losses created forced sellers and that supply drove prices down. So the honest model runs in three parts: rates set demand, supply decides whether that shows up in price, and real declines need forced sellers.