Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › CV houses with ~3700 sf sold below 1.05M

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 2, 2009 at 4:42 PM #16292
    sweethome
    Participant

    More and more CV houses with ~3700 sf get sold below 1.05M.

    Some examples …

    http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090030731-5803_Brittany_Forrest_San_Diego_CA_92130

    http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090018616-4979_Smith_Canyon_Ct_San_Diego_CA_92130

    http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-090034021-12845_Harwick_San_Diego_CA_92130

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452064
    werewolf34
    Participant

    That one in Torrey Hills is a gem unless the market drops out

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452258
    werewolf34
    Participant

    That one in Torrey Hills is a gem unless the market drops out

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452599
    werewolf34
    Participant

    That one in Torrey Hills is a gem unless the market drops out

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452860
    werewolf34
    Participant

    That one in Torrey Hills is a gem unless the market drops out

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452672
    werewolf34
    Participant

    That one in Torrey Hills is a gem unless the market drops out

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452069
    an
    Participant

    Is that supposed to be a good deal (below $1.05M)? Considering the 3rd one sold for $775,000 in 2002, that’s still 35% above 2002 price.

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452263
    an
    Participant

    Is that supposed to be a good deal (below $1.05M)? Considering the 3rd one sold for $775,000 in 2002, that’s still 35% above 2002 price.

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452865
    an
    Participant

    Is that supposed to be a good deal (below $1.05M)? Considering the 3rd one sold for $775,000 in 2002, that’s still 35% above 2002 price.

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452604
    an
    Participant

    Is that supposed to be a good deal (below $1.05M)? Considering the 3rd one sold for $775,000 in 2002, that’s still 35% above 2002 price.

    September 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM #452677
    an
    Participant

    Is that supposed to be a good deal (below $1.05M)? Considering the 3rd one sold for $775,000 in 2002, that’s still 35% above 2002 price.

    September 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM #452880
    Diego Mamani
    Participant

    35% above 2002 price is not too bad if we consider inflation. In seven years, that’s about 4.4% anual, compounded. I think 3.5% annual would be more reasonable than 4.4%, and that results in 27% compounded appreciation, which is very close to the observed 35%.

    Compared to gold or the Euro, the house is a bargain today compared to 2002. I know, I know, household incomes around here are not in gold, Euro, etc. But considering that rich people worldwide consider SD for a second home, we can’t ignore these other measures of value.

    September 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM #452619
    Diego Mamani
    Participant

    35% above 2002 price is not too bad if we consider inflation. In seven years, that’s about 4.4% anual, compounded. I think 3.5% annual would be more reasonable than 4.4%, and that results in 27% compounded appreciation, which is very close to the observed 35%.

    Compared to gold or the Euro, the house is a bargain today compared to 2002. I know, I know, household incomes around here are not in gold, Euro, etc. But considering that rich people worldwide consider SD for a second home, we can’t ignore these other measures of value.

    September 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM #452278
    Diego Mamani
    Participant

    35% above 2002 price is not too bad if we consider inflation. In seven years, that’s about 4.4% anual, compounded. I think 3.5% annual would be more reasonable than 4.4%, and that results in 27% compounded appreciation, which is very close to the observed 35%.

    Compared to gold or the Euro, the house is a bargain today compared to 2002. I know, I know, household incomes around here are not in gold, Euro, etc. But considering that rich people worldwide consider SD for a second home, we can’t ignore these other measures of value.

    September 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM #452084
    Diego Mamani
    Participant

    35% above 2002 price is not too bad if we consider inflation. In seven years, that’s about 4.4% anual, compounded. I think 3.5% annual would be more reasonable than 4.4%, and that results in 27% compounded appreciation, which is very close to the observed 35%.

    Compared to gold or the Euro, the house is a bargain today compared to 2002. I know, I know, household incomes around here are not in gold, Euro, etc. But considering that rich people worldwide consider SD for a second home, we can’t ignore these other measures of value.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.