4s ranch builder price advice

[an]

drunkle, to me, fundamental is rent. I could be wrong, but when it’s cheaper to buy than rent, most people on the side line and first time home buyer will jump in. I don’t see how fundamental can lose meaning. Fundamental is a moving target but it’s always there. That’s the whole premise of this site.

[Anonymous]

Ok, then we’re not at fundamental. Are we on the same page now?

[Anonymous]

Ok, then we’re not at fundamental. Are we on the same page now?

[Anonymous]

Ok, then we’re not at fundamental. Are we on the same page now?

[Anonymous]

Ok, then we’re not at fundamental. Are we on the same page now?

[Anonymous]

Ok, then we’re not at fundamental. Are we on the same page now?

[drunkle]

asian:

you were making the case:

“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”

to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.

in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.

[drunkle]

asian:

you were making the case:

“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”

to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.

in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.

[drunkle]

asian:

you were making the case:

“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”

to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.

in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.

[drunkle]

asian:

you were making the case:

“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”

to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.

in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.

[drunkle]

asian:

you were making the case:

“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”

to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.

in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.

[Eugene]

BTW, I’m not saying that San Diego is back to fundamentals. I’m not even saying that 4S Ranch as a whole is back to fundamentals. In fact much of the resale market is still 15-20% or so overpriced, even at todays interest rates. (The cheapest 3500 sq ft resale I see in 4S ranch is listed for 775K)

[Eugene]

BTW, I’m not saying that San Diego is back to fundamentals. I’m not even saying that 4S Ranch as a whole is back to fundamentals. In fact much of the resale market is still 15-20% or so overpriced, even at todays interest rates. (The cheapest 3500 sq ft resale I see in 4S ranch is listed for 775K)

[Eugene]

BTW, I’m not saying that San Diego is back to fundamentals. I’m not even saying that 4S Ranch as a whole is back to fundamentals. In fact much of the resale market is still 15-20% or so overpriced, even at todays interest rates. (The cheapest 3500 sq ft resale I see in 4S ranch is listed for 775K)

[Eugene]

BTW, I’m not saying that San Diego is back to fundamentals. I’m not even saying that 4S Ranch as a whole is back to fundamentals. In fact much of the resale market is still 15-20% or so overpriced, even at todays interest rates. (The cheapest 3500 sq ft resale I see in 4S ranch is listed for 775K)

[Author]

Posts