- This topic has 61 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 30, 2013 at 2:37 PM #767377October 30, 2013 at 4:27 PM #767378
spdrun
ParticipantIt would be grossly inappropriate for my to discuss annual earnings on a public forum, but let’s say that I’ve bought several stocks in the last year that have gone up much more than 100%.
Regardless:
* Dollar: up over the past two days despite QE3 (non)”news”
* Inventories of unsold goods: up
* Most US property markets since July: flat to slightly lower
* Consumer confidence: down
* Q4 earnings: ???
* Gas/oil prices: down.The fundamentals do not look terribly good, QE3 or none. Asset inflation is not the way to a good economy; it should be the RESULT of a good economy. Bubbles must be allowed to deflate. If the Fed wanted to really help the economy as opposed to helping the 1%, they’d start purchasing state and municipal INFRASTRUCTURE bonds instead of MBS. Plenty of old bridges and highways to fix, freight railroads to electrify, renewable and nuclear (“clean”) power stations to build. They could do what Congress has so far epicfailed at…
UPDATE: FB is now at 48.83 after-hours, -0.18 since today’s close. Bubble, bubble, toil, and trouble.
October 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM #767379njtosd
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=The-Shoveler]
Yea I would have to agree with this part, without QCOM and all the tag along wireless industry in that area CV would not have been anything like it is today.It would still be an expensive area IMO but just not a ridiculously expensive one. 3000+sqf homes on 4000sfq lots etc… going for 1M+ (without Ocean views) and Condos going for 600-800K (without ocean views).
I must admit that to me seems ridiculously expensive.[/quote]I doubt that’s true. I lived there for almost 10 years. I met scores, maybe a couple hundred people. Never met anyone who worked at QCOM. I’m sure there are many. But not enough to have any significant effect on prices.[/quote]
We were here, we moved to NJ, we moved back – and among all of the neighbors, friends/neighbors we’ve had I can only think of 2 QCOM people. High tech/biotech types, doctors and lawyers, mostly.
October 30, 2013 at 8:15 PM #767380CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV][quote=The-Shoveler]
Yea I would have to agree with this part, without QCOM and all the tag along wireless industry in that area CV would not have been anything like it is today.It would still be an expensive area IMO but just not a ridiculously expensive one. 3000+sqf homes on 4000sfq lots etc… going for 1M+ (without Ocean views) and Condos going for 600-800K (without ocean views).
I must admit that to me seems ridiculously expensive.[/quote]I doubt that’s true. I lived there for almost 10 years. I met scores, maybe a couple hundred people. Never met anyone who worked at QCOM. I’m sure there are many. But not enough to have any significant effect on prices.[/quote]
We were here, we moved to NJ, we moved back – and among all of the neighbors, friends/neighbors we’ve had I can only think of 2 QCOM people. High tech/biotech types, doctors and lawyers, mostly.[/quote]
Birds of a feather and all that…
I mean QCom ppl all the time but then again I am in a very similiar industry.
CE
October 30, 2013 at 8:50 PM #767381Reality
Participant[quote=flyer]
As flu said, it’s great for current homeowners, but not great for those trying to get in or move up. It’s especially sad that most of the kids who have been raised in the area can never afford to live there when they grow up–should they want to. IMO, that will be true in most of San Diego in the future.
[/quote]Why? What’s so different now than say, 2 years ago?
October 30, 2013 at 9:18 PM #767382Anonymous
Guest[quote=flu]Well,
Welcome to crack smoking peak pricing in Carmel Valley, version 2.0…And then some more…..
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/12519-El-Camino-Real-92130/home/4515791
Person bought it for $530k in 2009.
New buyer bought it for $615k in 8/2013
That would be back to 2004 pricing….New buyer looks to be trying to sell for $678k..
If it goes for anywhere near that, on this specific floorplan… That would be above peak pricing reached in 2005/6, which is about 630-40k for this specific floorplan (and it doesn’t even include a fishtank!… Sorry, inside joke)….$443/sqft lol… I would say “good luck at that price”, but the moment I say that, they’ll probably get it. Like the Fed dropping rates to sub 2% or something like that…So I’ll say, “they might get it”, and then probably they won’t…..
Moral of the story. Stronger financial hands that managed to hold on during the past 5-6 years did ok…
Wow… Unfrickinbelievable.
The deal of the lifetime, me thinks, have loan passed. My half empty glass continues…[/quote]
Yikes, that is an ugly place, IMHO. It needs a total gut job and renovating. Good luck if they can get that price!
October 31, 2013 at 1:47 AM #767384flyer
Participant[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=flyer]
As flu said, it’s great for current homeowners, but not great for those trying to get in or move up. It’s especially sad that most of the kids who have been raised in the area can never afford to live there when they grow up–should they want to. IMO, that will be true in most of San Diego in the future.
[/quote]Why? What’s so different now than say, 2 years ago?[/quote]
I would agree, not much, really, as I’ve actually mentioned what I said above for a few years, and was simply agreeing with flu.
As a native who was raised in LJ, it’s been fascinating to watch and to be involved in the evolution of real estate in San Diego, and I’m quite sure the future will be just as interesting as the past.
October 31, 2013 at 4:31 AM #767385CoronitaParticipant[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=flyer]
As flu said, it’s great for current homeowners, but not great for those trying to get in or move up. It’s especially sad that most of the kids who have been raised in the area can never afford to live there when they grow up–should they want to. IMO, that will be true in most of San Diego in the future.
[/quote]Why? What’s so different now than say, 2 years ago?[/quote]
A lot… 2 years ago, everyone was still on the fence on whether to buy, even though prices were still relatively reasonable. That includes a lot of people who had the means to buy as a trade-up.
Those who have bought, did so under the most favorable interest rate terms, under the most stringent lending requirements we’ve seen. Jumbo’s were virtually non-existent (or if they existed, had a huge rate difference from conforming or conforming+).Translation. Strong buyers with favoring monthly payments due to low interest.
And perhaps people on the fence who were smart (unlike me), moved up at this time, new home prices were still discounted, interest rate was low, and on a previous home, refinance rates were low, so you could actually slightly cash flow your previous home in CarmelV and just sit it out and wait for appreciation to kick in, since this area, short of a Sorrento Valley implosion, a school district implosion, or falling into the ocean, it isn’t going anywhere.
Rents for a 5bdroom SFH these days is around $3900/month give or take $200-300. If you look at some of the 3 bdroom apartments are going for around $2400-2600 on up. And yet, there’s no end in sight, schools are getting more crowded, more people seem to be moving in, and buyers are still buying, and builders are still building new apartments to absorb the demand.
I’m not sure if there is much more to move up in price, but it’s really irrelevant. Prices are near or above peak, there wasn’t this flood of 40-50% off discounts as people had tried to predict.
October 31, 2013 at 4:42 AM #767386CoronitaParticipant[quote=flyer]
As flu said, it’s great for current homeowners, but not great for those trying to get in or move up. It’s especially sad that most of the kids who have been raised in the area can never afford to live there when they grow up–should they want to. IMO, that will be true in most of San Diego in the future.
[/quote]Funny you should mention that….
Speaking of kids that can’t afford to live where they grew up.
One of my neighbor is a dentist that runs his own practice. According to him, he’s been seeing a lot of young folks that graduated from dentistry applying for work at his practice. He’s been shocked that many of these new grads are $300-400k in the hole with their student loans. That’s a double whammy for them, because (1) unless you own your own practice, you’re not really bringing in good money. (2) you won’t be able to afford your own practice because if you’re already $300k-400k in the hole, good luck finding a lender to lend you money to start your own practice.
My other neighbor on my street who’s an attorney that co-runs his own practice also says the same thing about new law grads. Especially the ones, that don’t end up in the big, higher paying firms.
I’m not sure how real or unreal that is. But if it’s not far from the truth, looks like we’re not that far off from expanding the age old adage “you have to have to have money to make money” to “you have to have money to let your kids make money”
October 31, 2013 at 8:07 AM #767387ParticipantAs far as law school, if you can’t get a scholarship to Hahhhhhhhvard, there’s no shame in going to a public law school and limiting your debt to $50-60k for the whole duration. Really makes no difference after 10-15 years whether you end up with a JD from SUNY or Stanford if you’ve a competent attorney — ultimately, it’s a professional degree that allows one membership in a guild (the state bar).
And update for flu:
FB steady as she goes at $49/share.
DOW -44, NASDAQ -6.October 31, 2013 at 8:51 AM #767389Participant[quote=spdrun]As far as law school, if you can’t get a scholarship to Hahhhhhhhvard, there’s no shame in going to a public law school and limiting your debt to $50-60k for the whole duration. Really makes no difference after 10-15 years whether you end up with a JD from SUNY or Stanford if you’ve a competent attorney — ultimately, it’s a professional degree that allows one membership in a guild (the state bar).
And update for flu:
FB steady as she goes at $49/share.
DOW -44, NASDAQ -6.[/quote]I thought about law school… Funny thing is the most cost effective schools, meaning decent school with decently cheap rates for attending (inclusive of cost of living), are the most applied too so it is very difficult to get in.
ASU and UofA are excellent examples. Top 30 schools, cheaping housing, and also recieve 9000 applications a year last I checked.
So the route you mention isnt always that viable…
CE
October 31, 2013 at 9:04 AM #767390ParticipantSo go to Rutgers in NJ, hold your nose, and live in a shitty studio flat in Newark for a few years. If that doesn’t work, there’s always University of Maine, U Idaho, and U of Oklahoma that have about 50% acceptance rates.
Not the end of the world if you can graduate with minimal debt and be able to tell your boss to jump in a lake and start your own firm two years out of school.
There are also plenty of state schools that aren’t in as desirable states as AZ — though why a hellhole like AZ is desirable at all still boggles my mind.
October 31, 2013 at 12:43 PM #767391CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]As far as law school, if you can’t get a scholarship to Hahhhhhhhvard, there’s no shame in going to a public law school and limiting your debt to $50-60k for the whole duration. Really makes no difference after 10-15 years whether you end up with a JD from SUNY or Stanford if you’ve a competent attorney — ultimately, it’s a professional degree that allows one membership in a guild (the state bar).
And update for flu:
FB steady as she goes at $49/share.
DOW -44, NASDAQ -6.[/quote]Come on… With Goldman Sachs lead underwriter for twitter, you really think GS is going to let social media fall before then without trying to put a spin on it during it’s roadshow??
You know the game is rigged…
October 31, 2013 at 1:08 PM #767392ParticipantIf you’re saying that GS is basically running a pump-and-dump scam, that’s one more reason to be terrified of the “big” social media stocks. I’m not afraid of tech companies, but I think they should provide more value than being the next MySpace.
FB has essentially admitted a problem with ad revenue going forward by forcing pay-to-play ($1 to promote this post, $1 to message this user without the message going to spam) on ordinary non-commercial users. Also, with the NSA creepiness, Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about privacy, and it’s becoming quite clear that FB doesn’t have their best interests in mind on that front.
DOW: -73
NASDAQ: -11
(at close)And again: If the Fed would have been smart a year or two ago, they’d have started buying infrastructure development bonds rather than gov’t bonds and MBS. Infrastructure improvements provide lasting value rather than blowing bubbles.
October 31, 2013 at 1:17 PM #767393CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]If you’re saying that GS is basically running a pump-and-dump scam, that’s one more reason to be terrified of the “big” social media stocks. I’m not afraid of tech companies, but I think they should provide more value than being the next MySpace.
FB has essentially admitted a problem with ad revenue going forward by forcing pay-to-play ($1 to promote this post, $1 to message this user without the message going to spam) on ordinary non-commercial users. Also, with the NSA creepiness, Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about privacy, and it’s becoming quite clear that FB doesn’t have their best interests in mind on that front.
DOW: -73
NASDAQ: -11
(at close)And again: If the Fed would have been smart a year or two ago, they’d have started buying infrastructure development bonds rather than gov’t bonds and MBS. Infrastructure improvements provide lasting value rather than blowing bubbles.[/quote]
And you’re conveniently leaving out that FB closed at $50.20…
Not that I really care, about FB or frankly how the stock market indexes are doing at this very point in time.
I’m not a FB shareholder or shorter, and I have about 40-50% cash sitting off to the sideline doing nothing right now, except maybe to pay for homes or whatever else comes my way…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.