 This topic has 35 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by alarmclock.

AuthorPosts


December 31, 2007 at 8:22 PM #11375

December 31, 2007 at 8:59 PM #127096golfprozParticipant
To get back to historical “norms” prices will need to drop to 2001 levels. I think the speed and depth of the drops we are already seeing in the IE would indicate that this might be worse than even the most bearish of us have imagined. I am already finding homes 50% off peak in some areas of the IE. 40% off peak (approx 2003 prices) is so easy to find that it’s not even news any more. I’ve already found nice homes selling for $80s/f some areas. It was only a few months ago that $100 s/f was making news. Now you can find hundreds of homes selling for around that. This snowball has just started rolling!

December 31, 2007 at 9:36 PM #127103paramountParticipant
I think I understand your position, but can one time the market perfectly?
What’s it worth to reduce your commute? It’s only money, but time is something you can’t get back.
As I have said before, for the average person I would not sit around and waste my life trying to time the market like so many others on this forum.
If the reduction in commute is considerable, and you can afford the new house on conservative/realistic terms and it’s priced right, why not?
In 10 years it won’t really matter that much anyway.

January 1, 2008 at 8:16 AM #127137sethdallobParticipant
Well, if it does go back to 2001 prices (roughly $125k), and I had reasonable knowledge of such fact, I’d be an idiot to waste $75k. I’m not trying to time the exact bottom here, but there is a big difference between $315k, $210k and $125k.

January 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM #127172lendingbubblecontinuesParticipant
“I’d be an idiot to waste $75k.”
I agree. Also, don’t forget that you’d repay roughly 75K plus three times that amount over the life of a thirty year loan, assuming you borrowed the additional $75K in the first place.
So you’d be wasting $300K that you might otherwise have for retirement.

January 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM #127331lendingbubblecontinuesParticipant
“I’d be an idiot to waste $75k.”
I agree. Also, don’t forget that you’d repay roughly 75K plus three times that amount over the life of a thirty year loan, assuming you borrowed the additional $75K in the first place.
So you’d be wasting $300K that you might otherwise have for retirement.

January 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM #127342lendingbubblecontinuesParticipant
“I’d be an idiot to waste $75k.”
I agree. Also, don’t forget that you’d repay roughly 75K plus three times that amount over the life of a thirty year loan, assuming you borrowed the additional $75K in the first place.
So you’d be wasting $300K that you might otherwise have for retirement.

January 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM #127409lendingbubblecontinuesParticipant
“I’d be an idiot to waste $75k.”
I agree. Also, don’t forget that you’d repay roughly 75K plus three times that amount over the life of a thirty year loan, assuming you borrowed the additional $75K in the first place.
So you’d be wasting $300K that you might otherwise have for retirement.

January 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM #127434lendingbubblecontinuesParticipant
“I’d be an idiot to waste $75k.”
I agree. Also, don’t forget that you’d repay roughly 75K plus three times that amount over the life of a thirty year loan, assuming you borrowed the additional $75K in the first place.
So you’d be wasting $300K that you might otherwise have for retirement.

January 1, 2008 at 8:16 AM #127296sethdallobParticipant
Well, if it does go back to 2001 prices (roughly $125k), and I had reasonable knowledge of such fact, I’d be an idiot to waste $75k. I’m not trying to time the exact bottom here, but there is a big difference between $315k, $210k and $125k.

January 1, 2008 at 8:16 AM #127308sethdallobParticipant
Well, if it does go back to 2001 prices (roughly $125k), and I had reasonable knowledge of such fact, I’d be an idiot to waste $75k. I’m not trying to time the exact bottom here, but there is a big difference between $315k, $210k and $125k.

January 1, 2008 at 8:16 AM #127375sethdallobParticipant
Well, if it does go back to 2001 prices (roughly $125k), and I had reasonable knowledge of such fact, I’d be an idiot to waste $75k. I’m not trying to time the exact bottom here, but there is a big difference between $315k, $210k and $125k.

January 1, 2008 at 8:16 AM #127399sethdallobParticipant
Well, if it does go back to 2001 prices (roughly $125k), and I had reasonable knowledge of such fact, I’d be an idiot to waste $75k. I’m not trying to time the exact bottom here, but there is a big difference between $315k, $210k and $125k.


December 31, 2007 at 9:36 PM #127263paramountParticipant
I think I understand your position, but can one time the market perfectly?
What’s it worth to reduce your commute? It’s only money, but time is something you can’t get back.
As I have said before, for the average person I would not sit around and waste my life trying to time the market like so many others on this forum.
If the reduction in commute is considerable, and you can afford the new house on conservative/realistic terms and it’s priced right, why not?
In 10 years it won’t really matter that much anyway.

December 31, 2007 at 9:36 PM #127272paramountParticipant
I think I understand your position, but can one time the market perfectly?
What’s it worth to reduce your commute? It’s only money, but time is something you can’t get back.
As I have said before, for the average person I would not sit around and waste my life trying to time the market like so many others on this forum.
If the reduction in commute is considerable, and you can afford the new house on conservative/realistic terms and it’s priced right, why not?
In 10 years it won’t really matter that much anyway.

December 31, 2007 at 9:36 PM #127340paramountParticipant
I think I understand your position, but can one time the market perfectly?
What’s it worth to reduce your commute? It’s only money, but time is something you can’t get back.
As I have said before, for the average person I would not sit around and waste my life trying to time the market like so many others on this forum.
If the reduction in commute is considerable, and you can afford the new house on conservative/realistic terms and it’s priced right, why not?
In 10 years it won’t really matter that much anyway.

December 31, 2007 at 9:36 PM #127364paramountParticipant
I think I understand your position, but can one time the market perfectly?
What’s it worth to reduce your commute? It’s only money, but time is something you can’t get back.
As I have said before, for the average person I would not sit around and waste my life trying to time the market like so many others on this forum.
If the reduction in commute is considerable, and you can afford the new house on conservative/realistic terms and it’s priced right, why not?
In 10 years it won’t really matter that much anyway.


December 31, 2007 at 8:59 PM #127258golfprozParticipant
To get back to historical “norms” prices will need to drop to 2001 levels. I think the speed and depth of the drops we are already seeing in the IE would indicate that this might be worse than even the most bearish of us have imagined. I am already finding homes 50% off peak in some areas of the IE. 40% off peak (approx 2003 prices) is so easy to find that it’s not even news any more. I’ve already found nice homes selling for $80s/f some areas. It was only a few months ago that $100 s/f was making news. Now you can find hundreds of homes selling for around that. This snowball has just started rolling!

December 31, 2007 at 8:59 PM #127266golfprozParticipant
To get back to historical “norms” prices will need to drop to 2001 levels. I think the speed and depth of the drops we are already seeing in the IE would indicate that this might be worse than even the most bearish of us have imagined. I am already finding homes 50% off peak in some areas of the IE. 40% off peak (approx 2003 prices) is so easy to find that it’s not even news any more. I’ve already found nice homes selling for $80s/f some areas. It was only a few months ago that $100 s/f was making news. Now you can find hundreds of homes selling for around that. This snowball has just started rolling!

December 31, 2007 at 8:59 PM #127335golfprozParticipant
To get back to historical “norms” prices will need to drop to 2001 levels. I think the speed and depth of the drops we are already seeing in the IE would indicate that this might be worse than even the most bearish of us have imagined. I am already finding homes 50% off peak in some areas of the IE. 40% off peak (approx 2003 prices) is so easy to find that it’s not even news any more. I’ve already found nice homes selling for $80s/f some areas. It was only a few months ago that $100 s/f was making news. Now you can find hundreds of homes selling for around that. This snowball has just started rolling!

December 31, 2007 at 8:59 PM #127359golfprozParticipant
To get back to historical “norms” prices will need to drop to 2001 levels. I think the speed and depth of the drops we are already seeing in the IE would indicate that this might be worse than even the most bearish of us have imagined. I am already finding homes 50% off peak in some areas of the IE. 40% off peak (approx 2003 prices) is so easy to find that it’s not even news any more. I’ve already found nice homes selling for $80s/f some areas. It was only a few months ago that $100 s/f was making news. Now you can find hundreds of homes selling for around that. This snowball has just started rolling!

January 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM #127162alarmclockParticipant
This does not necessarily apply to this thread, but I see a consistent misunderstanding on these many bubble sites between “the market” and “a residence”. I am not the slightest bit interested in buying “the market”. I am interested in buying a residence. The market is an average of the many residences out there right now. The notsoobvious implication is that, given a large enough sample size, there are residences right now which will not slide any further.
There are numerous ways to estimate a lower bound, I think that you would want to use all methods to see where the price falls
* median house = 3x median salary (If your desired residence is roughly median, use its %ofmedian — this would break down for residences far outside the median)
* 150x (or 180x or 225x or whatever factor is appropriate for the area) equivalent rent
* 1.4x of 1997 pricing (or 1.0 of 2001 pricing, and so on)I think CR has some others.
Also, I was thinkg about trying to find the inflection point for the knife droppers — I have not put a lot of good thought into this so I don’t have an equation yet. 2nd derivative of offer price vs time, multiplied by some factor.

January 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM #127176temeculaguyParticipant
alarmclock, what happens when the formulas contradict each other or don’t line up. My case is a property that my knife hand has been contemplating while the other hand holds it back.
Formula #1 median 68k x 3 = 204k
Formula #2 rent 1800 x 150=270k
Formula #3 built in 2003 so it’s hard to tell the 2001 but 03 was 265k and early 06 was 450kMy gut tells me that 245k is a balanced price, about 15% less than the bank has it listed at. 2000 sq, 4/3 pretty much a median home for the area.
I use a formula for the balanced price as the rent vs the P&I using 0 down but not counting PMI because the 0 down is only for the formula, when they match, it’s even. I base it only on psychology, when people can buy for the same as rent plus taxes and insurance, they will buy (taking market psychology out of it). Taxes, insurance and maintenance are roughly offset by the tax deduction, the interest on their downpayment had it stayed in the bank will reduce the P&I in an equal amount so that’s a draw. Here’s how it fleshes out using the above scenario. All number are rounded.
borrowing 245k at 6% is 1500, hoa takes it to 1600. Borrowing 450k at 6% is 2700 (2800 w/hoa). So at 450k it was overvalued, at 245 it is undervalued or close to value. Add in hoa, taxes and insurance and it is 2k a month, factor the tax deduction and it is cheaper than rent or rent nuetral. The variables are obviously the wild card in any formula, R/E can overshoot and undershoot, there are no guarantees in life but rent nuetral is a pretty safe play. Rent vs buy is the biggest question any buyer asks themself. Should I rent for 1800 or buy for 2800, if the answer is buy, you were wrong and it results in a repo. When it gets to should I rent for 1800 or buy for 1500 (2k out the door) and get a tax deduction so it’s the same or cheaper to buy, then buy they will, maybe not now while the media is trashing the market but ultimately they will return, as will I. The trick that I haven’t figured out is how long to wait and my own formulas that prevented me at 450k aren’t convincing me at 245k because every week they drop further and like the FB’s were seduced by the ever increasing prices that made they feel they couldn’t lose, I am seduced by the constant reductions that make me feel at some point houses will be free.

January 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM #127336temeculaguyParticipant
alarmclock, what happens when the formulas contradict each other or don’t line up. My case is a property that my knife hand has been contemplating while the other hand holds it back.
Formula #1 median 68k x 3 = 204k
Formula #2 rent 1800 x 150=270k
Formula #3 built in 2003 so it’s hard to tell the 2001 but 03 was 265k and early 06 was 450kMy gut tells me that 245k is a balanced price, about 15% less than the bank has it listed at. 2000 sq, 4/3 pretty much a median home for the area.
I use a formula for the balanced price as the rent vs the P&I using 0 down but not counting PMI because the 0 down is only for the formula, when they match, it’s even. I base it only on psychology, when people can buy for the same as rent plus taxes and insurance, they will buy (taking market psychology out of it). Taxes, insurance and maintenance are roughly offset by the tax deduction, the interest on their downpayment had it stayed in the bank will reduce the P&I in an equal amount so that’s a draw. Here’s how it fleshes out using the above scenario. All number are rounded.
borrowing 245k at 6% is 1500, hoa takes it to 1600. Borrowing 450k at 6% is 2700 (2800 w/hoa). So at 450k it was overvalued, at 245 it is undervalued or close to value. Add in hoa, taxes and insurance and it is 2k a month, factor the tax deduction and it is cheaper than rent or rent nuetral. The variables are obviously the wild card in any formula, R/E can overshoot and undershoot, there are no guarantees in life but rent nuetral is a pretty safe play. Rent vs buy is the biggest question any buyer asks themself. Should I rent for 1800 or buy for 2800, if the answer is buy, you were wrong and it results in a repo. When it gets to should I rent for 1800 or buy for 1500 (2k out the door) and get a tax deduction so it’s the same or cheaper to buy, then buy they will, maybe not now while the media is trashing the market but ultimately they will return, as will I. The trick that I haven’t figured out is how long to wait and my own formulas that prevented me at 450k aren’t convincing me at 245k because every week they drop further and like the FB’s were seduced by the ever increasing prices that made they feel they couldn’t lose, I am seduced by the constant reductions that make me feel at some point houses will be free.

January 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM #127347temeculaguyParticipant
alarmclock, what happens when the formulas contradict each other or don’t line up. My case is a property that my knife hand has been contemplating while the other hand holds it back.
Formula #1 median 68k x 3 = 204k
Formula #2 rent 1800 x 150=270k
Formula #3 built in 2003 so it’s hard to tell the 2001 but 03 was 265k and early 06 was 450kMy gut tells me that 245k is a balanced price, about 15% less than the bank has it listed at. 2000 sq, 4/3 pretty much a median home for the area.
I use a formula for the balanced price as the rent vs the P&I using 0 down but not counting PMI because the 0 down is only for the formula, when they match, it’s even. I base it only on psychology, when people can buy for the same as rent plus taxes and insurance, they will buy (taking market psychology out of it). Taxes, insurance and maintenance are roughly offset by the tax deduction, the interest on their downpayment had it stayed in the bank will reduce the P&I in an equal amount so that’s a draw. Here’s how it fleshes out using the above scenario. All number are rounded.
borrowing 245k at 6% is 1500, hoa takes it to 1600. Borrowing 450k at 6% is 2700 (2800 w/hoa). So at 450k it was overvalued, at 245 it is undervalued or close to value. Add in hoa, taxes and insurance and it is 2k a month, factor the tax deduction and it is cheaper than rent or rent nuetral. The variables are obviously the wild card in any formula, R/E can overshoot and undershoot, there are no guarantees in life but rent nuetral is a pretty safe play. Rent vs buy is the biggest question any buyer asks themself. Should I rent for 1800 or buy for 2800, if the answer is buy, you were wrong and it results in a repo. When it gets to should I rent for 1800 or buy for 1500 (2k out the door) and get a tax deduction so it’s the same or cheaper to buy, then buy they will, maybe not now while the media is trashing the market but ultimately they will return, as will I. The trick that I haven’t figured out is how long to wait and my own formulas that prevented me at 450k aren’t convincing me at 245k because every week they drop further and like the FB’s were seduced by the ever increasing prices that made they feel they couldn’t lose, I am seduced by the constant reductions that make me feel at some point houses will be free.

January 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM #127415temeculaguyParticipant
alarmclock, what happens when the formulas contradict each other or don’t line up. My case is a property that my knife hand has been contemplating while the other hand holds it back.
Formula #1 median 68k x 3 = 204k
Formula #2 rent 1800 x 150=270k
Formula #3 built in 2003 so it’s hard to tell the 2001 but 03 was 265k and early 06 was 450kMy gut tells me that 245k is a balanced price, about 15% less than the bank has it listed at. 2000 sq, 4/3 pretty much a median home for the area.
I use a formula for the balanced price as the rent vs the P&I using 0 down but not counting PMI because the 0 down is only for the formula, when they match, it’s even. I base it only on psychology, when people can buy for the same as rent plus taxes and insurance, they will buy (taking market psychology out of it). Taxes, insurance and maintenance are roughly offset by the tax deduction, the interest on their downpayment had it stayed in the bank will reduce the P&I in an equal amount so that’s a draw. Here’s how it fleshes out using the above scenario. All number are rounded.
borrowing 245k at 6% is 1500, hoa takes it to 1600. Borrowing 450k at 6% is 2700 (2800 w/hoa). So at 450k it was overvalued, at 245 it is undervalued or close to value. Add in hoa, taxes and insurance and it is 2k a month, factor the tax deduction and it is cheaper than rent or rent nuetral. The variables are obviously the wild card in any formula, R/E can overshoot and undershoot, there are no guarantees in life but rent nuetral is a pretty safe play. Rent vs buy is the biggest question any buyer asks themself. Should I rent for 1800 or buy for 2800, if the answer is buy, you were wrong and it results in a repo. When it gets to should I rent for 1800 or buy for 1500 (2k out the door) and get a tax deduction so it’s the same or cheaper to buy, then buy they will, maybe not now while the media is trashing the market but ultimately they will return, as will I. The trick that I haven’t figured out is how long to wait and my own formulas that prevented me at 450k aren’t convincing me at 245k because every week they drop further and like the FB’s were seduced by the ever increasing prices that made they feel they couldn’t lose, I am seduced by the constant reductions that make me feel at some point houses will be free.

January 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM #127439temeculaguyParticipant
alarmclock, what happens when the formulas contradict each other or don’t line up. My case is a property that my knife hand has been contemplating while the other hand holds it back.
Formula #1 median 68k x 3 = 204k
Formula #2 rent 1800 x 150=270k
Formula #3 built in 2003 so it’s hard to tell the 2001 but 03 was 265k and early 06 was 450kMy gut tells me that 245k is a balanced price, about 15% less than the bank has it listed at. 2000 sq, 4/3 pretty much a median home for the area.
I use a formula for the balanced price as the rent vs the P&I using 0 down but not counting PMI because the 0 down is only for the formula, when they match, it’s even. I base it only on psychology, when people can buy for the same as rent plus taxes and insurance, they will buy (taking market psychology out of it). Taxes, insurance and maintenance are roughly offset by the tax deduction, the interest on their downpayment had it stayed in the bank will reduce the P&I in an equal amount so that’s a draw. Here’s how it fleshes out using the above scenario. All number are rounded.
borrowing 245k at 6% is 1500, hoa takes it to 1600. Borrowing 450k at 6% is 2700 (2800 w/hoa). So at 450k it was overvalued, at 245 it is undervalued or close to value. Add in hoa, taxes and insurance and it is 2k a month, factor the tax deduction and it is cheaper than rent or rent nuetral. The variables are obviously the wild card in any formula, R/E can overshoot and undershoot, there are no guarantees in life but rent nuetral is a pretty safe play. Rent vs buy is the biggest question any buyer asks themself. Should I rent for 1800 or buy for 2800, if the answer is buy, you were wrong and it results in a repo. When it gets to should I rent for 1800 or buy for 1500 (2k out the door) and get a tax deduction so it’s the same or cheaper to buy, then buy they will, maybe not now while the media is trashing the market but ultimately they will return, as will I. The trick that I haven’t figured out is how long to wait and my own formulas that prevented me at 450k aren’t convincing me at 245k because every week they drop further and like the FB’s were seduced by the ever increasing prices that made they feel they couldn’t lose, I am seduced by the constant reductions that make me feel at some point houses will be free.


January 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM #127321alarmclockParticipant
This does not necessarily apply to this thread, but I see a consistent misunderstanding on these many bubble sites between “the market” and “a residence”. I am not the slightest bit interested in buying “the market”. I am interested in buying a residence. The market is an average of the many residences out there right now. The notsoobvious implication is that, given a large enough sample size, there are residences right now which will not slide any further.
There are numerous ways to estimate a lower bound, I think that you would want to use all methods to see where the price falls
* median house = 3x median salary (If your desired residence is roughly median, use its %ofmedian — this would break down for residences far outside the median)
* 150x (or 180x or 225x or whatever factor is appropriate for the area) equivalent rent
* 1.4x of 1997 pricing (or 1.0 of 2001 pricing, and so on)I think CR has some others.
Also, I was thinkg about trying to find the inflection point for the knife droppers — I have not put a lot of good thought into this so I don’t have an equation yet. 2nd derivative of offer price vs time, multiplied by some factor.

January 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM #127333alarmclockParticipant
This does not necessarily apply to this thread, but I see a consistent misunderstanding on these many bubble sites between “the market” and “a residence”. I am not the slightest bit interested in buying “the market”. I am interested in buying a residence. The market is an average of the many residences out there right now. The notsoobvious implication is that, given a large enough sample size, there are residences right now which will not slide any further.
There are numerous ways to estimate a lower bound, I think that you would want to use all methods to see where the price falls
* median house = 3x median salary (If your desired residence is roughly median, use its %ofmedian — this would break down for residences far outside the median)
* 150x (or 180x or 225x or whatever factor is appropriate for the area) equivalent rent
* 1.4x of 1997 pricing (or 1.0 of 2001 pricing, and so on)I think CR has some others.
Also, I was thinkg about trying to find the inflection point for the knife droppers — I have not put a lot of good thought into this so I don’t have an equation yet. 2nd derivative of offer price vs time, multiplied by some factor.

January 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM #127400alarmclockParticipant
This does not necessarily apply to this thread, but I see a consistent misunderstanding on these many bubble sites between “the market” and “a residence”. I am not the slightest bit interested in buying “the market”. I am interested in buying a residence. The market is an average of the many residences out there right now. The notsoobvious implication is that, given a large enough sample size, there are residences right now which will not slide any further.
There are numerous ways to estimate a lower bound, I think that you would want to use all methods to see where the price falls
* median house = 3x median salary (If your desired residence is roughly median, use its %ofmedian — this would break down for residences far outside the median)
* 150x (or 180x or 225x or whatever factor is appropriate for the area) equivalent rent
* 1.4x of 1997 pricing (or 1.0 of 2001 pricing, and so on)I think CR has some others.
Also, I was thinkg about trying to find the inflection point for the knife droppers — I have not put a lot of good thought into this so I don’t have an equation yet. 2nd derivative of offer price vs time, multiplied by some factor.

January 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM #127424alarmclockParticipant
This does not necessarily apply to this thread, but I see a consistent misunderstanding on these many bubble sites between “the market” and “a residence”. I am not the slightest bit interested in buying “the market”. I am interested in buying a residence. The market is an average of the many residences out there right now. The notsoobvious implication is that, given a large enough sample size, there are residences right now which will not slide any further.
There are numerous ways to estimate a lower bound, I think that you would want to use all methods to see where the price falls
* median house = 3x median salary (If your desired residence is roughly median, use its %ofmedian — this would break down for residences far outside the median)
* 150x (or 180x or 225x or whatever factor is appropriate for the area) equivalent rent
* 1.4x of 1997 pricing (or 1.0 of 2001 pricing, and so on)I think CR has some others.
Also, I was thinkg about trying to find the inflection point for the knife droppers — I have not put a lot of good thought into this so I don’t have an equation yet. 2nd derivative of offer price vs time, multiplied by some factor.

January 2, 2008 at 7:53 AM #127555alarmclockParticipant
Just FYI, the irvine blog posted a similar analysis today: http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/2008/01/02/springflower/
(you have to scroll down to actually get to the meat of the article).He is using an “interestonly” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interestonly payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.

January 2, 2008 at 7:53 AM #127718alarmclockParticipant
Just FYI, the irvine blog posted a similar analysis today: http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/2008/01/02/springflower/
(you have to scroll down to actually get to the meat of the article).He is using an “interestonly” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interestonly payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.

January 2, 2008 at 7:53 AM #127727alarmclockParticipant
Just FYI, the irvine blog posted a similar analysis today: http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/2008/01/02/springflower/
(you have to scroll down to actually get to the meat of the article).He is using an “interestonly” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interestonly payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.

January 2, 2008 at 7:53 AM #127795alarmclockParticipant
Just FYI, the irvine blog posted a similar analysis today: http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/2008/01/02/springflower/
(you have to scroll down to actually get to the meat of the article).He is using an “interestonly” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interestonly payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.

January 2, 2008 at 7:53 AM #127821alarmclockParticipant
Just FYI, the irvine blog posted a similar analysis today: http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/2008/01/02/springflower/
(you have to scroll down to actually get to the meat of the article).He is using an “interestonly” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interestonly payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.


AuthorPosts
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.