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 “interest-only” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interest-only payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.
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 “interest-only” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interest-only payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.
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 “interest-only” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interest-only payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.
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 “interest-only” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interest-only payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.
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 “interest-only” method — the probably cost if a comparable rent was instead an interest-only payment. He also suggests that the bottom rent multiplier for that area is 160.