- This topic has 55 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by Doofrat.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 9, 2008 at 5:34 PM #166819March 9, 2008 at 8:31 PM #166452EugeneParticipant
Their numbers imply that San Diego “fundamentals” improved by at least 25% between Q4/03 and Q4/07.
Forgetting to factor out bubble money in incomes, perhaps?
March 9, 2008 at 8:31 PM #166773EugeneParticipantTheir numbers imply that San Diego “fundamentals” improved by at least 25% between Q4/03 and Q4/07.
Forgetting to factor out bubble money in incomes, perhaps?
March 9, 2008 at 8:31 PM #166781EugeneParticipantTheir numbers imply that San Diego “fundamentals” improved by at least 25% between Q4/03 and Q4/07.
Forgetting to factor out bubble money in incomes, perhaps?
March 9, 2008 at 8:31 PM #166812EugeneParticipantTheir numbers imply that San Diego “fundamentals” improved by at least 25% between Q4/03 and Q4/07.
Forgetting to factor out bubble money in incomes, perhaps?
March 9, 2008 at 8:31 PM #166874EugeneParticipantTheir numbers imply that San Diego “fundamentals” improved by at least 25% between Q4/03 and Q4/07.
Forgetting to factor out bubble money in incomes, perhaps?
March 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM #166576DWCAPParticipantRead the whole report, the noise is so high in their signal that they have a 30% error margin. They cant tell the difference between a 575k and a 425k house. 15% on either side of 500k and it is still a fairly valued. Imagine if things fell another 29%. Most people would call that a disaster, they would call it still fairly valued.
March 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM #166894DWCAPParticipantRead the whole report, the noise is so high in their signal that they have a 30% error margin. They cant tell the difference between a 575k and a 425k house. 15% on either side of 500k and it is still a fairly valued. Imagine if things fell another 29%. Most people would call that a disaster, they would call it still fairly valued.
March 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM #166901DWCAPParticipantRead the whole report, the noise is so high in their signal that they have a 30% error margin. They cant tell the difference between a 575k and a 425k house. 15% on either side of 500k and it is still a fairly valued. Imagine if things fell another 29%. Most people would call that a disaster, they would call it still fairly valued.
March 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM #166932DWCAPParticipantRead the whole report, the noise is so high in their signal that they have a 30% error margin. They cant tell the difference between a 575k and a 425k house. 15% on either side of 500k and it is still a fairly valued. Imagine if things fell another 29%. Most people would call that a disaster, they would call it still fairly valued.
March 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM #166993DWCAPParticipantRead the whole report, the noise is so high in their signal that they have a 30% error margin. They cant tell the difference between a 575k and a 425k house. 15% on either side of 500k and it is still a fairly valued. Imagine if things fell another 29%. Most people would call that a disaster, they would call it still fairly valued.
March 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM #166610DoofratParticipantSo the mortgage salesman says it’s a good time to buy based on house prices, Income, and population density? Is that what I’m reading here?
March 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM #166928DoofratParticipantSo the mortgage salesman says it’s a good time to buy based on house prices, Income, and population density? Is that what I’m reading here?
March 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM #166935DoofratParticipantSo the mortgage salesman says it’s a good time to buy based on house prices, Income, and population density? Is that what I’m reading here?
March 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM #166967DoofratParticipantSo the mortgage salesman says it’s a good time to buy based on house prices, Income, and population density? Is that what I’m reading here?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.