Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › surveyor’s ROI spreadsheet
- This topic has 95 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
surveyor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 19, 2008 at 4:36 PM #259113August 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM #258830
Eugene
ParticipantPersonally, I find temeculaguy’s simple formula much easier: if the house price is rent x 100, it is a nobrainer; if it is rent x 125, look really hard; and if it is rent x 150 or above, it is still in its bubble price.
By this logic, a big 4br house in Mira Mesa that would rent for $2000/month is in its bubble price unless it drops to 250k.
Does not compute.
August 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM #259021ParticipantPersonally, I find temeculaguy’s simple formula much easier: if the house price is rent x 100, it is a nobrainer; if it is rent x 125, look really hard; and if it is rent x 150 or above, it is still in its bubble price.
By this logic, a big 4br house in Mira Mesa that would rent for $2000/month is in its bubble price unless it drops to 250k.
Does not compute.
August 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM #259034ParticipantPersonally, I find temeculaguy’s simple formula much easier: if the house price is rent x 100, it is a nobrainer; if it is rent x 125, look really hard; and if it is rent x 150 or above, it is still in its bubble price.
By this logic, a big 4br house in Mira Mesa that would rent for $2000/month is in its bubble price unless it drops to 250k.
Does not compute.
August 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM #259082ParticipantPersonally, I find temeculaguy’s simple formula much easier: if the house price is rent x 100, it is a nobrainer; if it is rent x 125, look really hard; and if it is rent x 150 or above, it is still in its bubble price.
By this logic, a big 4br house in Mira Mesa that would rent for $2000/month is in its bubble price unless it drops to 250k.
Does not compute.
August 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM #259123ParticipantPersonally, I find temeculaguy’s simple formula much easier: if the house price is rent x 100, it is a nobrainer; if it is rent x 125, look really hard; and if it is rent x 150 or above, it is still in its bubble price.
By this logic, a big 4br house in Mira Mesa that would rent for $2000/month is in its bubble price unless it drops to 250k.
Does not compute.
August 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM #258845urbanrealtor
ParticipantI am with Dr. Smith on this.
Dr. Smith was my favorite “lost in space” character.
August 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM #259036ParticipantI am with Dr. Smith on this.
Dr. Smith was my favorite “lost in space” character.
August 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM #259049ParticipantI am with Dr. Smith on this.
Dr. Smith was my favorite “lost in space” character.
August 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM #259097ParticipantI am with Dr. Smith on this.
Dr. Smith was my favorite “lost in space” character.
August 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM #259138ParticipantI am with Dr. Smith on this.
Dr. Smith was my favorite “lost in space” character.
August 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM #258850CA renter
ParticipantWhy can’t the MM house go to $250K?
If local incomes were high enough to afford higher monthly payments, the rents would be higher, no?
I think “price anchoring” has affected everyone — even the bears. Prices in 2005 were nowhere near normal. We need to look at numbers BEFORE the credit bubble (2001 and before) to really understand where prices should be.
Also, “inflation” numbers that focus on costs should not be considered WRT housing appreciation. As costs for other goods go up (especially food, energy, healthcare & other necessities), there is LESS money for housing. All that matters is **income** inflation, and that is not appreciating as fast a cost inflation…that is deflationary for housing.
August 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM #259041ParticipantWhy can’t the MM house go to $250K?
If local incomes were high enough to afford higher monthly payments, the rents would be higher, no?
I think “price anchoring” has affected everyone — even the bears. Prices in 2005 were nowhere near normal. We need to look at numbers BEFORE the credit bubble (2001 and before) to really understand where prices should be.
Also, “inflation” numbers that focus on costs should not be considered WRT housing appreciation. As costs for other goods go up (especially food, energy, healthcare & other necessities), there is LESS money for housing. All that matters is **income** inflation, and that is not appreciating as fast a cost inflation…that is deflationary for housing.
August 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM #259054ParticipantWhy can’t the MM house go to $250K?
If local incomes were high enough to afford higher monthly payments, the rents would be higher, no?
I think “price anchoring” has affected everyone — even the bears. Prices in 2005 were nowhere near normal. We need to look at numbers BEFORE the credit bubble (2001 and before) to really understand where prices should be.
Also, “inflation” numbers that focus on costs should not be considered WRT housing appreciation. As costs for other goods go up (especially food, energy, healthcare & other necessities), there is LESS money for housing. All that matters is **income** inflation, and that is not appreciating as fast a cost inflation…that is deflationary for housing.
August 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM #259102ParticipantWhy can’t the MM house go to $250K?
If local incomes were high enough to afford higher monthly payments, the rents would be higher, no?
I think “price anchoring” has affected everyone — even the bears. Prices in 2005 were nowhere near normal. We need to look at numbers BEFORE the credit bubble (2001 and before) to really understand where prices should be.
Also, “inflation” numbers that focus on costs should not be considered WRT housing appreciation. As costs for other goods go up (especially food, energy, healthcare & other necessities), there is LESS money for housing. All that matters is **income** inflation, and that is not appreciating as fast a cost inflation…that is deflationary for housing.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
