Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=CA renter]If the country (and world economy) wasn’t in such dire straits, interest rates wouldn’t be this low and investors would have more (and better?) investment opportunities that might not be at all related to tech. Nobody knows what it would look like, but I don’t think we’d be seeing these valuations in tech if the economy were better and interest rates were normalized. I could easily be wrong, though.
I prefer to think of myself as an optimistic realist. ;)[/quote]
Do you remember 98-2000? Interest rates were higher and economy was booming. So, you’re right, we won’t be seeing these valuations in tech, we’d be seeing MUCH MUCH higher valuation. Try taking the P/E ratio of tech companies in 2000 and apply it to today’s earning. Let me know what Apple’s market cap would be?ParticipantI’ll believe it when I see it. If it’s not on the table today, I highly doubt we’ll see anything building there in 20 years. Like I said, if it takes 10+ years to build a school on a site that was flatten out and designated for a school, I’m not holding my breath for new development being build on land that currently are not designated for development. BTW, the area you’re talking about is only ~15 minutes away from Temecula. I’m sure we’ll see more development in Temecula than this area.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]There is plenty of land especially in North county, they just don’t want YOU living on it!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577323353434618474.html
Job centers change, once far off bedroom communities become new hi Tech Job centers all the time.
Irvine, Valencia, Carlsbad, ….. Next !!I could add Simi Valley, Arcadia, even Ausaz & Chino hills these days, all it takes is a few enginerds and some office space.[/quote]
What good is all of that land if you can’t build on it? Key word is buildable land, not just land in general. If it can take 10+ years for a school to be built on a piece of land that was designated as a school. I’m not holding my breath for these land to be buildable in the future.ParticipantFirst, I never said appraised value is market value. However, I will say this, lenders ONLY care about appraise value, not market value. You’ve proved this before with a house in your hood that’s sell for more than what the appraiser can appraise it for and the buyer have to come up with the cash difference. This is not a prediction. I’ve seen many appraisal and they ALL gave additional appraised value for the pool. The amount are different between the different appraiser, but they all gave you something.
So, no, you can’t predict appraised or market value, but you can know with 100% certainty that appraiser will give you a few grand (in my previous experiences, it’s $10k+) in appraised value. It doesn’t matter if appraised value are all over the map, it only matter if the one appraisal for your refi. I’ve been in situation where the loan fell through because the appraisal came in 15% below what it should be. The variance of appraised value is irrelevant to the discussion though. My point is that, ALL appraiser will give you some “value” for the pool. If you remove it, you’re essentially removing that value.
So, for example, if you buy the house at appraised value and you remove the pool. The initial appraisal gave you $x,000 value for the pool. Assuming we can remove the variance from appraise value, you can be certain that you won’t have $x,000 value in the new appraisal. Which mean, if rates drop right after you remove the pool, you either have to come up with $x,000 to make up for the difference or you’re SOL for the refi.
Another example would be, your house value went up and you want to cash out. If you remove the pool, your appraisal will be $x,000 less than if you didn’t (from the exact same appraiser at the exact same time). I know this, because they won’t fill in the box that say you have a pool and it increase your appraise value by $x,000. Which means, you won’t be able to cash out as much as if you didn’t remove the pool.
Another example would be, you’re unlucky and got a low appraisal when you try to refi. If you decide to go forward and bring cash to the table at closing, I know for certain that you will have to bring $x,000 more to the table if you remove the pool than if you didn’t remove the pool.
Another example is if you’re trying to sell your house. Lets say you list it at $500k and you got an offer at $500k. If the appraisal came in at $450k, I’m pretty sure if you didn’t remove the pool, it would have been appraised for $450k + $x,000. I’m pretty sure the buyer will most likely want to lower the price down the appraised value. Unless you have a strong buyer that don’t care about appraise value, which, I think is a very small group of buyer.
I can give you many more scenarios where removing the pool will adversely affect your situation and limit your options. But you get the point. It’s not always about market value. Market value is important when you try to sell. However, appraised value is important if you want to refi. Lender won’t care about market value, but buyers will care about appraised value.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Still flawed. What if they buy the house under appraised value? What if the house goes up in value? Over time you will pay down the loan etc. Too many variables to make a blanket statement about refiing in the future.
Pools are an interesting thing and hard to quantify how much value they add to a house. People who want them will pay extra for them. However, the majority of people dont want them so it reduces the demand for houses with pools. There really is no simple answer to how much value a pool adds or not.[/quote]
Not flawed if you want to cash out refi and stay at 80% LTV. Not flawed if you bought and it appraised for the amount you paid for and you already have a max LTV. Not flawed if the house value goes down. Not flawed if the house value stay flat, you paid the original appraised value, demolish the pool and want to refi. There are many scenarios where it would adversely affect you, if you fill in the pool. I never said to never fill in the pool or any blanket statement (at least not intentionally). I was just saying there’s the lost in “equity” when we’re talking about appraised value on top of the cost of the actual removal of the pool and the cost of landscaping after the pool is removed. One would have to weigh the pro & con for themselves to see if it’s worth the cost.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]AN,
I think thats flawed logic. Its about market value not appraised value. In some cases a house is worth more without a pool so removing it would add value.Its also about what you pay for the house. The pool could be preventing the house from selling which is often the case in homes with small yards that are nearly all pool. If you can get it for a price that compensates you for the removal cost it could make sense. The numbers either make sense or they dont.[/quote]
You’re right, that logic only apply if you plan to keep that house for a long time and/or plan to refi before you sell it. Lets say you want to refi, if you demo the pool, then you’re not getting that $10k-ish in appraise value, which mean either you have to bring money to closing, or you can’t refi at all. So, it depends on how much equity you would have in the house and if you plan to refi in the future.Maybe other areas might be different, but for my area, I don’t see houses with a pool selling at $7-8k less than comparable houses without a pool. My area have pretty small yard too, so most pools does take up 60% of the yard. Keep in mind that $7-8k can easily balloon to $10k+ if you run into issue. That doesn’t include the cost of landscaping the new dirt area too, which would be at least a few grand.
ParticipantTime for quadruple down?
ParticipantI got an estimate for doing this and it was around $7-8k. So, you have to decide for yourself, is it worth to spend $7-8k to reduce your equity. When you refi, appraiser will give you around $10k (depending on the size and condition of the pool) in equity for having the pool. So, in essence, you’re “spending” $17-18k to remove the pool (combination of cost and lost of equity). This is the reason why we decide to just keep the pool. Although our two little babies might not use it now, I can see them making good use of it in 5-7 years.
Participant[quote=markmax33]Let’s continue this thought and discuss where operating systems are going in the next 10 years. There won’t be operating systems in 10 years. We will have web enabled network appliances that do everything over the net and these companies that have infrastructure for the online world will have tremendous growth.[/quote]
There won’t be operating systems in 10 years? This statement alone speaks volume about your knowledge. How do you expect those fancy web pages will be displayed on the screen for users to see?Also, comparing ZNGA vs GOOG? Please do tell us, what’s GOOG’s EPS at IPO vs ZNGA’s EPS? ZNGA is probably closer to ARBA than GOOG. B2B was all the rave in .com v1.0. I would bring up Commerce One and Vertical Net too, but at least ARBA still exist today.
Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=flu]Looks like not only is Groupon cratering, like I predicted, but so is Zynga… 10.45 and going down….
It’s close to ipo pricing and probably going below that soon…Splatville here we come.[/quote]Flu – I love how you make predictions with no merit. I just doubled down on ZNGA. If you understood advertising or gaming you would know ZNGA is not a “web stock”. Even my 70 year old father is playing games on his mobile device. LOL @ FLU![/quote]
Ouch, down to $8.80 now. Time for triple down?ParticipantSingle income to lower your agi. Then take your cash and buy a bunch of rentals and claim losses to bring down your agi even further. Contribute to only deductible 401k and ira. Have the stay at home spouse be the property manager of those investment properties.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I fail to see thie problem…..[/quote]
I never said it was a problem. I just find it funny 😀ParticipantTalking about cars, I find this kinda funny:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/16/bmw-owners-twice-as-likely-to-be-adulterers-as-drivers-of-other/ParticipantYou’re right UCGal. Most people consider Sorrento Valley to be 92121 and Mira Mesa to be 92126. As a Mira Mesa native, even I was making this mistake up until a few months ago, when I read about it. So, I’m trying to help them out and spread the correct information. Whether they succeed in reclaiming the commercial side from the people mind set will have to wait and see.
Regardless if they succeed or not though, I don’t think business care whether it’s called Mira Mesa or Sorrento Valley. Mira Mesa Community Planning Group control the entire thing and they will determine what building gets built and where. Since this thread is more about the commercial side than residential side, I don’t think the name matter that much. I was just trying to help fix the the misnomer. Mira Mesa commercial area is much bigger than Rancho Bernardo. So, I would have to assume that if we get another large company head quarter here, it would more likely be in Mira Mesa than Rancho Bernardo.
-
AuthorPosts
