Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]Only the Piggs could turn a nice little memorial thread for a fairly remarkable individual into an arguement about chipsets.[/quote]
Yes, he is remarkable and he will be missed by many. Also, AAPL didn’t go down on the news.Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]Maybe I had it wrong, I was thinking that a lot of QCOM’s success was from their chip sets in the IPhone and IPad.
The Kindle fire will not have QCOM chip sets.[/quote]
iPhone/iPad uses Apple’s own proprietary application processor. Only recently, when Apple release the iPhone on Verizon did they use QCOM’s modem chip (just the modem). Wifi only iPad does not have any QCOM chip in it.A lot of QCOM’s success is tied to Android’s success and currently Android have almost 50% market share globally. If WP7 becomes more successful in the future, QCOM will be one of the biggest benefactor too, since the only chip WP7 support is QCOM chip at the current point in time.
ParticipantWhy would AAPL going down be negative for QCOM? If anything, I would say it’s positive for QCOM. If AAPL goes down, that mean WP7 and Android will capture those market share. Currently, WP7 is exclusive QCOM’s chip (both app processor and modem). So, if either of those 2 platforms get more market share from iOS, it would mean more profit for QCOM.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]To each his own . . . you still appear to be “fixated” on the notion that current average sales prices should reflect certain (arbitrary) years’ average sold comparables in EVERY area and it just isn’t so and will never be so. SD County housing stock is too diverse and each of its areas’ is “desirable” to certain subsets of buyers and owners spend a LOT more $$ rehabbing properties in historically “desirable” areas. [/quote]
Not current average sales price. I’m talking about how much a particular house would sell for in the past. You can think of it like an invoice and MRSP price for a car. If a car is hot, you’d be lucky if you get MRSP. If a car is not, you can get below invoice. For a car that’s hot, getting MSRP might make you think you got a good deal, but in reality, you didn’t.Now, if an area has changed w/in the last 10 years, then its historical price wouldn’t matter. I don’t think Point Loma has changed over the last 10-11 years. So, it’s as desirable today as it was 10-11 years ago. Buyers with lots of cash today does what buyers with lots of cash did 10-11 years ago.
[quote=bearishgurl]Buyers with a lot of cash often gravitate to areas which will afford them more privacy, convenience and views (read: “custom” homes on larger-than-std lots). This type of privacy usually can’t be found in a typical tract development.[/quote]
Funny you said this in the same thread as praising the Plum house and dissing the Del Mar house I posted. The PL house sits on a 5k sq-ft lot (i.e. no privacy), have no real view (at least not view from your backyard or from inside your house). While the DM house have both of those features. When I think of custom homes with privacy and view, I think of Rancho Santa Fe, not PL. Anything less than 2 acre isn’t that private. BTW, you forget good schools as well.Participant[quote=jpinpb]BG – Thanks for bringing up the 2000 pricing in relation to location. I have seen very few places along the coast that have seen 2000 prices. (not saying there won’t be some that pop up and that would be more condos/townhouses) There are many more SFR that are seeing 2003 pricing.
Since PL is considered a desireable ZIP and since there were so few NODs (haven’t checked lately) I am surprised to see declines at all, which was the reason I even started this thread in the first place. The declines along the coast have been gradual and for there to be 2003 pricing along the coast w/these interest rates are quite good.
Yes, you can get 2000 pricing in Temecula, Chula Vista, etc. Those areas are not the coast where prices have been very sticky. To get 2003 pricing along the coast that realtors (perhaps not on this blog) have claimed is immune is really saying something. It was only a short few years ago that I remember hearing people say the coast would see little decline in pricing. Others were saying to just wait, it will happen eventually. They are occurring, however slowly and gradually, and on properties that are not fixers.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is disputing that there are places that only see 2003 price thus far. You don’t have to be coastal or expensive/desirable like PL to see that. I’ve shown the same thing happening in Mira Mesa and 4S Ranch. These two are far from PL in term of desirability scale, especially Mira Mesa. Yet, I’m not seeing too many that close below 2003 price as well. I’m sure there are other in land areas that are not as desirable as Point Loma that also are not seeing price much below 2003 price as well. So, I don’t think being coastal or being ultra desirable have much to do with it. Especially since I just shown a property in Del Mar that just closed at 2000 price and it’s not a fixer, not built during the bubble, and are >$1M. I think Del Mar is very desirable. Del Mar have ~6700 household and Point Loma have ~7100 household. Both Point Loma and Del Mar have about 50 something NOD/NOT/REO. So, just because an area is ultra desirable and have low NOD/NOT/REO doesn’t mean you can’t get 2000 pricing.In essence, what you’re really saying is, some areas, you just can’t get good darn deals, and I agree with that. I just disagree with the point that all of those areas are ultra desirable.
Those realtors who claim coastal areas are immune are probably the same realtors who say price will never drop. So, that doesn’t really say much.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that cosmetic improvement such as a kitchen remodel “deserve” to be recouped. Adding square footage or adding a new bath, yes. But, after a decade, a cosmetic remodel is worthless anyway, IMO.
I laugh when I seen ads for stuff on CL that say: paid x and selling for y.[/quote]
I totally agree, which is why I view cosmetic upgrades in the same line of buying a luxury car. It will depreciate and one day become irrelevant and need to be discarded. Those $100k fully loaded M5 will be out dated in 10 years and they can barely fetch a fraction of that. Same can be said with cosmetic upgrades. Appliances break down and become out dated. So it doesn’t matter if they paid $20k-30k, it will depreciate. If anything, it’ll depreciate much faster than your run of the mill appliances, just like those $100k cars depreciate much faster than your $10k-$15k econobox.I agree with sq-ft and bath statement, although they also have their diminishing return as well. Adding a bathroom to a 4/3 or 5/3 house won’t have the same ROI as adding it to a 3/1 or 2/1 house. Same with sq-ft, adding a 1000 sq-ft to a 1000 sq-ft house yield a higher ROI than a 1000 sq-ft to a 2000 sq-ft house, especially if the new 3000 sq-ft house is much larger than anything in the area.
I laugh at those CL posts too. Who cares how much you paid for it, it’s how much those things are worth today.
Talking about used high end appliances and CL, I decided to go CL shopping and see how much these high end appliances go for used just for kicks and giggles:
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/app/2616547527.html
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/ssd/for/2625303525.html
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/app/2629392121.html (how much would it cost to fix?)
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/app/2629778913.html
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/app/2615673701.html
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/esd/app/2604363265.htmlParticipant[quote=bearishgurl]I never stated anywhere that sellers should recoup ALL of their improvements. The “cosmetic improvements” on the subject we’re discussion here claimed in the listing detail to have been completed in the last 3 years. It is obvious that these particular sellers recouped little to NOTHING from any “cosmetic” and other investments they made.[/quote]
This particular example, you’re right, the last buyer recouped little to nothing from the cosmetic upgrades. However, that’s because they overpaid in the first place. If that buyer never existed and the 2003 buyer did the same upgrade, then the sold price would say they recoup most if not all of the cost. You did say it is 20% better than it was in 2003, which mean the upgrade would have 100% ROI, since it sold for 20% above 2003 price without the upgrades.Participant[quote=jpinpb]I personally think 2003 pricing is still high, which is why I started out my post about this property saying it’s still a lot. But it is Point Loma (which is much more desireable than Mira Mesa). And the interest rates are much lower than 2003. And it is highly upgraded. So when you factor in everything, then the price is not too bad. Great deal, no, IMO. But decent price overall.[/quote]
I totally agree 100%. It’s a decent price, just not as good of a deal as the ones you started the thread with. I think those are much better buy, especially the one with the view.Here’s a property in an area where I personally think is more desirable than Point Loma:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000157-14710_Caminito_Porta_Delgada_Del_Mar_CA_92014
I think this is a MUCH better deal, at $75k below its 2000 price. I think that not only is the area more desirable, the house with that view is much more desirable as well.BTW, I never claim MM is as desireable as PL. If it is, I probably wouldn’t have bought here, since it would be too expensive for my taste. PL has always been more desirable than MM though, so the desirable premium has always been there.
It’s not just desirable places like PL that are selling about 2003 price. Here’s one in MM that sold for 10% above 2003: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110036849-8115_Columbus_St_San_Diego_CA_92126 It’s not 20% above 2003 price like the Plum house, but the upgrades are not nearly as extensive as well. Here’s another, this one is in 4S and I’m sure you would agree 4S is not as desirable as Point Loma: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110024115-15009_Cross_Stone_Dr_San_Diego_CA_92127, yet it just closed at 2004 price.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
AN, you’ve still got in your mind that today’s listings should sell for “2000-2001 price” and “2003 price,” irrespective of how much $$ (and owner labor) was spent on improvements since then. Do you think EVERY property in EVERY area in ANY condition should adhere to [certain year] pricing?? Do you think EVERY area fell victim to “don’t-ask, don’t-tell financing?” Don’t you realize that sold prices are all subjective depending on seller investment, possible seller financing or concessions and most importantly, location of property???[/quote]
I think you misunderstood my point. I think 2000-2001 price are darn good deal. 2003 are OK deal. Areas that are hardest hit are areas where you can find a lot of darn good deals. Areas where they didn’t fall victim to “don’t-ask, don’t-tell financing” tend to not have many if any darn good deals. When I say 2000-2001 price, I’m not comparing apples to oranges (i.e. rehab vs non-rehab). I would compare its current condition and current price to how much a house in that condition would sell for in 2000-2001. Which would remove the rehab cost out of the equation.The reality is, some areas are not blessed with darn good deals and there’s nothing we can do about it. But, that doesn’t mean a house selling for 2003 price in those areas would then be considered darn good deals. I would reserve the darn good deal to houses that is selling below their trend line (think undervalue).
Participant[quote=sdcellar]It is a pretty good darn deal, since I doubt most people will do much better. I was x2ing jpinpb based on her general take, not her exact words (and you, of anybody, should care little about exact words).
I’m pretty sure you think you got a pretty good darn deal on your place. The buyer of this place did at least as well as you did.[/quote]
Wrong assumption. I think I got just an OK to a little less than OK deal. If I could get mine at 2001 price, then I would say it’s a pretty good darn deal but I didn’t, unfortunately.Good darn deals are houses that you can get at 2000 price, like the many houses in Temecula/Murrieta/Chula Vista/etc. The high end $1M+ have some good darn deals as well, like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000157-14710_Caminito_Porta_Delgada_Del_Mar_CA_92014
BTW, I wasn’t talking about your and her exact words. I was talking about the general take of good darn deal to decent price overall.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]It IS, for a fully “rehabbed” property in the prime areas of PL.[/quote]I guess that’s where we disagree. It’s a darn good deal at 2000-2001 price. At 2003 price, it’s OK.
[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, there IS a point in discussing the two areas (as it applies to how much to invest in them), AN, because YOU (in essence) stated these sellers overspent in PL. YOU stated that YOU were able to do the job(s) for less in MM but (1) they are not, in actuality, the SAME JOBS, and (2) comparing MM to PL is comparing apples to oranges.[/quote]
No, there isn’t a point in discussing the two area, since you just stated, they’re apples to oranges. It doesn’t matter whether the rehab was done in MM or PL, the labor cost is the same and the material cost is the same. So, again, there’s no point in bring up MM further. What I disagree with is this statement from you:
[quote=bearishgurl]
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2003 owners sunk 100K+ into the property in materials alone in ADDITION to labor costs and sales costs.[/quote]
Do you still think the upgrades cost over $100k in just materials?[quote=bearishgurl]You were RIGHT that these sellers overspent but it is NOT because it was in the “wrong area.” It was because they HAD to sell the property at the “WRONG TIME,” for whatever reason . . . a very unfortunate situation for them but very fortunate for the buyers :=][/quote]I never stated that the sellers overspent, since I don’t know how much they spent on upgrades. I was just disputting your $100k+ in materials statement.
Participant[quote=sdcellar]jpinbp x 2[/quote]
Glad you went from:
[quote=sdcellar]so it actually seems like a pretty darn good deal to me.[/quote]
to agreeing with JP’s point of:
[quote=jpinpb]Great deal, no, IMO. But decent price overall.[/quote]ParticipantEven at $125k improvement cost plus 2003 price and 100% return on improvement investment. It would bring this house back to 2003 price. Are you saying getting 2003 price is a good deal? I don’t. We got side track with the remodeling cost details. So ignore that and tell me who thinks 2003 price is a good deal? There no point in discussing about Mira Mesa in a Point Loma thread.
To me upgrading a house is like buying a luxury car. I expected to lose money but I do it for my own enjoyment.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, You forgot (or don’t realize) that the cooktop/range (I would estimate) is $3000 +/-, even on clearance.[/quote]
You’re right, the oven is $3k, which I’m missing. Another $3k would bring the appliance to $8k-$10k. Still far from $20k.[quote=bearishgurl]AN, can I ask you if you ordered custom “Thomasville” cabinets for your kitchen? And why did you put “$30-$35K” in a “MM tract home” kitchen? I don’t understand why someone would do that in that area.[/quote]I can’t answer your Thomasville question, since I don’t have Thomasville cabinets. But mine is also solid maple. Care to explain what’s so special about Thomasville? Is their maple better somehow? To answer your question why I’d upgraded my kitchen, it’s the same reason why anyone would ever spend any money to upgrade kitchens (i.e. for personal enjoyment).
[quote=bearishgurl]AN, how much of your bath remodel work did you do yourself?
Not trying to diss MM here. I understand everything and have lived in “working-class” areas myself in the past and still do. But why would you invest this kind of money in MM? Do you think you will be able to recoup the cost upon sale??[/quote]
I didn’t do any of the bath remodel myself. I purchase materials, find sub contractors and have them do the labor.
[quote=bearishgurl]I don’t understand why someone would do that in that area.[/quote]
[quote=bearishgurl]I understand everything and have lived in “working-class” areas myself in the past and still do.[/quote]
So, which is it? You don’t understand or you understand everything?BTW, according to closed comps and appraisal, I can tell you I probably recouped about 90-100% of my cost.
You seem you have a very narrow perception of why people do things. Why wouldn’t I want to invest in my home to make it more comfortable/enjoyable to live? Do you think only rich people and expensive houses should make their home enjoyable and customized to their own liking?
-
AuthorPosts
