Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
analyst
Participant“Terrified” is an appropriate emotion for somebody wiping out their savings to buy a house, given the current conditions.
Patientrenter has it right. Minimum initial cash into the deal (if you can’t summon the strength to refrain from buying).
This is not idle commentary on my part. All my San Diego property is owned without debt, meaning it is no struggle to hold on to it. I just listed it for sale. My judgment is that in the coming years, mid-market and higher properties will decline in value by an amount significantly greater than the cost of selling it (7 or 8 percent).
Participant“Terrified” is an appropriate emotion for somebody wiping out their savings to buy a house, given the current conditions.
Patientrenter has it right. Minimum initial cash into the deal (if you can’t summon the strength to refrain from buying).
This is not idle commentary on my part. All my San Diego property is owned without debt, meaning it is no struggle to hold on to it. I just listed it for sale. My judgment is that in the coming years, mid-market and higher properties will decline in value by an amount significantly greater than the cost of selling it (7 or 8 percent).
Participant“Terrified” is an appropriate emotion for somebody wiping out their savings to buy a house, given the current conditions.
Patientrenter has it right. Minimum initial cash into the deal (if you can’t summon the strength to refrain from buying).
This is not idle commentary on my part. All my San Diego property is owned without debt, meaning it is no struggle to hold on to it. I just listed it for sale. My judgment is that in the coming years, mid-market and higher properties will decline in value by an amount significantly greater than the cost of selling it (7 or 8 percent).
Participant“Terrified” is an appropriate emotion for somebody wiping out their savings to buy a house, given the current conditions.
Patientrenter has it right. Minimum initial cash into the deal (if you can’t summon the strength to refrain from buying).
This is not idle commentary on my part. All my San Diego property is owned without debt, meaning it is no struggle to hold on to it. I just listed it for sale. My judgment is that in the coming years, mid-market and higher properties will decline in value by an amount significantly greater than the cost of selling it (7 or 8 percent).
Participant[quote=sd_matt]I understand that Plasma is falling by the wayside.
One thing that still draws me to it is that you can view a plasma from wider angles than LCD and LED.
So if I didn’t care about power consumption, heat generation or weight is plasma the way to go?
Does the life expectancy of a new plasma compare to that of a LCD?[/quote]
LCD outsells plasma by a wide margin, but I have not heard that plasma is “falling by the wayside”.
From a pure picture quality point of view, up to now at least, the plasma technology produces a better picture than the LCD technology, and the evidence to date does not suggest any substantial difference in useful life. However, neither has been around long enough to be certain about useful life.
Plasma televisions have two attributes that can be significant problems.
Plasma screens are typically shiny surfaces, LCD screens are typically more of a matte finish. If you have a dark room, like a movie theater, you will like the plasma better. But for a typical living room or family room, light coming in from various directions can result in irritating glare, which the the matte finish of the LCD breaks up. For most rooms not dedicated to theater-style viewing, LCD has been the better choice. Some plasma manufacturers are attempting to give their products anti-glare treatments. I have not seen any of these to judge the effectiveness.
Plasma screens are also known for burning images into the screen if the same image is displayed for extended periods.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]I understand that Plasma is falling by the wayside.
One thing that still draws me to it is that you can view a plasma from wider angles than LCD and LED.
So if I didn’t care about power consumption, heat generation or weight is plasma the way to go?
Does the life expectancy of a new plasma compare to that of a LCD?[/quote]
LCD outsells plasma by a wide margin, but I have not heard that plasma is “falling by the wayside”.
From a pure picture quality point of view, up to now at least, the plasma technology produces a better picture than the LCD technology, and the evidence to date does not suggest any substantial difference in useful life. However, neither has been around long enough to be certain about useful life.
Plasma televisions have two attributes that can be significant problems.
Plasma screens are typically shiny surfaces, LCD screens are typically more of a matte finish. If you have a dark room, like a movie theater, you will like the plasma better. But for a typical living room or family room, light coming in from various directions can result in irritating glare, which the the matte finish of the LCD breaks up. For most rooms not dedicated to theater-style viewing, LCD has been the better choice. Some plasma manufacturers are attempting to give their products anti-glare treatments. I have not seen any of these to judge the effectiveness.
Plasma screens are also known for burning images into the screen if the same image is displayed for extended periods.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]I understand that Plasma is falling by the wayside.
One thing that still draws me to it is that you can view a plasma from wider angles than LCD and LED.
So if I didn’t care about power consumption, heat generation or weight is plasma the way to go?
Does the life expectancy of a new plasma compare to that of a LCD?[/quote]
LCD outsells plasma by a wide margin, but I have not heard that plasma is “falling by the wayside”.
From a pure picture quality point of view, up to now at least, the plasma technology produces a better picture than the LCD technology, and the evidence to date does not suggest any substantial difference in useful life. However, neither has been around long enough to be certain about useful life.
Plasma televisions have two attributes that can be significant problems.
Plasma screens are typically shiny surfaces, LCD screens are typically more of a matte finish. If you have a dark room, like a movie theater, you will like the plasma better. But for a typical living room or family room, light coming in from various directions can result in irritating glare, which the the matte finish of the LCD breaks up. For most rooms not dedicated to theater-style viewing, LCD has been the better choice. Some plasma manufacturers are attempting to give their products anti-glare treatments. I have not seen any of these to judge the effectiveness.
Plasma screens are also known for burning images into the screen if the same image is displayed for extended periods.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]I understand that Plasma is falling by the wayside.
One thing that still draws me to it is that you can view a plasma from wider angles than LCD and LED.
So if I didn’t care about power consumption, heat generation or weight is plasma the way to go?
Does the life expectancy of a new plasma compare to that of a LCD?[/quote]
LCD outsells plasma by a wide margin, but I have not heard that plasma is “falling by the wayside”.
From a pure picture quality point of view, up to now at least, the plasma technology produces a better picture than the LCD technology, and the evidence to date does not suggest any substantial difference in useful life. However, neither has been around long enough to be certain about useful life.
Plasma televisions have two attributes that can be significant problems.
Plasma screens are typically shiny surfaces, LCD screens are typically more of a matte finish. If you have a dark room, like a movie theater, you will like the plasma better. But for a typical living room or family room, light coming in from various directions can result in irritating glare, which the the matte finish of the LCD breaks up. For most rooms not dedicated to theater-style viewing, LCD has been the better choice. Some plasma manufacturers are attempting to give their products anti-glare treatments. I have not seen any of these to judge the effectiveness.
Plasma screens are also known for burning images into the screen if the same image is displayed for extended periods.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]I understand that Plasma is falling by the wayside.
One thing that still draws me to it is that you can view a plasma from wider angles than LCD and LED.
So if I didn’t care about power consumption, heat generation or weight is plasma the way to go?
Does the life expectancy of a new plasma compare to that of a LCD?[/quote]
LCD outsells plasma by a wide margin, but I have not heard that plasma is “falling by the wayside”.
From a pure picture quality point of view, up to now at least, the plasma technology produces a better picture than the LCD technology, and the evidence to date does not suggest any substantial difference in useful life. However, neither has been around long enough to be certain about useful life.
Plasma televisions have two attributes that can be significant problems.
Plasma screens are typically shiny surfaces, LCD screens are typically more of a matte finish. If you have a dark room, like a movie theater, you will like the plasma better. But for a typical living room or family room, light coming in from various directions can result in irritating glare, which the the matte finish of the LCD breaks up. For most rooms not dedicated to theater-style viewing, LCD has been the better choice. Some plasma manufacturers are attempting to give their products anti-glare treatments. I have not seen any of these to judge the effectiveness.
Plasma screens are also known for burning images into the screen if the same image is displayed for extended periods.
ParticipantAfter every California wildfire episode, we hear the sad stories of the people who cannot rebuild their houses because their insurance amount was less than their replacement cost.
A while back, the California Department of Insurance gave all the insurance companies hell for allowing these conditions to exist.
So now, all the insurance companies, not just USAA, are supposed to be trying to prevent “under-insurance”.
Another case of the self-reliant people with a workable plan being constrained by government rules put in place to protect people who can’t take care of themselves.
ParticipantAfter every California wildfire episode, we hear the sad stories of the people who cannot rebuild their houses because their insurance amount was less than their replacement cost.
A while back, the California Department of Insurance gave all the insurance companies hell for allowing these conditions to exist.
So now, all the insurance companies, not just USAA, are supposed to be trying to prevent “under-insurance”.
Another case of the self-reliant people with a workable plan being constrained by government rules put in place to protect people who can’t take care of themselves.
ParticipantAfter every California wildfire episode, we hear the sad stories of the people who cannot rebuild their houses because their insurance amount was less than their replacement cost.
A while back, the California Department of Insurance gave all the insurance companies hell for allowing these conditions to exist.
So now, all the insurance companies, not just USAA, are supposed to be trying to prevent “under-insurance”.
Another case of the self-reliant people with a workable plan being constrained by government rules put in place to protect people who can’t take care of themselves.
ParticipantAfter every California wildfire episode, we hear the sad stories of the people who cannot rebuild their houses because their insurance amount was less than their replacement cost.
A while back, the California Department of Insurance gave all the insurance companies hell for allowing these conditions to exist.
So now, all the insurance companies, not just USAA, are supposed to be trying to prevent “under-insurance”.
Another case of the self-reliant people with a workable plan being constrained by government rules put in place to protect people who can’t take care of themselves.
ParticipantAfter every California wildfire episode, we hear the sad stories of the people who cannot rebuild their houses because their insurance amount was less than their replacement cost.
A while back, the California Department of Insurance gave all the insurance companies hell for allowing these conditions to exist.
So now, all the insurance companies, not just USAA, are supposed to be trying to prevent “under-insurance”.
Another case of the self-reliant people with a workable plan being constrained by government rules put in place to protect people who can’t take care of themselves.
-
AuthorPosts
