Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM in reply to: Fortune Magazine: 10 Worst Real Estate Markets for 2009 #319374December 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM in reply to: Fortune Magazine: 10 Worst Real Estate Markets for 2009 #319728
BGinRB
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]It was already covered in another thread but for those that missed it this is lousy journalism. The median was 350K in November and they are using an annual median which is meaningless. Most of that “projected” 21.1% decline has already occurred. Thats not news.[/quote]
Keep in mind that today’s median is tilted by the elevated volume on the lower end.
What Fortune says is that there will be no bottom for at least another two years. Instead, there will be another drop of 10% (more, since they talk about the annual median).
So, today’s ratio in volume between different parts of the city needs to be maintained.December 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM in reply to: Fortune Magazine: 10 Worst Real Estate Markets for 2009 #319777BGinRB
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]It was already covered in another thread but for those that missed it this is lousy journalism. The median was 350K in November and they are using an annual median which is meaningless. Most of that “projected” 21.1% decline has already occurred. Thats not news.[/quote]
Keep in mind that today’s median is tilted by the elevated volume on the lower end.
What Fortune says is that there will be no bottom for at least another two years. Instead, there will be another drop of 10% (more, since they talk about the annual median).
So, today’s ratio in volume between different parts of the city needs to be maintained.December 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM in reply to: Fortune Magazine: 10 Worst Real Estate Markets for 2009 #319794BGinRB
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]It was already covered in another thread but for those that missed it this is lousy journalism. The median was 350K in November and they are using an annual median which is meaningless. Most of that “projected” 21.1% decline has already occurred. Thats not news.[/quote]
Keep in mind that today’s median is tilted by the elevated volume on the lower end.
What Fortune says is that there will be no bottom for at least another two years. Instead, there will be another drop of 10% (more, since they talk about the annual median).
So, today’s ratio in volume between different parts of the city needs to be maintained.December 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM in reply to: Fortune Magazine: 10 Worst Real Estate Markets for 2009 #319879BGinRB
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]It was already covered in another thread but for those that missed it this is lousy journalism. The median was 350K in November and they are using an annual median which is meaningless. Most of that “projected” 21.1% decline has already occurred. Thats not news.[/quote]
Keep in mind that today’s median is tilted by the elevated volume on the lower end.
What Fortune says is that there will be no bottom for at least another two years. Instead, there will be another drop of 10% (more, since they talk about the annual median).
So, today’s ratio in volume between different parts of the city needs to be maintained.BGinRB
ParticipantI’m helping a friend fill a web developer position. I had few interviews last week. The final three candidates are all willing to go from ~$100K to mid-sixties with 50/50 medical, dental and vision, no 401k and ‘tech guy’ title.
On the flip side, I received $10off when you spend $10 or more @ JCPenney in the mail last week. They know how to get my attention.
BGinRB
ParticipantI’m helping a friend fill a web developer position. I had few interviews last week. The final three candidates are all willing to go from ~$100K to mid-sixties with 50/50 medical, dental and vision, no 401k and ‘tech guy’ title.
On the flip side, I received $10off when you spend $10 or more @ JCPenney in the mail last week. They know how to get my attention.
BGinRB
ParticipantI’m helping a friend fill a web developer position. I had few interviews last week. The final three candidates are all willing to go from ~$100K to mid-sixties with 50/50 medical, dental and vision, no 401k and ‘tech guy’ title.
On the flip side, I received $10off when you spend $10 or more @ JCPenney in the mail last week. They know how to get my attention.
BGinRB
ParticipantI’m helping a friend fill a web developer position. I had few interviews last week. The final three candidates are all willing to go from ~$100K to mid-sixties with 50/50 medical, dental and vision, no 401k and ‘tech guy’ title.
On the flip side, I received $10off when you spend $10 or more @ JCPenney in the mail last week. They know how to get my attention.
BGinRB
ParticipantI’m helping a friend fill a web developer position. I had few interviews last week. The final three candidates are all willing to go from ~$100K to mid-sixties with 50/50 medical, dental and vision, no 401k and ‘tech guy’ title.
On the flip side, I received $10off when you spend $10 or more @ JCPenney in the mail last week. They know how to get my attention.
BGinRB
ParticipantLeverage? For each $ you put in they borrow another $ and ‘invest’ together with yours. At the end of the day the fund pays back the borrowed $ and you get whatever is left.
does that make sense?
BGinRB
ParticipantLeverage? For each $ you put in they borrow another $ and ‘invest’ together with yours. At the end of the day the fund pays back the borrowed $ and you get whatever is left.
does that make sense?
BGinRB
ParticipantLeverage? For each $ you put in they borrow another $ and ‘invest’ together with yours. At the end of the day the fund pays back the borrowed $ and you get whatever is left.
does that make sense?
BGinRB
ParticipantLeverage? For each $ you put in they borrow another $ and ‘invest’ together with yours. At the end of the day the fund pays back the borrowed $ and you get whatever is left.
does that make sense?
BGinRB
ParticipantLeverage? For each $ you put in they borrow another $ and ‘invest’ together with yours. At the end of the day the fund pays back the borrowed $ and you get whatever is left.
does that make sense?
-
AuthorPosts
