[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[carlsbadworker]

A moody person can change minds a lot, just saying.

[carlsbadworker]

A moody person can change minds a lot, just saying.

[carlsbadworker]

A moody person can change minds a lot, just saying.

[carlsbadworker]

A moody person can change minds a lot, just saying.

[carlsbadworker]

A moody person can change minds a lot, just saying.

[carlsbadworker]

I am actually starting to feel the opposite. I think second-dip is over-rated for now. The institutions are very bullish right now while the individual investors arent’t (according to a survey by American Association of Individual Investors). That hasn’t happened since Q1 2009 before the 60% rally in stock market.
According to Jeremy Graham:
“In October we enter the third year of the Presidential Cycle, the year every Fed except, of course, Volcker’s, helped the incumbent administrations get re-elected. Since 1932, there has never been a serious decline in Year 3. Never! Even the unexpected Korean War caused only a 2% decline. Even when Greenspan ran amok and over-stimulated the first two years instead of cooling the system down – which he did twice, having not suffered enough the first time – he stimulated Year 3 as well. The result was that we entered Year 3 in October 1998 and Year 3 in October 2006 with horribly overpriced markets, and still the market went up, and by a lot. The overpricing in October 1998, by the way, was so bad that our 10-year forecast was down to -1.1%; in October 2006, by a nervewracking coincidence, our 7-year forecast was -1.0%. If the market is 1320 by this coming October, our 7-year forecast will again be -1.0%. (Please hum the Jaws theme here.) Do not think for a second that a very stimulated market will go down in Year 3 just because it’s overpriced … even badly overpriced. So far it has had 19 tries to go down since 1932 and has never pulled it off. We can, of course, hope that this time will be exceptional. Even in the best of times, though, overpricing is only a mild downward pull. Its virtue is that it never quits. Eventually it wears the market back down to fair value.”

[carlsbadworker]

I am actually starting to feel the opposite. I think second-dip is over-rated for now. The institutions are very bullish right now while the individual investors arent’t (according to a survey by American Association of Individual Investors). That hasn’t happened since Q1 2009 before the 60% rally in stock market.
According to Jeremy Graham:
“In October we enter the third year of the Presidential Cycle, the year every Fed except, of course, Volcker’s, helped the incumbent administrations get re-elected. Since 1932, there has never been a serious decline in Year 3. Never! Even the unexpected Korean War caused only a 2% decline. Even when Greenspan ran amok and over-stimulated the first two years instead of cooling the system down – which he did twice, having not suffered enough the first time – he stimulated Year 3 as well. The result was that we entered Year 3 in October 1998 and Year 3 in October 2006 with horribly overpriced markets, and still the market went up, and by a lot. The overpricing in October 1998, by the way, was so bad that our 10-year forecast was down to -1.1%; in October 2006, by a nervewracking coincidence, our 7-year forecast was -1.0%. If the market is 1320 by this coming October, our 7-year forecast will again be -1.0%. (Please hum the Jaws theme here.) Do not think for a second that a very stimulated market will go down in Year 3 just because it’s overpriced … even badly overpriced. So far it has had 19 tries to go down since 1932 and has never pulled it off. We can, of course, hope that this time will be exceptional. Even in the best of times, though, overpricing is only a mild downward pull. Its virtue is that it never quits. Eventually it wears the market back down to fair value.”

[carlsbadworker]

I am actually starting to feel the opposite. I think second-dip is over-rated for now. The institutions are very bullish right now while the individual investors arent’t (according to a survey by American Association of Individual Investors). That hasn’t happened since Q1 2009 before the 60% rally in stock market.
According to Jeremy Graham:
“In October we enter the third year of the Presidential Cycle, the year every Fed except, of course, Volcker’s, helped the incumbent administrations get re-elected. Since 1932, there has never been a serious decline in Year 3. Never! Even the unexpected Korean War caused only a 2% decline. Even when Greenspan ran amok and over-stimulated the first two years instead of cooling the system down – which he did twice, having not suffered enough the first time – he stimulated Year 3 as well. The result was that we entered Year 3 in October 1998 and Year 3 in October 2006 with horribly overpriced markets, and still the market went up, and by a lot. The overpricing in October 1998, by the way, was so bad that our 10-year forecast was down to -1.1%; in October 2006, by a nervewracking coincidence, our 7-year forecast was -1.0%. If the market is 1320 by this coming October, our 7-year forecast will again be -1.0%. (Please hum the Jaws theme here.) Do not think for a second that a very stimulated market will go down in Year 3 just because it’s overpriced … even badly overpriced. So far it has had 19 tries to go down since 1932 and has never pulled it off. We can, of course, hope that this time will be exceptional. Even in the best of times, though, overpricing is only a mild downward pull. Its virtue is that it never quits. Eventually it wears the market back down to fair value.”

[carlsbadworker]

I am actually starting to feel the opposite. I think second-dip is over-rated for now. The institutions are very bullish right now while the individual investors arent’t (according to a survey by American Association of Individual Investors). That hasn’t happened since Q1 2009 before the 60% rally in stock market.
According to Jeremy Graham:
“In October we enter the third year of the Presidential Cycle, the year every Fed except, of course, Volcker’s, helped the incumbent administrations get re-elected. Since 1932, there has never been a serious decline in Year 3. Never! Even the unexpected Korean War caused only a 2% decline. Even when Greenspan ran amok and over-stimulated the first two years instead of cooling the system down – which he did twice, having not suffered enough the first time – he stimulated Year 3 as well. The result was that we entered Year 3 in October 1998 and Year 3 in October 2006 with horribly overpriced markets, and still the market went up, and by a lot. The overpricing in October 1998, by the way, was so bad that our 10-year forecast was down to -1.1%; in October 2006, by a nervewracking coincidence, our 7-year forecast was -1.0%. If the market is 1320 by this coming October, our 7-year forecast will again be -1.0%. (Please hum the Jaws theme here.) Do not think for a second that a very stimulated market will go down in Year 3 just because it’s overpriced … even badly overpriced. So far it has had 19 tries to go down since 1932 and has never pulled it off. We can, of course, hope that this time will be exceptional. Even in the best of times, though, overpricing is only a mild downward pull. Its virtue is that it never quits. Eventually it wears the market back down to fair value.”

[carlsbadworker]

I am actually starting to feel the opposite. I think second-dip is over-rated for now. The institutions are very bullish right now while the individual investors arent’t (according to a survey by American Association of Individual Investors). That hasn’t happened since Q1 2009 before the 60% rally in stock market.
According to Jeremy Graham:
“In October we enter the third year of the Presidential Cycle, the year every Fed except, of course, Volcker’s, helped the incumbent administrations get re-elected. Since 1932, there has never been a serious decline in Year 3. Never! Even the unexpected Korean War caused only a 2% decline. Even when Greenspan ran amok and over-stimulated the first two years instead of cooling the system down – which he did twice, having not suffered enough the first time – he stimulated Year 3 as well. The result was that we entered Year 3 in October 1998 and Year 3 in October 2006 with horribly overpriced markets, and still the market went up, and by a lot. The overpricing in October 1998, by the way, was so bad that our 10-year forecast was down to -1.1%; in October 2006, by a nervewracking coincidence, our 7-year forecast was -1.0%. If the market is 1320 by this coming October, our 7-year forecast will again be -1.0%. (Please hum the Jaws theme here.) Do not think for a second that a very stimulated market will go down in Year 3 just because it’s overpriced … even badly overpriced. So far it has had 19 tries to go down since 1932 and has never pulled it off. We can, of course, hope that this time will be exceptional. Even in the best of times, though, overpricing is only a mild downward pull. Its virtue is that it never quits. Eventually it wears the market back down to fair value.”

[Author]

Posts