[ctr70]

Thanks for the input Temeculaguy and Econprof. I have to study the rental market/vacancies in the parts of the Inland Empire and Vegas that I’m looking at. I’m not familar with the loss of the low end renters you are talking about. What about <$100k SFR's in Moreno Valley? Las Vegas right now you can buy for less than it costs to build houses. $80k for a newer blt sfr. Yes it seems to be a 100% tourist reliant area and that's a worry. But I think for the next 10-20-30+ years Las Vegas and Phoenix will continue to get a outflow of people priced out of California & baby boomers retiring from cold states. The same dynamics will happen again. San Diego for example, even after the bust, is STILL not affordable. If you are below $400k for a sfr you are STILL in a dumpy neighborhood with below average schools. Forget about the Bay Area, OC or LA. That will always drive families to look to neighboring states and to look at the inland empire. Phoenix is another area you can buy rental houses for less than it costs to build. For 1/2 or 1/3 the price they were selling at the peak. Both Phoenix and LV are much more business friendly than CA. I've been hearing for 20 years how the anti business climate and taxes of of CA is going to drive out all the people and businesses out. It still hasn't happend. The state has too much going for it with climate, scenery, closest U.S. proximity to the growing Asian powers, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, etc... The lower end SFR prices of San Diego have also stabilized if not risen in the past 12 mos. But the numbers are just not good anywhere in SD for anything. You are buying with the "hope" of future appreciation, which to me is a debatable reason to buy.

[ctr70]

Thanks for the input Temeculaguy and Econprof. I have to study the rental market/vacancies in the parts of the Inland Empire and Vegas that I’m looking at. I’m not familar with the loss of the low end renters you are talking about. What about <$100k SFR's in Moreno Valley? Las Vegas right now you can buy for less than it costs to build houses. $80k for a newer blt sfr. Yes it seems to be a 100% tourist reliant area and that's a worry. But I think for the next 10-20-30+ years Las Vegas and Phoenix will continue to get a outflow of people priced out of California & baby boomers retiring from cold states. The same dynamics will happen again. San Diego for example, even after the bust, is STILL not affordable. If you are below $400k for a sfr you are STILL in a dumpy neighborhood with below average schools. Forget about the Bay Area, OC or LA. That will always drive families to look to neighboring states and to look at the inland empire. Phoenix is another area you can buy rental houses for less than it costs to build. For 1/2 or 1/3 the price they were selling at the peak. Both Phoenix and LV are much more business friendly than CA. I've been hearing for 20 years how the anti business climate and taxes of of CA is going to drive out all the people and businesses out. It still hasn't happend. The state has too much going for it with climate, scenery, closest U.S. proximity to the growing Asian powers, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, etc... The lower end SFR prices of San Diego have also stabilized if not risen in the past 12 mos. But the numbers are just not good anywhere in SD for anything. You are buying with the "hope" of future appreciation, which to me is a debatable reason to buy.

[ctr70]

Thanks Chris for the response. I thought the fall in crude prices was more due to demand destruction from the sharp global recession, not speculators.

Rogers makes the case that is more about supply and demand balance with the commodities themselves. The world has not been investing in metal mines, oil wells, coffee trees, sugar, etc… for a long time. And it takes a lot of time to ramp up (build new mines, coffee trees take 3 years, etc…) commodities and bring on more supply. And of course that coupled with continued big demand from China and other emerging economies. Leeb makes a lot of the same points. And of course both authors lean towards the peak oil arguement.

The reason my interest in a commodities index fund was for looking for a place to put a small percentage of portfolio. The index fund seems like a way to have some money in commodities themselves without having to trade futures of individual commodities.

[ctr70]

Thanks Chris for the response. I thought the fall in crude prices was more due to demand destruction from the sharp global recession, not speculators.

Rogers makes the case that is more about supply and demand balance with the commodities themselves. The world has not been investing in metal mines, oil wells, coffee trees, sugar, etc… for a long time. And it takes a lot of time to ramp up (build new mines, coffee trees take 3 years, etc…) commodities and bring on more supply. And of course that coupled with continued big demand from China and other emerging economies. Leeb makes a lot of the same points. And of course both authors lean towards the peak oil arguement.

The reason my interest in a commodities index fund was for looking for a place to put a small percentage of portfolio. The index fund seems like a way to have some money in commodities themselves without having to trade futures of individual commodities.

[ctr70]

Thanks Chris for the response. I thought the fall in crude prices was more due to demand destruction from the sharp global recession, not speculators.

Rogers makes the case that is more about supply and demand balance with the commodities themselves. The world has not been investing in metal mines, oil wells, coffee trees, sugar, etc… for a long time. And it takes a lot of time to ramp up (build new mines, coffee trees take 3 years, etc…) commodities and bring on more supply. And of course that coupled with continued big demand from China and other emerging economies. Leeb makes a lot of the same points. And of course both authors lean towards the peak oil arguement.

The reason my interest in a commodities index fund was for looking for a place to put a small percentage of portfolio. The index fund seems like a way to have some money in commodities themselves without having to trade futures of individual commodities.

[ctr70]

Thanks Chris for the response. I thought the fall in crude prices was more due to demand destruction from the sharp global recession, not speculators.

Rogers makes the case that is more about supply and demand balance with the commodities themselves. The world has not been investing in metal mines, oil wells, coffee trees, sugar, etc… for a long time. And it takes a lot of time to ramp up (build new mines, coffee trees take 3 years, etc…) commodities and bring on more supply. And of course that coupled with continued big demand from China and other emerging economies. Leeb makes a lot of the same points. And of course both authors lean towards the peak oil arguement.

The reason my interest in a commodities index fund was for looking for a place to put a small percentage of portfolio. The index fund seems like a way to have some money in commodities themselves without having to trade futures of individual commodities.

[ctr70]

Thanks Chris for the response. I thought the fall in crude prices was more due to demand destruction from the sharp global recession, not speculators.

Rogers makes the case that is more about supply and demand balance with the commodities themselves. The world has not been investing in metal mines, oil wells, coffee trees, sugar, etc… for a long time. And it takes a lot of time to ramp up (build new mines, coffee trees take 3 years, etc…) commodities and bring on more supply. And of course that coupled with continued big demand from China and other emerging economies. Leeb makes a lot of the same points. And of course both authors lean towards the peak oil arguement.

The reason my interest in a commodities index fund was for looking for a place to put a small percentage of portfolio. The index fund seems like a way to have some money in commodities themselves without having to trade futures of individual commodities.

[ctr70]

Roubini is a academic and being turned into a God b/c he happened to call the real estate crash (hoocoodanode?). Rogers is a real live INVESTOR who is probably worth hundreds of millions and has been in the market since the late 60’s where he co-founded the Quantum Hedge Fund with George Soros in the 70’s. I think I’ll take Jim Rogers long term track record over the current media darling Rubini.

No bull markets go straight up. They have corrections along the way.

[ctr70]

Roubini is a academic and being turned into a God b/c he happened to call the real estate crash (hoocoodanode?). Rogers is a real live INVESTOR who is probably worth hundreds of millions and has been in the market since the late 60’s where he co-founded the Quantum Hedge Fund with George Soros in the 70’s. I think I’ll take Jim Rogers long term track record over the current media darling Rubini.

No bull markets go straight up. They have corrections along the way.

[ctr70]

Roubini is a academic and being turned into a God b/c he happened to call the real estate crash (hoocoodanode?). Rogers is a real live INVESTOR who is probably worth hundreds of millions and has been in the market since the late 60’s where he co-founded the Quantum Hedge Fund with George Soros in the 70’s. I think I’ll take Jim Rogers long term track record over the current media darling Rubini.

No bull markets go straight up. They have corrections along the way.

[ctr70]

Roubini is a academic and being turned into a God b/c he happened to call the real estate crash (hoocoodanode?). Rogers is a real live INVESTOR who is probably worth hundreds of millions and has been in the market since the late 60’s where he co-founded the Quantum Hedge Fund with George Soros in the 70’s. I think I’ll take Jim Rogers long term track record over the current media darling Rubini.

No bull markets go straight up. They have corrections along the way.

[ctr70]

Roubini is a academic and being turned into a God b/c he happened to call the real estate crash (hoocoodanode?). Rogers is a real live INVESTOR who is probably worth hundreds of millions and has been in the market since the late 60’s where he co-founded the Quantum Hedge Fund with George Soros in the 70’s. I think I’ll take Jim Rogers long term track record over the current media darling Rubini.

No bull markets go straight up. They have corrections along the way.

[ctr70]

It will be interesting if Portland and Seattle get hammered in price as bad as Cali has. They peaked later.

I remember thinking it crazy that Las Vegas and Phoenix had much higher medians than Denver during the height of the bubble. That has corrected itself big time. Denver is back to having a higher median than those 2 towns.

[ctr70]

It will be interesting if Portland and Seattle get hammered in price as bad as Cali has. They peaked later.

I remember thinking it crazy that Las Vegas and Phoenix had much higher medians than Denver during the height of the bubble. That has corrected itself big time. Denver is back to having a higher median than those 2 towns.

[ctr70]

It will be interesting if Portland and Seattle get hammered in price as bad as Cali has. They peaked later.

I remember thinking it crazy that Las Vegas and Phoenix had much higher medians than Denver during the height of the bubble. That has corrected itself big time. Denver is back to having a higher median than those 2 towns.

[Author]

Posts