Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
drunkle
Participantmarion:
your fundamental is boring. you looking to nest or something?
Participantmarion:
your fundamental is boring. you looking to nest or something?
Participantmarion:
your fundamental is boring. you looking to nest or something?
Participantmarion:
your fundamental is boring. you looking to nest or something?
Participantasian:
sure. and i’m looking for prices to hit where i can responsibly pay the mortgage, save for retirement and still have fun. which is why 2000 is my “fundamental”…
btw, my “fundamental” includes a 4 car garage, 2 acres with beach access and a pool. and a shack to crash in… so it’s cool.
Participantasian:
sure. and i’m looking for prices to hit where i can responsibly pay the mortgage, save for retirement and still have fun. which is why 2000 is my “fundamental”…
btw, my “fundamental” includes a 4 car garage, 2 acres with beach access and a pool. and a shack to crash in… so it’s cool.
Participantasian:
sure. and i’m looking for prices to hit where i can responsibly pay the mortgage, save for retirement and still have fun. which is why 2000 is my “fundamental”…
btw, my “fundamental” includes a 4 car garage, 2 acres with beach access and a pool. and a shack to crash in… so it’s cool.
Participantasian:
sure. and i’m looking for prices to hit where i can responsibly pay the mortgage, save for retirement and still have fun. which is why 2000 is my “fundamental”…
btw, my “fundamental” includes a 4 car garage, 2 acres with beach access and a pool. and a shack to crash in… so it’s cool.
Participantasian:
sure. and i’m looking for prices to hit where i can responsibly pay the mortgage, save for retirement and still have fun. which is why 2000 is my “fundamental”…
btw, my “fundamental” includes a 4 car garage, 2 acres with beach access and a pool. and a shack to crash in… so it’s cool.
Participantasian:
you were making the case:
“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”
to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.
in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.
Participantasian:
you were making the case:
“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”
to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.
in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.
Participantasian:
you were making the case:
“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”
to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.
in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.
Participantasian:
you were making the case:
“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”
to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.
in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.
Participantasian:
you were making the case:
“But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. ”
to which i suggest two reasons why we could break 2003. jobs and the preexisting “bubble”. consider, in the eighties, the prior re bubble was measured in time spanning less than 5 years. from 1997 to 2003, that’s 6 years. but the dot com bubble as noted only lasted 4, from 97 to 01. the greenspan bubble took over from 01 to 05. it was a double bubble.
in other words, i was suggesting why your definition of fundamental could be off. not that “fundamental” in and of itself is somehow wrong.
-
AuthorPosts
