Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantFrom a financial perspective this seems almost like a no-brainer, but just in case …
What would it rent for if you decided you didn;t like it after buying ?From a psychological perspective there is no hope for you, anyway 🙂
ParticipantI’d put the FMV of this place (assuming it was in average liveable conditions) in the 350-375K range. Rent would fetch maybe 1700 – 1800 or so.
ParticipantI’d put the FMV of this place (assuming it was in average liveable conditions) in the 350-375K range. Rent would fetch maybe 1700 – 1800 or so.
ParticipantI’d put the FMV of this place (assuming it was in average liveable conditions) in the 350-375K range. Rent would fetch maybe 1700 – 1800 or so.
ParticipantI’d put the FMV of this place (assuming it was in average liveable conditions) in the 350-375K range. Rent would fetch maybe 1700 – 1800 or so.
ParticipantI’d put the FMV of this place (assuming it was in average liveable conditions) in the 350-375K range. Rent would fetch maybe 1700 – 1800 or so.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Well at least it’s better than living in Kansas City or Detroit.
JJ No offence to anyone.
And thanks for at least not comparing TV negatively to Tijuana.[/quote]I agree about IE being better than Detroit. IE may be better than KC, but I wouldn;t put Detoit and KC in the same sentence. KC is an order of magnitude more desirable than Detroit.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Well at least it’s better than living in Kansas City or Detroit.
JJ No offence to anyone.
And thanks for at least not comparing TV negatively to Tijuana.[/quote]I agree about IE being better than Detroit. IE may be better than KC, but I wouldn;t put Detoit and KC in the same sentence. KC is an order of magnitude more desirable than Detroit.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Well at least it’s better than living in Kansas City or Detroit.
JJ No offence to anyone.
And thanks for at least not comparing TV negatively to Tijuana.[/quote]I agree about IE being better than Detroit. IE may be better than KC, but I wouldn;t put Detoit and KC in the same sentence. KC is an order of magnitude more desirable than Detroit.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Well at least it’s better than living in Kansas City or Detroit.
JJ No offence to anyone.
And thanks for at least not comparing TV negatively to Tijuana.[/quote]I agree about IE being better than Detroit. IE may be better than KC, but I wouldn;t put Detoit and KC in the same sentence. KC is an order of magnitude more desirable than Detroit.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Well at least it’s better than living in Kansas City or Detroit.
JJ No offence to anyone.
And thanks for at least not comparing TV negatively to Tijuana.[/quote]I agree about IE being better than Detroit. IE may be better than KC, but I wouldn;t put Detoit and KC in the same sentence. KC is an order of magnitude more desirable than Detroit.
March 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM in reply to: The Internet may not have had the impact we all thought it would on housing #519819Participant“There is a fairly widely held hypothesis that because we can find so much more information online about real estate that the market is more efficient and hence prices should be relatively lower now.”
Regardless of whether the market is efficient or not, I think there is a fundamental flaw in here, and that is the assumption that more efficient means lower prices. A more efficient market would simply respond more immediately to supply and demand. Prices may increase or decrease when this happens.
That said, I think the RE market is signficiantly more efficient than 15 years ago, but still has a long way to go IMO to be as efficient as other capital markets. There are plenty of other factors (including emotional ones) that come into play and probably always will be.
March 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM in reply to: The Internet may not have had the impact we all thought it would on housing #520253Participant“There is a fairly widely held hypothesis that because we can find so much more information online about real estate that the market is more efficient and hence prices should be relatively lower now.”
Regardless of whether the market is efficient or not, I think there is a fundamental flaw in here, and that is the assumption that more efficient means lower prices. A more efficient market would simply respond more immediately to supply and demand. Prices may increase or decrease when this happens.
That said, I think the RE market is signficiantly more efficient than 15 years ago, but still has a long way to go IMO to be as efficient as other capital markets. There are plenty of other factors (including emotional ones) that come into play and probably always will be.
March 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM in reply to: The Internet may not have had the impact we all thought it would on housing #520344Participant“There is a fairly widely held hypothesis that because we can find so much more information online about real estate that the market is more efficient and hence prices should be relatively lower now.”
Regardless of whether the market is efficient or not, I think there is a fundamental flaw in here, and that is the assumption that more efficient means lower prices. A more efficient market would simply respond more immediately to supply and demand. Prices may increase or decrease when this happens.
That said, I think the RE market is signficiantly more efficient than 15 years ago, but still has a long way to go IMO to be as efficient as other capital markets. There are plenty of other factors (including emotional ones) that come into play and probably always will be.
-
AuthorPosts
