[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I think the answer is obvious.

A few questions to ask yourself
1. What was the purpose of the money put into the CD in the first place ?
2. Is that still the purpose for this money ? If so, find an appropriate institution to provide a reasonable safe return on that money (might be WAMU, might not)
3. Does your mother need any kind of life insurance policy ? Does she need long-term care insurance ? If so, then research and find out what policy she might need and find the best coverage and rates from the Insurance providers out there.
4. What are the odds that her bank, WAMU with which it made sense to have a CD parked a while back, just so happens to offer the best insurance policy that she didn’t know she needed just when her CD matures ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I think the answer is obvious.

A few questions to ask yourself
1. What was the purpose of the money put into the CD in the first place ?
2. Is that still the purpose for this money ? If so, find an appropriate institution to provide a reasonable safe return on that money (might be WAMU, might not)
3. Does your mother need any kind of life insurance policy ? Does she need long-term care insurance ? If so, then research and find out what policy she might need and find the best coverage and rates from the Insurance providers out there.
4. What are the odds that her bank, WAMU with which it made sense to have a CD parked a while back, just so happens to offer the best insurance policy that she didn’t know she needed just when her CD matures ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

AT $53 on the surface it seems like a good deal. With maintenance costs and property tax and insurance, it will cash flow after taxes, maybe $1000 per month.
BUT, what about the opportunity cost of the $53. I could spend $50 on lottery tickets and win $20 Mil.
Plus, prices are likely to decline another 9.43396% in this area, costing me another 5 bucks in future losses.
Why would anyone buy this now when they would be guaranteeing themselves $5 more in losses and passing up the opportunity at $20 Million ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

AT $53 on the surface it seems like a good deal. With maintenance costs and property tax and insurance, it will cash flow after taxes, maybe $1000 per month.
BUT, what about the opportunity cost of the $53. I could spend $50 on lottery tickets and win $20 Mil.
Plus, prices are likely to decline another 9.43396% in this area, costing me another 5 bucks in future losses.
Why would anyone buy this now when they would be guaranteeing themselves $5 more in losses and passing up the opportunity at $20 Million ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

AT $53 on the surface it seems like a good deal. With maintenance costs and property tax and insurance, it will cash flow after taxes, maybe $1000 per month.
BUT, what about the opportunity cost of the $53. I could spend $50 on lottery tickets and win $20 Mil.
Plus, prices are likely to decline another 9.43396% in this area, costing me another 5 bucks in future losses.
Why would anyone buy this now when they would be guaranteeing themselves $5 more in losses and passing up the opportunity at $20 Million ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

AT $53 on the surface it seems like a good deal. With maintenance costs and property tax and insurance, it will cash flow after taxes, maybe $1000 per month.
BUT, what about the opportunity cost of the $53. I could spend $50 on lottery tickets and win $20 Mil.
Plus, prices are likely to decline another 9.43396% in this area, costing me another 5 bucks in future losses.
Why would anyone buy this now when they would be guaranteeing themselves $5 more in losses and passing up the opportunity at $20 Million ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

AT $53 on the surface it seems like a good deal. With maintenance costs and property tax and insurance, it will cash flow after taxes, maybe $1000 per month.
BUT, what about the opportunity cost of the $53. I could spend $50 on lottery tickets and win $20 Mil.
Plus, prices are likely to decline another 9.43396% in this area, costing me another 5 bucks in future losses.
Why would anyone buy this now when they would be guaranteeing themselves $5 more in losses and passing up the opportunity at $20 Million ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

If the houses are otherwise similar (similar upgrades, built around the same time, same size lot, same street, etc) then the smaller house should ALWAYS be more per square foot.

Here’s why :

SFR real estate has two components:
1. Structure
2. Land

In San Diego the Land typically accounts for 30% – 70% or more of the real estate value.

So, let’s do a thought experiment …

Take a plot of land that costs 150K and consider it with a 2500 square foot house. The structure might be worth 375K in its current condition.

Now consider another structure instead, this time 1500 feet. This one is the same quality and make up of the 2500 sf place so in its current condition is worth roughly the same amount per square foot as the larger structure for a total of 225K.

So, the property with 2500 sf house is worth maybe 525 K, whereas the property with the 1500 sf house is worth maybe 375K.
IN per-square-foot terms, the larger property is $210 per sf where the smaller property is $250 per square foot.

All things else being equal, smaller houses are worth more per square foot as long as the land value is greater than Zero.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

If the houses are otherwise similar (similar upgrades, built around the same time, same size lot, same street, etc) then the smaller house should ALWAYS be more per square foot.

Here’s why :

SFR real estate has two components:
1. Structure
2. Land

In San Diego the Land typically accounts for 30% – 70% or more of the real estate value.

So, let’s do a thought experiment …

Take a plot of land that costs 150K and consider it with a 2500 square foot house. The structure might be worth 375K in its current condition.

Now consider another structure instead, this time 1500 feet. This one is the same quality and make up of the 2500 sf place so in its current condition is worth roughly the same amount per square foot as the larger structure for a total of 225K.

So, the property with 2500 sf house is worth maybe 525 K, whereas the property with the 1500 sf house is worth maybe 375K.
IN per-square-foot terms, the larger property is $210 per sf where the smaller property is $250 per square foot.

All things else being equal, smaller houses are worth more per square foot as long as the land value is greater than Zero.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

If the houses are otherwise similar (similar upgrades, built around the same time, same size lot, same street, etc) then the smaller house should ALWAYS be more per square foot.

Here’s why :

SFR real estate has two components:
1. Structure
2. Land

In San Diego the Land typically accounts for 30% – 70% or more of the real estate value.

So, let’s do a thought experiment …

Take a plot of land that costs 150K and consider it with a 2500 square foot house. The structure might be worth 375K in its current condition.

Now consider another structure instead, this time 1500 feet. This one is the same quality and make up of the 2500 sf place so in its current condition is worth roughly the same amount per square foot as the larger structure for a total of 225K.

So, the property with 2500 sf house is worth maybe 525 K, whereas the property with the 1500 sf house is worth maybe 375K.
IN per-square-foot terms, the larger property is $210 per sf where the smaller property is $250 per square foot.

All things else being equal, smaller houses are worth more per square foot as long as the land value is greater than Zero.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

If the houses are otherwise similar (similar upgrades, built around the same time, same size lot, same street, etc) then the smaller house should ALWAYS be more per square foot.

Here’s why :

SFR real estate has two components:
1. Structure
2. Land

In San Diego the Land typically accounts for 30% – 70% or more of the real estate value.

So, let’s do a thought experiment …

Take a plot of land that costs 150K and consider it with a 2500 square foot house. The structure might be worth 375K in its current condition.

Now consider another structure instead, this time 1500 feet. This one is the same quality and make up of the 2500 sf place so in its current condition is worth roughly the same amount per square foot as the larger structure for a total of 225K.

So, the property with 2500 sf house is worth maybe 525 K, whereas the property with the 1500 sf house is worth maybe 375K.
IN per-square-foot terms, the larger property is $210 per sf where the smaller property is $250 per square foot.

All things else being equal, smaller houses are worth more per square foot as long as the land value is greater than Zero.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

If the houses are otherwise similar (similar upgrades, built around the same time, same size lot, same street, etc) then the smaller house should ALWAYS be more per square foot.

Here’s why :

SFR real estate has two components:
1. Structure
2. Land

In San Diego the Land typically accounts for 30% – 70% or more of the real estate value.

So, let’s do a thought experiment …

Take a plot of land that costs 150K and consider it with a 2500 square foot house. The structure might be worth 375K in its current condition.

Now consider another structure instead, this time 1500 feet. This one is the same quality and make up of the 2500 sf place so in its current condition is worth roughly the same amount per square foot as the larger structure for a total of 225K.

So, the property with 2500 sf house is worth maybe 525 K, whereas the property with the 1500 sf house is worth maybe 375K.
IN per-square-foot terms, the larger property is $210 per sf where the smaller property is $250 per square foot.

All things else being equal, smaller houses are worth more per square foot as long as the land value is greater than Zero.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Testing the Edit function …

Once a message receives a reply, the message which was replied to is no longer edit-able.

I think that is probably the intended use of the edit function. Once replaied to why should we be able to edit oour posts.

Otherwise, I can say something stupid like:
“The real estate market in San Diego is NOW at the bottom”

and after people reply to my stupidity, I can’t go back and switch the “W” to a “T” and then call them names for not being able to read.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Testing the Edit function …

Once a message receives a reply, the message which was replied to is no longer edit-able.

I think that is probably the intended use of the edit function. Once replaied to why should we be able to edit oour posts.

Otherwise, I can say something stupid like:
“The real estate market in San Diego is NOW at the bottom”

and after people reply to my stupidity, I can’t go back and switch the “W” to a “T” and then call them names for not being able to read.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Testing the Edit function …

Once a message receives a reply, the message which was replied to is no longer edit-able.

I think that is probably the intended use of the edit function. Once replaied to why should we be able to edit oour posts.

Otherwise, I can say something stupid like:
“The real estate market in San Diego is NOW at the bottom”

and after people reply to my stupidity, I can’t go back and switch the “W” to a “T” and then call them names for not being able to read.

[Author]

Posts