Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gverdi
ParticipantThere is a reason for this increase in sales.
February 2008 had 29 days but only 28 days in 2007, hence a
3.5% LONGER sales count for February 2008.Statistically one can assume that for 1 more day in February 2008 we should see a 3.5% INCREASE in sale (over Febr. 2007).
What we are probably reading here is a -0.6% DECREASE in sales (adjusted for longer February) since the number reported was only +2.9%.
I don’t believe the sales will hold up for march ’08.
But who knows how many bulls are out there …ParticipantThere is a reason for this increase in sales.
February 2008 had 29 days but only 28 days in 2007, hence a
3.5% LONGER sales count for February 2008.Statistically one can assume that for 1 more day in February 2008 we should see a 3.5% INCREASE in sale (over Febr. 2007).
What we are probably reading here is a -0.6% DECREASE in sales (adjusted for longer February) since the number reported was only +2.9%.
I don’t believe the sales will hold up for march ’08.
But who knows how many bulls are out there …ParticipantThere is a reason for this increase in sales.
February 2008 had 29 days but only 28 days in 2007, hence a
3.5% LONGER sales count for February 2008.Statistically one can assume that for 1 more day in February 2008 we should see a 3.5% INCREASE in sale (over Febr. 2007).
What we are probably reading here is a -0.6% DECREASE in sales (adjusted for longer February) since the number reported was only +2.9%.
I don’t believe the sales will hold up for march ’08.
But who knows how many bulls are out there …ParticipantThere is a reason for this increase in sales.
February 2008 had 29 days but only 28 days in 2007, hence a
3.5% LONGER sales count for February 2008.Statistically one can assume that for 1 more day in February 2008 we should see a 3.5% INCREASE in sale (over Febr. 2007).
What we are probably reading here is a -0.6% DECREASE in sales (adjusted for longer February) since the number reported was only +2.9%.
I don’t believe the sales will hold up for march ’08.
But who knows how many bulls are out there …November 7, 2007 at 10:05 PM in reply to: How serious is the seller with the bottom of the listing range? #97186ParticipantYou got to make an offer ASAP since I heard that SDG&E will
come next week to re-route the power lines running above the
house and is likely that the seller will raise the price after
that. And also, does the house come with the girl showing up
in the bathroom mirror?J/K.
November 7, 2007 at 10:05 PM in reply to: How serious is the seller with the bottom of the listing range? #97247ParticipantYou got to make an offer ASAP since I heard that SDG&E will
come next week to re-route the power lines running above the
house and is likely that the seller will raise the price after
that. And also, does the house come with the girl showing up
in the bathroom mirror?J/K.
November 7, 2007 at 10:05 PM in reply to: How serious is the seller with the bottom of the listing range? #97258ParticipantYou got to make an offer ASAP since I heard that SDG&E will
come next week to re-route the power lines running above the
house and is likely that the seller will raise the price after
that. And also, does the house come with the girl showing up
in the bathroom mirror?J/K.
November 7, 2007 at 10:05 PM in reply to: How serious is the seller with the bottom of the listing range? #97265ParticipantYou got to make an offer ASAP since I heard that SDG&E will
come next week to re-route the power lines running above the
house and is likely that the seller will raise the price after
that. And also, does the house come with the girl showing up
in the bathroom mirror?J/K.
October 31, 2007 at 12:15 AM in reply to: 10% population in SD county are millionaires (exclude Primary RE)?! #93484ParticipantSomething seems wrong in this study since the numbers of CA millionaires are distribute as such:
23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SCThat leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?
Feels like a paid study showing that moving to CA among SO many millionaires might not be a bad idea even after the latest tragic fires …
October 31, 2007 at 12:15 AM in reply to: 10% population in SD county are millionaires (exclude Primary RE)?! #93519ParticipantSomething seems wrong in this study since the numbers of CA millionaires are distribute as such:
23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SCThat leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?
Feels like a paid study showing that moving to CA among SO many millionaires might not be a bad idea even after the latest tragic fires …
October 31, 2007 at 12:15 AM in reply to: 10% population in SD county are millionaires (exclude Primary RE)?! #93526ParticipantSomething seems wrong in this study since the numbers of CA millionaires are distribute as such:
23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SCThat leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?
Feels like a paid study showing that moving to CA among SO many millionaires might not be a bad idea even after the latest tragic fires …
ParticipantIn the old days for >1.0M you use to get a nice ocean view…
The house and lot are big, but c’mon >1M for a tract house in the middle of what? Penasquitos Canyon?As I said it before we are a long way to the bottom since some idiots are still trying to do a quick flip in this market!
ParticipantReal estate is not an good investment. Buy S&P index funds and
you can do better.But yes, one can speculate with real estate if he’s smart to know when to get in and out.
ParticipantWell, you’re right but we are NOT paid in oil here in US!
-
AuthorPosts
