[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]sdr, the relative premimum between coastal prices and non-coastal is still much higher than historical average, that is the bottom line. Of course coastal prices are lower than they were during the peak. But still a long way to go whether you want to accept it or not.[/quote]

this is why this is such a perfect time to look for non-coastal premium bargains.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]sdr, the relative premimum between coastal prices and non-coastal is still much higher than historical average, that is the bottom line. Of course coastal prices are lower than they were during the peak. But still a long way to go whether you want to accept it or not.[/quote]

this is why this is such a perfect time to look for non-coastal premium bargains.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[ocrenter]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=temeculaguy]Those judges never changed their math, they were right then, they are probably right now, their formulas didn’t change, the perception of their formulas have. When the likes of sdrealtor and ocrenter both give her a 7, guess what she’s probably a 7, and 7 aint bad. I like a 7, they are more appreciative than a 9 or a 10, but I digress, which is what I’m known for.[/quote]

I actually don’t fully agree with this. Economy is a moving target. So when the facts changed, even if their formula didn’t change, the end result could change. Which judge several years ago predicted the 10% unemployment, the bankrupcy of lehman, GM, AIG, fannie mae and fredie mac? And who predicted the aggressive response by the FED and the congess? The huge amount of the shadow inventory and the government bented in backward with new accounting rules for the to mark-to-fantasy?
We are in uncharted territory and we need new formula. That’s what I am saying.[/quote]

I actually missed TG’s original post. quite classic TG, as always. =)

I suppose I can see carlsbadworker’s point of view. To borrow TG’s example. One could say that because so many of the contestants have augmentations and the plastic surgeons have gotten so good that we need to move that yardstick and judge the 7 differently.

The problem here is location.

If we are talking Vegas, Phoenix, SW Florida, Central Valley, absolutely Carlsbadworker is right. There is no bottom in sight. there is no way you can use the year 2000 payment calculation. inventory is so overwhelming and the economy is so depressed. and quite frankly, a lot of these areas were truly “artificial” as far as their economy goes: The bubble created the homes, the bubble created the jobs, the bubble created the population increase. Once the bubble is gone, what you really have are just wooden framed structures with Chinese drywalls sitting in the middle of swamp land or desert or cow pasture.

You can’t apply that same logic to SD or LA. Even with substained 10% unemployment, there are so many people and the economy is well established enough that there is really not that much room to move that yardstick.

[ocrenter]

the thing with smartphone is everyone wants one, even when you can’t afford it. I overheard someone the other day complaining about not being able to drive down to downtown because her car was not fit for the freeways, someone suggested bus or taxi and she said they were too pricey, meanwhile she’s got a blackberry she was texting away on.

clearly the smartphone is the top priority for folks up and down the socioeconomic ladder.

[ocrenter]

the thing with smartphone is everyone wants one, even when you can’t afford it. I overheard someone the other day complaining about not being able to drive down to downtown because her car was not fit for the freeways, someone suggested bus or taxi and she said they were too pricey, meanwhile she’s got a blackberry she was texting away on.

clearly the smartphone is the top priority for folks up and down the socioeconomic ladder.

[ocrenter]

the thing with smartphone is everyone wants one, even when you can’t afford it. I overheard someone the other day complaining about not being able to drive down to downtown because her car was not fit for the freeways, someone suggested bus or taxi and she said they were too pricey, meanwhile she’s got a blackberry she was texting away on.

clearly the smartphone is the top priority for folks up and down the socioeconomic ladder.

[ocrenter]

the thing with smartphone is everyone wants one, even when you can’t afford it. I overheard someone the other day complaining about not being able to drive down to downtown because her car was not fit for the freeways, someone suggested bus or taxi and she said they were too pricey, meanwhile she’s got a blackberry she was texting away on.

clearly the smartphone is the top priority for folks up and down the socioeconomic ladder.

[ocrenter]

the thing with smartphone is everyone wants one, even when you can’t afford it. I overheard someone the other day complaining about not being able to drive down to downtown because her car was not fit for the freeways, someone suggested bus or taxi and she said they were too pricey, meanwhile she’s got a blackberry she was texting away on.

clearly the smartphone is the top priority for folks up and down the socioeconomic ladder.

[ocrenter]

great price, great location. schools are San Marcos but thats ok as the school district is making real progress.

this is classic case of buying in a newer neighborhood that has a lot of excess inventory and distressed properties. A lot of folks just instinctively look away, that’s when the astute shopper come in.

Don’t know about the quality of CityVenture construction. is the construction luxury class? wall? baseboard? raingutter? insulation?

[ocrenter]

great price, great location. schools are San Marcos but thats ok as the school district is making real progress.

this is classic case of buying in a newer neighborhood that has a lot of excess inventory and distressed properties. A lot of folks just instinctively look away, that’s when the astute shopper come in.

Don’t know about the quality of CityVenture construction. is the construction luxury class? wall? baseboard? raingutter? insulation?

[ocrenter]

great price, great location. schools are San Marcos but thats ok as the school district is making real progress.

this is classic case of buying in a newer neighborhood that has a lot of excess inventory and distressed properties. A lot of folks just instinctively look away, that’s when the astute shopper come in.

Don’t know about the quality of CityVenture construction. is the construction luxury class? wall? baseboard? raingutter? insulation?

[Author]

Posts