[peterb]

I see way too much eagerness to buy on this site. And I would have thought it would have been more bearish. The sure sign of a bottom is improving fundementals with a high level of negative sentiment. Many people here are thinking that it’s “so cheap compared to where it was.”… Like that is how the market works. I heard the same thing about a year ago here. And this year the fundementals and outlook, are far worse!!!

So in my estimation, we’re still far away from it.

[peterb]

I see way too much eagerness to buy on this site. And I would have thought it would have been more bearish. The sure sign of a bottom is improving fundementals with a high level of negative sentiment. Many people here are thinking that it’s “so cheap compared to where it was.”… Like that is how the market works. I heard the same thing about a year ago here. And this year the fundementals and outlook, are far worse!!!

So in my estimation, we’re still far away from it.

[peterb]

I see way too much eagerness to buy on this site. And I would have thought it would have been more bearish. The sure sign of a bottom is improving fundementals with a high level of negative sentiment. Many people here are thinking that it’s “so cheap compared to where it was.”… Like that is how the market works. I heard the same thing about a year ago here. And this year the fundementals and outlook, are far worse!!!

So in my estimation, we’re still far away from it.

[peterb]

I see way too much eagerness to buy on this site. And I would have thought it would have been more bearish. The sure sign of a bottom is improving fundementals with a high level of negative sentiment. Many people here are thinking that it’s “so cheap compared to where it was.”… Like that is how the market works. I heard the same thing about a year ago here. And this year the fundementals and outlook, are far worse!!!

So in my estimation, we’re still far away from it.

[peterb]

I see way too much eagerness to buy on this site. And I would have thought it would have been more bearish. The sure sign of a bottom is improving fundementals with a high level of negative sentiment. Many people here are thinking that it’s “so cheap compared to where it was.”… Like that is how the market works. I heard the same thing about a year ago here. And this year the fundementals and outlook, are far worse!!!

So in my estimation, we’re still far away from it.

[peterb]

Sounds like a govt attempt to support a fundementally unsound market in the throws of a correction. And thus creating a short term rally on the way to the bottom. Am I a skeptic?

[peterb]

Sounds like a govt attempt to support a fundementally unsound market in the throws of a correction. And thus creating a short term rally on the way to the bottom. Am I a skeptic?

[peterb]

Sounds like a govt attempt to support a fundementally unsound market in the throws of a correction. And thus creating a short term rally on the way to the bottom. Am I a skeptic?

[peterb]

Sounds like a govt attempt to support a fundementally unsound market in the throws of a correction. And thus creating a short term rally on the way to the bottom. Am I a skeptic?

[peterb]

Sounds like a govt attempt to support a fundementally unsound market in the throws of a correction. And thus creating a short term rally on the way to the bottom. Am I a skeptic?

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[peterb]

This can be stipulated in the CC&R’s.

Two schools of thought.
1) Makes the property more desirable to investors since they can rent their units or occupy it themselves. In this case vacation rental income potential.

2) Some buyers that will want to occupy their units may view this as a negative since vacation renters tend to be rowdier and less considerate than owner/occupants and long term leasee’s. (Public opinion, not mine.)

It has been my experience that buyers in the beach area want to have the option to rent short term. And consider it as a way to pay for the place. FWIW.
I would let the market dictate this. In other words, if these condo’s are in an area that has many vacation rentals, the damage is already done and there’s a kind of standard in place. Kinda like Mission Beach. But if it is the an area that’s not really got many vacation rentals, then I would go with the flow. It can be dangerous to be the odd one out in an area. IMO.

[Author]

Posts