[Rich Toscano]

Here’s the bird’s eye view from Bing:

[img_assist|nid=14726|title=bird’s eye view|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=355]

I’m not seeing anything… it must be temporary. I vote hooker corpse.

[Rich Toscano]

Here’s the bird’s eye view from Bing:

[img_assist|nid=14726|title=bird’s eye view|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=355]

I’m not seeing anything… it must be temporary. I vote hooker corpse.

[Rich Toscano]

Here’s the bird’s eye view from Bing:

[img_assist|nid=14726|title=bird’s eye view|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=355]

I’m not seeing anything… it must be temporary. I vote hooker corpse.

[Rich Toscano]

Here’s the bird’s eye view from Bing:

[img_assist|nid=14726|title=bird’s eye view|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=355]

I’m not seeing anything… it must be temporary. I vote hooker corpse.

[Rich Toscano]

Hi OCR — Thanks for your thoughts! I agree with you, since it’s 2011 rather than 2009 it’s probably better to use 2000 as our “baseline” price. Good to see that this somewhat aligns with real world results.

I think an interest rate based formula would be very interesting, but it would be important that it only get used by long-term buyers. As I opined in that recent article, if you are not a long term buyer you aren’t getting that big a benefit from the low rate, so it’s better to be concerned about prices and ignore rates.

However, for a long term buyer, it’s possible that prices could still be a bit high but rates could be low enough to compensate for that. That’s where your interest rate based formula could come in handy.

So it would be good to have two formulae: one for price-concerned buyers and one for payment-concerned buyers. I’d say the 2000 price plus 50% is probably about right for price. For payments we’d just have to factor in the different in rates between now and then. It’s Friday night and I’m too lazy right now but maybe I will mess around with it at some point.

[Rich Toscano]

Hi OCR — Thanks for your thoughts! I agree with you, since it’s 2011 rather than 2009 it’s probably better to use 2000 as our “baseline” price. Good to see that this somewhat aligns with real world results.

I think an interest rate based formula would be very interesting, but it would be important that it only get used by long-term buyers. As I opined in that recent article, if you are not a long term buyer you aren’t getting that big a benefit from the low rate, so it’s better to be concerned about prices and ignore rates.

However, for a long term buyer, it’s possible that prices could still be a bit high but rates could be low enough to compensate for that. That’s where your interest rate based formula could come in handy.

So it would be good to have two formulae: one for price-concerned buyers and one for payment-concerned buyers. I’d say the 2000 price plus 50% is probably about right for price. For payments we’d just have to factor in the different in rates between now and then. It’s Friday night and I’m too lazy right now but maybe I will mess around with it at some point.

[Rich Toscano]

Hi OCR — Thanks for your thoughts! I agree with you, since it’s 2011 rather than 2009 it’s probably better to use 2000 as our “baseline” price. Good to see that this somewhat aligns with real world results.

I think an interest rate based formula would be very interesting, but it would be important that it only get used by long-term buyers. As I opined in that recent article, if you are not a long term buyer you aren’t getting that big a benefit from the low rate, so it’s better to be concerned about prices and ignore rates.

However, for a long term buyer, it’s possible that prices could still be a bit high but rates could be low enough to compensate for that. That’s where your interest rate based formula could come in handy.

So it would be good to have two formulae: one for price-concerned buyers and one for payment-concerned buyers. I’d say the 2000 price plus 50% is probably about right for price. For payments we’d just have to factor in the different in rates between now and then. It’s Friday night and I’m too lazy right now but maybe I will mess around with it at some point.

[Rich Toscano]

Hi OCR — Thanks for your thoughts! I agree with you, since it’s 2011 rather than 2009 it’s probably better to use 2000 as our “baseline” price. Good to see that this somewhat aligns with real world results.

I think an interest rate based formula would be very interesting, but it would be important that it only get used by long-term buyers. As I opined in that recent article, if you are not a long term buyer you aren’t getting that big a benefit from the low rate, so it’s better to be concerned about prices and ignore rates.

However, for a long term buyer, it’s possible that prices could still be a bit high but rates could be low enough to compensate for that. That’s where your interest rate based formula could come in handy.

So it would be good to have two formulae: one for price-concerned buyers and one for payment-concerned buyers. I’d say the 2000 price plus 50% is probably about right for price. For payments we’d just have to factor in the different in rates between now and then. It’s Friday night and I’m too lazy right now but maybe I will mess around with it at some point.

[Rich Toscano]

Hi OCR — Thanks for your thoughts! I agree with you, since it’s 2011 rather than 2009 it’s probably better to use 2000 as our “baseline” price. Good to see that this somewhat aligns with real world results.

I think an interest rate based formula would be very interesting, but it would be important that it only get used by long-term buyers. As I opined in that recent article, if you are not a long term buyer you aren’t getting that big a benefit from the low rate, so it’s better to be concerned about prices and ignore rates.

However, for a long term buyer, it’s possible that prices could still be a bit high but rates could be low enough to compensate for that. That’s where your interest rate based formula could come in handy.

So it would be good to have two formulae: one for price-concerned buyers and one for payment-concerned buyers. I’d say the 2000 price plus 50% is probably about right for price. For payments we’d just have to factor in the different in rates between now and then. It’s Friday night and I’m too lazy right now but maybe I will mess around with it at some point.

[Rich Toscano]

Thanks Aecetia and JP! I appreciate it…

[Rich Toscano]

Thanks Aecetia and JP! I appreciate it…

[Rich Toscano]

Thanks Aecetia and JP! I appreciate it…

[Rich Toscano]

Thanks Aecetia and JP! I appreciate it…

[Rich Toscano]

Thanks Aecetia and JP! I appreciate it…

[Rich Toscano]

Thanks guys for all the input. The segment was real short so this didn’t actually even come up… but it was an interesting topic nonetheless.

[Author]

Posts