[temeculaguy]

[quote=ralphfurley]How’s this? A new high price per sq ft. Can anyone beat this?

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/39781-Sunrose-Dr-92562/home/6210577

“Agents please submit your BEST and FINAL because we almost always have mulitple offers due to the Bank’s special pricing.”

Good luck with ALL that…[/quote]

I don’t know Ralph, I don’ think it’s insanely priced. Price per sq ft isn’t the best measure because of small houses like that one. It’s a 1080 sq ft one story single family residence in what looks like decent shape for 165k. It is kinda condo sized but you can walk to stores and work, it’s close to the freeway and a single person with about 55k income can afford it and you can have a dog. There are a lot of people who have a dog, want a yard but have a condo budget. It’s 2003 price was 216k, so it’s near 2001 pricing and not far from early 1990’s pricing. Those little places that are one step up from condos have buyers, probably rents for 1200-1300, so 165k is fair using any metric, I bet they do have offers.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=ralphfurley]How’s this? A new high price per sq ft. Can anyone beat this?

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/39781-Sunrose-Dr-92562/home/6210577

“Agents please submit your BEST and FINAL because we almost always have mulitple offers due to the Bank’s special pricing.”

Good luck with ALL that…[/quote]

I don’t know Ralph, I don’ think it’s insanely priced. Price per sq ft isn’t the best measure because of small houses like that one. It’s a 1080 sq ft one story single family residence in what looks like decent shape for 165k. It is kinda condo sized but you can walk to stores and work, it’s close to the freeway and a single person with about 55k income can afford it and you can have a dog. There are a lot of people who have a dog, want a yard but have a condo budget. It’s 2003 price was 216k, so it’s near 2001 pricing and not far from early 1990’s pricing. Those little places that are one step up from condos have buyers, probably rents for 1200-1300, so 165k is fair using any metric, I bet they do have offers.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=ralphfurley]How’s this? A new high price per sq ft. Can anyone beat this?

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/39781-Sunrose-Dr-92562/home/6210577

“Agents please submit your BEST and FINAL because we almost always have mulitple offers due to the Bank’s special pricing.”

Good luck with ALL that…[/quote]

I don’t know Ralph, I don’ think it’s insanely priced. Price per sq ft isn’t the best measure because of small houses like that one. It’s a 1080 sq ft one story single family residence in what looks like decent shape for 165k. It is kinda condo sized but you can walk to stores and work, it’s close to the freeway and a single person with about 55k income can afford it and you can have a dog. There are a lot of people who have a dog, want a yard but have a condo budget. It’s 2003 price was 216k, so it’s near 2001 pricing and not far from early 1990’s pricing. Those little places that are one step up from condos have buyers, probably rents for 1200-1300, so 165k is fair using any metric, I bet they do have offers.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=ralphfurley]How’s this? A new high price per sq ft. Can anyone beat this?

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Murrieta/39781-Sunrose-Dr-92562/home/6210577

“Agents please submit your BEST and FINAL because we almost always have mulitple offers due to the Bank’s special pricing.”

Good luck with ALL that…[/quote]

I don’t know Ralph, I don’ think it’s insanely priced. Price per sq ft isn’t the best measure because of small houses like that one. It’s a 1080 sq ft one story single family residence in what looks like decent shape for 165k. It is kinda condo sized but you can walk to stores and work, it’s close to the freeway and a single person with about 55k income can afford it and you can have a dog. There are a lot of people who have a dog, want a yard but have a condo budget. It’s 2003 price was 216k, so it’s near 2001 pricing and not far from early 1990’s pricing. Those little places that are one step up from condos have buyers, probably rents for 1200-1300, so 165k is fair using any metric, I bet they do have offers.

[temeculaguy]

socratt, it’s a just a bet, you look at the odds and you place one. These boards are filled with excellent advice about placing your housing bet in such a way that can increase your odds of winning. But make no mistake, not this year, next year, or a hundred years from now will the risk be eliminated. My theory was just a way to compare towns to their own historical numbers and to give a framework of when you have minimized the risk enough to feel comfortable placing a bet. Buying a house for the value of the materials is one way of minimizing risk, buying one that does not need to appreciate because it is rent neutral is another. But if it gets rent neutral, don’t get worried than rents will go down by some huge percentage, that’s just not a historically significant scenario, thus a risky bet.

Let’s handicap scardeycat’s notion of hyper deflation, of rents at 1/10th of today and of the dollar buying you more as we move forward. All of it can happen but here’s why I say it’s a longshot akin to winning the lottery.

Our currency and the currency of many countries is not backed. No country has had prolonged hyperdeflation. When a society or a currency collapses, there is usually hyperinflation as more money is added to the supply by the printing press (like right now). When times are good, there is inflation, when times are bad there is inflation or stagflation. But when things go to hell, hyperinflation is far more likely than in any other time. Deflation is usually short lived and follows or is followed by inflation. But in the long run, over the decades, there is inflation. Now I’m basing this on a few hundred years of a few hundred cultures, there may be one or two instances of hyperdeflation but I’ve never read about them. I’m not talking a few percent deflation but deflation on the order of 2x to 10x. Deflation that would become an actual factor. Do not confuse this with a particular bubble deflating.

This is not to say it can’t happen, it’s just that there are many more countries than just our own, most with longer histories and if it has never happened before, it’s not a safe bet. I like dinosaurs, I wish they would make a comeback and roam the land again, it could happen but I’m not betting my money on it.

[temeculaguy]

socratt, it’s a just a bet, you look at the odds and you place one. These boards are filled with excellent advice about placing your housing bet in such a way that can increase your odds of winning. But make no mistake, not this year, next year, or a hundred years from now will the risk be eliminated. My theory was just a way to compare towns to their own historical numbers and to give a framework of when you have minimized the risk enough to feel comfortable placing a bet. Buying a house for the value of the materials is one way of minimizing risk, buying one that does not need to appreciate because it is rent neutral is another. But if it gets rent neutral, don’t get worried than rents will go down by some huge percentage, that’s just not a historically significant scenario, thus a risky bet.

Let’s handicap scardeycat’s notion of hyper deflation, of rents at 1/10th of today and of the dollar buying you more as we move forward. All of it can happen but here’s why I say it’s a longshot akin to winning the lottery.

Our currency and the currency of many countries is not backed. No country has had prolonged hyperdeflation. When a society or a currency collapses, there is usually hyperinflation as more money is added to the supply by the printing press (like right now). When times are good, there is inflation, when times are bad there is inflation or stagflation. But when things go to hell, hyperinflation is far more likely than in any other time. Deflation is usually short lived and follows or is followed by inflation. But in the long run, over the decades, there is inflation. Now I’m basing this on a few hundred years of a few hundred cultures, there may be one or two instances of hyperdeflation but I’ve never read about them. I’m not talking a few percent deflation but deflation on the order of 2x to 10x. Deflation that would become an actual factor. Do not confuse this with a particular bubble deflating.

This is not to say it can’t happen, it’s just that there are many more countries than just our own, most with longer histories and if it has never happened before, it’s not a safe bet. I like dinosaurs, I wish they would make a comeback and roam the land again, it could happen but I’m not betting my money on it.

[temeculaguy]

socratt, it’s a just a bet, you look at the odds and you place one. These boards are filled with excellent advice about placing your housing bet in such a way that can increase your odds of winning. But make no mistake, not this year, next year, or a hundred years from now will the risk be eliminated. My theory was just a way to compare towns to their own historical numbers and to give a framework of when you have minimized the risk enough to feel comfortable placing a bet. Buying a house for the value of the materials is one way of minimizing risk, buying one that does not need to appreciate because it is rent neutral is another. But if it gets rent neutral, don’t get worried than rents will go down by some huge percentage, that’s just not a historically significant scenario, thus a risky bet.

Let’s handicap scardeycat’s notion of hyper deflation, of rents at 1/10th of today and of the dollar buying you more as we move forward. All of it can happen but here’s why I say it’s a longshot akin to winning the lottery.

Our currency and the currency of many countries is not backed. No country has had prolonged hyperdeflation. When a society or a currency collapses, there is usually hyperinflation as more money is added to the supply by the printing press (like right now). When times are good, there is inflation, when times are bad there is inflation or stagflation. But when things go to hell, hyperinflation is far more likely than in any other time. Deflation is usually short lived and follows or is followed by inflation. But in the long run, over the decades, there is inflation. Now I’m basing this on a few hundred years of a few hundred cultures, there may be one or two instances of hyperdeflation but I’ve never read about them. I’m not talking a few percent deflation but deflation on the order of 2x to 10x. Deflation that would become an actual factor. Do not confuse this with a particular bubble deflating.

This is not to say it can’t happen, it’s just that there are many more countries than just our own, most with longer histories and if it has never happened before, it’s not a safe bet. I like dinosaurs, I wish they would make a comeback and roam the land again, it could happen but I’m not betting my money on it.

[temeculaguy]

socratt, it’s a just a bet, you look at the odds and you place one. These boards are filled with excellent advice about placing your housing bet in such a way that can increase your odds of winning. But make no mistake, not this year, next year, or a hundred years from now will the risk be eliminated. My theory was just a way to compare towns to their own historical numbers and to give a framework of when you have minimized the risk enough to feel comfortable placing a bet. Buying a house for the value of the materials is one way of minimizing risk, buying one that does not need to appreciate because it is rent neutral is another. But if it gets rent neutral, don’t get worried than rents will go down by some huge percentage, that’s just not a historically significant scenario, thus a risky bet.

Let’s handicap scardeycat’s notion of hyper deflation, of rents at 1/10th of today and of the dollar buying you more as we move forward. All of it can happen but here’s why I say it’s a longshot akin to winning the lottery.

Our currency and the currency of many countries is not backed. No country has had prolonged hyperdeflation. When a society or a currency collapses, there is usually hyperinflation as more money is added to the supply by the printing press (like right now). When times are good, there is inflation, when times are bad there is inflation or stagflation. But when things go to hell, hyperinflation is far more likely than in any other time. Deflation is usually short lived and follows or is followed by inflation. But in the long run, over the decades, there is inflation. Now I’m basing this on a few hundred years of a few hundred cultures, there may be one or two instances of hyperdeflation but I’ve never read about them. I’m not talking a few percent deflation but deflation on the order of 2x to 10x. Deflation that would become an actual factor. Do not confuse this with a particular bubble deflating.

This is not to say it can’t happen, it’s just that there are many more countries than just our own, most with longer histories and if it has never happened before, it’s not a safe bet. I like dinosaurs, I wish they would make a comeback and roam the land again, it could happen but I’m not betting my money on it.

[temeculaguy]

socratt, it’s a just a bet, you look at the odds and you place one. These boards are filled with excellent advice about placing your housing bet in such a way that can increase your odds of winning. But make no mistake, not this year, next year, or a hundred years from now will the risk be eliminated. My theory was just a way to compare towns to their own historical numbers and to give a framework of when you have minimized the risk enough to feel comfortable placing a bet. Buying a house for the value of the materials is one way of minimizing risk, buying one that does not need to appreciate because it is rent neutral is another. But if it gets rent neutral, don’t get worried than rents will go down by some huge percentage, that’s just not a historically significant scenario, thus a risky bet.

Let’s handicap scardeycat’s notion of hyper deflation, of rents at 1/10th of today and of the dollar buying you more as we move forward. All of it can happen but here’s why I say it’s a longshot akin to winning the lottery.

Our currency and the currency of many countries is not backed. No country has had prolonged hyperdeflation. When a society or a currency collapses, there is usually hyperinflation as more money is added to the supply by the printing press (like right now). When times are good, there is inflation, when times are bad there is inflation or stagflation. But when things go to hell, hyperinflation is far more likely than in any other time. Deflation is usually short lived and follows or is followed by inflation. But in the long run, over the decades, there is inflation. Now I’m basing this on a few hundred years of a few hundred cultures, there may be one or two instances of hyperdeflation but I’ve never read about them. I’m not talking a few percent deflation but deflation on the order of 2x to 10x. Deflation that would become an actual factor. Do not confuse this with a particular bubble deflating.

This is not to say it can’t happen, it’s just that there are many more countries than just our own, most with longer histories and if it has never happened before, it’s not a safe bet. I like dinosaurs, I wish they would make a comeback and roam the land again, it could happen but I’m not betting my money on it.

[temeculaguy]

As soon as you release yourself from the mindset that your house is an investment you are free to find financial nirvana. Is renting “throwing money away?” No, but neither is buying. Both are your “housing cost.” When your housing cost is the same to buy or rent, you should buy and lock in a fixed housing cost to hedge inflation. Maybe not this year but over time, inflation has it’s way. If your rent is 2k and you can buy it for under 300k, then do it, in ten years the rent will have risen but the mortgage wont. If your 2k rental costs 400k or 500k, you are throwing money away, not because renting or buying is bad, but because you increased your housing cost too much. Eliminate the potential for appreciation from the equation and you will find clarity.

Case and point: My last rental was $1500, I could have bought it in 2006 when I was first looking to rent for about 375k. Ignoring the fact that it might double in price (which it didn’t) the correct answer is to rent, choosing to rent for half the monthly outlay was the right call. When I moved two months ago I could have bought it for under 175k, if I had wanted that size/style of housing the correct answer would have been to buy at that price because it would have been cheaper or the same price. Up or down in value, my housing cost would go down or stay the same and be locked in.

[temeculaguy]

As soon as you release yourself from the mindset that your house is an investment you are free to find financial nirvana. Is renting “throwing money away?” No, but neither is buying. Both are your “housing cost.” When your housing cost is the same to buy or rent, you should buy and lock in a fixed housing cost to hedge inflation. Maybe not this year but over time, inflation has it’s way. If your rent is 2k and you can buy it for under 300k, then do it, in ten years the rent will have risen but the mortgage wont. If your 2k rental costs 400k or 500k, you are throwing money away, not because renting or buying is bad, but because you increased your housing cost too much. Eliminate the potential for appreciation from the equation and you will find clarity.

Case and point: My last rental was $1500, I could have bought it in 2006 when I was first looking to rent for about 375k. Ignoring the fact that it might double in price (which it didn’t) the correct answer is to rent, choosing to rent for half the monthly outlay was the right call. When I moved two months ago I could have bought it for under 175k, if I had wanted that size/style of housing the correct answer would have been to buy at that price because it would have been cheaper or the same price. Up or down in value, my housing cost would go down or stay the same and be locked in.

[temeculaguy]

As soon as you release yourself from the mindset that your house is an investment you are free to find financial nirvana. Is renting “throwing money away?” No, but neither is buying. Both are your “housing cost.” When your housing cost is the same to buy or rent, you should buy and lock in a fixed housing cost to hedge inflation. Maybe not this year but over time, inflation has it’s way. If your rent is 2k and you can buy it for under 300k, then do it, in ten years the rent will have risen but the mortgage wont. If your 2k rental costs 400k or 500k, you are throwing money away, not because renting or buying is bad, but because you increased your housing cost too much. Eliminate the potential for appreciation from the equation and you will find clarity.

Case and point: My last rental was $1500, I could have bought it in 2006 when I was first looking to rent for about 375k. Ignoring the fact that it might double in price (which it didn’t) the correct answer is to rent, choosing to rent for half the monthly outlay was the right call. When I moved two months ago I could have bought it for under 175k, if I had wanted that size/style of housing the correct answer would have been to buy at that price because it would have been cheaper or the same price. Up or down in value, my housing cost would go down or stay the same and be locked in.

[temeculaguy]

As soon as you release yourself from the mindset that your house is an investment you are free to find financial nirvana. Is renting “throwing money away?” No, but neither is buying. Both are your “housing cost.” When your housing cost is the same to buy or rent, you should buy and lock in a fixed housing cost to hedge inflation. Maybe not this year but over time, inflation has it’s way. If your rent is 2k and you can buy it for under 300k, then do it, in ten years the rent will have risen but the mortgage wont. If your 2k rental costs 400k or 500k, you are throwing money away, not because renting or buying is bad, but because you increased your housing cost too much. Eliminate the potential for appreciation from the equation and you will find clarity.

Case and point: My last rental was $1500, I could have bought it in 2006 when I was first looking to rent for about 375k. Ignoring the fact that it might double in price (which it didn’t) the correct answer is to rent, choosing to rent for half the monthly outlay was the right call. When I moved two months ago I could have bought it for under 175k, if I had wanted that size/style of housing the correct answer would have been to buy at that price because it would have been cheaper or the same price. Up or down in value, my housing cost would go down or stay the same and be locked in.

[temeculaguy]

As soon as you release yourself from the mindset that your house is an investment you are free to find financial nirvana. Is renting “throwing money away?” No, but neither is buying. Both are your “housing cost.” When your housing cost is the same to buy or rent, you should buy and lock in a fixed housing cost to hedge inflation. Maybe not this year but over time, inflation has it’s way. If your rent is 2k and you can buy it for under 300k, then do it, in ten years the rent will have risen but the mortgage wont. If your 2k rental costs 400k or 500k, you are throwing money away, not because renting or buying is bad, but because you increased your housing cost too much. Eliminate the potential for appreciation from the equation and you will find clarity.

Case and point: My last rental was $1500, I could have bought it in 2006 when I was first looking to rent for about 375k. Ignoring the fact that it might double in price (which it didn’t) the correct answer is to rent, choosing to rent for half the monthly outlay was the right call. When I moved two months ago I could have bought it for under 175k, if I had wanted that size/style of housing the correct answer would have been to buy at that price because it would have been cheaper or the same price. Up or down in value, my housing cost would go down or stay the same and be locked in.

[temeculaguy]

I’ll offer a different angle on the Carlsbad $100 a square debate. I paid about $90 a foot for my Temecula palace. I got ten fire insurance quotes and all of them claimed it would cost more than that to rebuild it. So effectively the land has zero value. Building costs can fluctuate but $100 a square is lowball estimate for building costs.

Land and location still has value, it had value in the great depression and it will even in GDII. Even with 25% unemployment, the other 75% would choose to move to nice coastal communities if the prices were the same everywhere, that very fact won;t allow the prices to be the same everywhere, supply and demand still rule the day. WIll coastal N. County go down, ABSOLUTELY!!! Because it hasn;t gone down the same percentage as other areas so it owes the invisible hand about 25%. Will it get to $100 a square with regularity, Hell NO!!!

It will get to 2001 pricing, not 2001 Santee pricing but 2001 pricing for the same house. In 1991 I paid $100 a square in Temecula, when it had two grovery stores and stop signs at the offramps. That was for a small home and sq ft always cost less the larger the home is but to think the fair price for carlsbad is equal to the 1991 Temecula price is absurd. Be prepared to be lucky to get the 2001 price or get a map and pick a new town cause wishing aint gonna do it.

[Author]

Posts