Bay Area #1 and #2 of Best Cities for Home Sellers
Best Cities For Home Sellers – Forbes.com
West coast sellers are faring better. In San Jose, Cailf., No. 1 on our list, tough regulatory measures make it difficult to overbuild. New home construction dropped 63% last year, while jobs grew by 1.2%. Home vacancies, which were already low at 1.6%, fell to a national bottom at 0.8%, helping make San Jose one of the country’s tightest markets.Farther north, San Francisco’s conforming loan limit jumped from $417,000 to the maximum $729,750, which makes getting credit a simpler affair for many of the city’s home buyers. In 2006, the market felt a softening that pushed vacancy rates up to 2.4%, but a 56% cut in construction has cut vacancy rates in half. The increased access to credit, thanks to the new Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM – news – people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE – news – people ) limits, and the lack of available properties plays to sellers’ interests.
[snip]
San Jose and San Francisco came out on top because they fit the profile of a sellers’ market–low inventory rates that were still shrinking, good job creation, a large scale cutback in new home construction and a boost in the credit market from new Fannie and Freddie loan limits.
WOOT! We’re #1! We’re #1! And We’re #2! We’re #2!
More importantly, NY is at #21. TAKE THAT! OH SNAP!
My god I am so amazingly proud to live in the Bay Area. Aren’t you? This place is unstoppable. UNSTOPPABLE.
Next year? We’re going to be #-1 and #0! You read it here first baby!
(Thanks to Burbed reader Jessica for this find.)
April 13th, 2008 at 9:27 am
This is the conclusion drawn by the more substantial and heavy weight sources. There are fundamental, long term factors that support BA prices. My general advices are:
1. Don’t kid yourself. There’s no evidence to substantitate that lower prics are coming to the RBA.
2. Don’t do your own data analysis if you’re an amateur.
3. Look for ways to get into the market. Hedge yourself against inflation — Don’t wait until higher rental prices take shape. Be proactive rather than reactive!
April 13th, 2008 at 9:29 am
One more thing. Don’t count on Pralay to be there to offer sentimental support when the next price squeeze comes. People like these will drop off and may no longer be heard from again.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am
And here he comes…yes, better buy quick, just disregard the small fact that houses are still overpriced by 40%…even in the “Real Bay Area.” Fundamentals? Who needs them. Current price levels? Ah, who needs them. Just think google stock, oh wait…
April 13th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“2. Don’t do your own data analysis if you’re an amateur.”
No, be sure to depend on realtors, who must have at least a high school education and two weeks of intensive training.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Lionel,
>>No, be sure to depend on realtors, who must have at least a high school education and two weeks of intensive training.
Right, it must be a bunch of realtors who write for Forbes.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
>>just disregard the small fact that houses are still overpriced by 40%
You can have your opinion, but the market will demonstrate otherwise.
As with any investment, you don’t just look at what something costs you. You look at what it will be worth in the future, say 10 years down the road. By that measure RBA houses are still significantly under priced.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:26 am
By that measure RBA houses are still significantly under priced.
———
This is the funniest statement of Sunday. And what kind data do you have to support that?
April 13th, 2008 at 10:29 am
1. Don’t kid yourself. There’s no evidence to substantitate that lower prics are coming to the RBA.
2. Don’t do your own data analysis if you’re an amateur.
3. Look for ways to get into the market. Hedge yourself against inflation — Don’t wait until higher rental prices take shape. Be proactive rather than reactive!
———–
RealEstater The Fake Hitech Guy,
If you are honestly faking yourself as hitech guy, can you just make some honest effort to not look like a cheap real estate agents with cheap sales pitch?
April 13th, 2008 at 10:35 am
>>This is the funniest statement of Sunday. And what kind data do you have to support that?
Of course. On the average prices in the Bay Area doubles every 10 years. It’s been only happening for the last 50 years!
April 13th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Right, it must be a bunch of realtors who write for Forbes.
———-
Well, this is a comparative ranking with other areas. It only shows that other regions are lot worse off than bay area. In fact 2-3 years down the line, most likely, it will still be true.
However, this article does not prove that today’s housing market is better or same as last year. It does not indicate that the market 2-3 years down the will be as same as today.
RealEstater sounds like a desperate guy who is trying his best to use anything he gets to support his point – even if it is unrelated and does not prove his point in any measure. And then he tags his sales pitch “best time to buy now”.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Of course. On the average prices in the Bay Area doubles every 10 years. It’s been only happening for the last 50 years!
——–
You are sounding like a broken record. Many times it has been shown (with charts and data) that people who bought home in 1989, certainly their price did double in 1998.
And yes I forgot, home price already doubled in last 5 years. That means expect some flat or declining period for next 5 years.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I just saw this ad on the Housing Bubble Blog.
http://www.angryrenter.com/
Maybe there shoul be a site called delusional Realtor?
I googled delusional realtor and came up with over half a million hits- wonder why that is? Could it be that most realtors are delusional? Or that they just believe their own hype? Maybe a combination of both.
In 2005, I sold my home in Fremont. That was the peak and I made a great profit. When I asked my realtor if he thought there was a bubble, he told me: “If everyone believes there’s a bubble, then there will be one.”
I’ve been checking his website every so often and have noticed a steady increase in inventory. He usually only has, at most, 5 for sale and 3 pending.
When I checked his website today, I noticed a huge change. There were 12 for sale homes and 7 pending, a few pending since December.
Do you think he believes there’s a bubble now?
April 13th, 2008 at 10:52 am
People like these will drop off and may no longer be heard from again.
————
Well, in RBA I am already seeing lenders and realtors are going out of business. While driving by last evening I figured that Coldwell-Banker closed down one of their offices in Mathilda@Sunnyvale (near El Camino). It was a pretty big office.
So it seems people in RE industry are dropping off faster than anybody else.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:52 am
waiting_for_the_fall,
Have I ever recommended buying in the East Bay? We’re talking apples and oranges here. Real Bay Area market is quite different.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Have I ever recommended buying in the East Bay? We’re talking apples and oranges here. Real Bay Area market is quite different.
————-
Well, this argument is made for many years from RE industry.
- In 2005 RealEstater would say “California is different. Other states are not good.”
- In early 2007, RealEstater would say “Bay area is different. Other parts of california are not good.”
- Now RealEstater says “RBA is different. East bay is not good.”
Basic theme of the argument remain same, but the region/area changes (shrinks) according to convenience.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am
A little snapshot of the BA’s future from SoCal –
“Richard Shih, who’s been house hunting since 2000, always knew that financial gravity would re-enter this overheated housing market. It has. And he just made an astounding deal. Shih recently paid $336,500 in cash for a house in the 22800 block of Crespi Street in Woodland Hills, a south-of-Ventura Boulevard property valued last May at $855,000.”
April 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am
>>You are sounding like a broken record.
For the record (pun intended), you’re the one who keeps on asking the same questions that’s been taught to you before, therefore you’re just going to get the same consistent answer.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am
>>Well, this argument is made for many years from RE industry.
Why are you putting words in mouth? I’m the most consistent person here. If you had talked to me in 1992 when the market was down, I would’ve told you the same thing I’m telling you today, and you’d be jumping up and down saying the sky is falling as you’re doing now. Some things never change.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:23 am
For the record (pun intended), you’re the one who keeps on asking the same questions that’s been taught to you before, therefore you’re just going to get the same consistent answer.
————
Nope, RE, you were as usual vague and always ran away when data/stat does not support you. Then you come back make sales pitch again just like a broken record.
You gave the example of Madhaus who bought home in 1992. He pointed the market difference between 1989 and 1992. You avoided the whole issue citing an excuse of “housing market is not day trading”. Well, 1989-1992 is NOT day trading.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I’m the most consistent person here.
————-
“If you have to keep reminding people how honest (replace with “consistent”) you are, you are not.”
- Rousseau
Oh, I forgot, you are delusional.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:29 am
If you had talked to me in 1992 when the market was down, I would’ve told you the same thing I’m telling you today, and you’d be jumping up and down saying the sky is falling as you’re doing now.
———–
Ha ha ha!
Is someone saying it is 1992 all over again?
But, you did not mention that you would tell the same thing (“good time to buy now”) in 1989.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:43 am
hey burbed, can you set up another thread for today? This one can be the RealEstater-Pralay cage match and the rest of us can have an actual discussion in another one.
I like facts. Facts means things. I like to compare apples and apples, like median prices or sales volume March 2008 vs March 2007. I like definitions, because they mean things too. I’d like a definition of “Real Bay Area,” because it seems RE thinks anywhere that prices are going down is a junk zip code.
So, is this the Real Bay Area, all others will drop 40%?
– Belmont west of El Camino, near 280
– Cupertino
– Hillsborough
– La Honda
– Los Altos
– Los Gatos
– Menlo Park except junk near EPA
– Monte Serreno
– Mountain View w/Los Altos Schools
– Palo Alto except junk in 94303
– Portola Valley
– Redwood City with Woodside zip code (94063)
– San Carlos near 280
– San Mateo near 280
– San Jose w/ Cupertino schools (95129)
– San Jose/Willow Glen (95125)
– Santa Clara w/Cupertino Schools (although lots of junk)
– Saratoga, except junk in Campbell school dist
– Sunnyvale 94087 except junk in Santa Clara dist
– Woodside
Be sure to let me know when this quantified list of the Real Bay Area shrinks some more.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Pralay, I bought in 1993, we were not competing against many other buyers. Prices down a little from 1992 but similar, and stayed flat until 1995.
We almost bought the house next door to us as an investment property by working directly with the owners adult kids (owners moved to retirement care home). We agreed on a price, then decided against it. Had we scraped together the dough we would have done well. Although maybe not, the buyer paid $20K more (realtor’s commission) and spent more than $100K fixing all the stuff the owners had let go for 40 years, roof, floors, plumbing bathrooms, kitchen. I’m not talking drop-dead makeover, a lot of this was structural. You walk in the house and it doesn’t look any nicer than ours, our sellers redid most of it when they bought from their retirees.
So that $500K “bargain” really cost $630K 12 years ago. Whoops, it didn’t double after all! I’ll accept these places are worth a mil, but they are not worth 1.2 mil unless they’re on oversized lots or have additions.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am
This one can be the RealEstater-Pralay cage match and the rest of us can have an actual discussion in another one.
———
Wasn’t it too bad for RE, because in that case he won’t be able to make sales pitch like post #1.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:57 am
To sum up the discussions on burbed for the past six months:
Parlay: Prices are going lower.
‘tater: Prices are going higher.
Can both of you shut the f up?
April 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Interesting they have San Jose as #1 and SF as number 2. Since this is Forbes they have to take the San Jose region, in total, this includes the entire east side and combine it with the west side- so I would have thought SJ would at least be under SF for that reason alone. The hot areas of SJ are as hot as SF, but you have that east side to deal with.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
o sum up the discussions on burbed for the past six months:
Parlay: Prices are going lower.
‘tater: Prices are going higher.
Can both of you shut the f up?
————
Here comes Captain Obvious posting his OBVIOUS FIRST post – and probably his OBVIOUS LAST post too.
Why don’t contribute and throw some funny comment? I am all for ignoring sales pitch from a real estate agent, but it is obvious that Captain Obvious has no ability to steer his ship in the direction HE WANTS.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
>>You gave the example of Madhaus who bought home in 1992. He pointed the market difference between 1989 and 1992. You avoided the whole issue citing an excuse of “housing market is not day trading”. Well, 1989-1992 is NOT day trading.
I’ve talked about this matter multiple times already. Bookmark it this time.
It does not matter if you bought in 1989 or 1992. At the end of the day, you still end up doubling your money — actually more like tripling in this case. Is there even any point for you to argue???
If Madhaus had bought the house next door, he could’ve made even more money. It doesn’t matter what the fix-up cost was. Same outcome time after time.
April 13th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
If Madhaus had bought the house next door, he could’ve made even more money. It doesn’t matter what the fix-up cost was. Same outcome time after time.
And what outcome would that be? You said prices double every 10 years. We considered buying the house next door in ’96. 12 years later it hasn’t doubled from what it would have cost us to get it comparable to ours.
So if you don’t define “outcome” of course the “outcome” is the “same” “every time.”
Prices were 20-25% higher in this zip from 1989 (peak) to 1991 — I remember the Mercury News map of the price drops, zip by zip. Prices dropped more in 1992.
So increasing what I paid by 33% (which is equivalent of going down 25% from higher cost), the home value would not double from 1989-1999. Sorry. It’s more than doubled now, but that’s 18 years, not 10.
I knew people who bought in ’89 and ’90, they weren’t very happy about things.
This is the equivalent of 1991 now. Wait 2 more years.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
>>You said prices double every 10 years. We considered buying the house next door in ‘96. 12 years later it hasn’t doubled from what it would have cost us to get it comparable to ours.
OK, let me ask you a few questions so that you don’t run around in circles:
1. How much was the house selling for in ’96?
2. What kind of work was need?
3. Is the house in the Cupertino School District?
4. What’s the size of this house?
I’ll figure out the current value, and we’ll see how much you could’ve made.
I
April 13th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
It does not matter if you bought in 1989 or 1992. At the end of the day, you still end up doubling your money — actually more like tripling in this case. Is there even any point for you to argue???
———–
Well, even if it doubled, the guy who bought in 1992 realized that appreciation faster than the guy who bought in 1989. This part you simply refuse to understand (and your are refusing for a reason – because that contradicts your sales pitch “it’s always good time to buy now”).
How do you know it does not matter? Did you talk to some of the owners who bought their home in 1989 (some of them were probably under water for some time – especially who had to sale their homes within next few years for various reasons)? You are generalizing too much and assuming that the every owner who buy home thinks your way.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
>>Well, even if it doubled, the guy who bought in 1992 realized that appreciation faster than the guy who bought in 1989.
And what’s wrong with that? Everyday there are people joining the 401K plan. Some will make more than others. Should someone not join 401K because his colleague who joined last year might make more?
Back to the original point. Both guys will end up making lots of money in the long term, and both of them will come out ahead of the renter.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
And what’s wrong with that? Everyday there are people joining the 401K plan. Some will make more than others. Should someone not join 401K because his colleague who joined last year might make more?
———
You are comparing apple to orange, but I sill would try to make sense from your absurd comparison.
Have you heard about portfolio management? That’s what precisely to do. You just don’t invest and forget about it, right? Once in a while, you figure out the good funds and then move some of your investments into there. Every fund has good growth periods and bad periods. Same way, housing market is certainly not going through good period right now.
BTW, what kind of liability a 401K account has? Foreclosure? Bankruptcy?
April 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Back to the original point. Both guys will end up making lots of money in the long term, and both of them will come out ahead of the renter.
———-
I doubt that was the original point in this thread. You make one more straw man argument.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
>>I doubt that was the original point in this thread. You make one more straw man argument.
That’s my message to you. Invest for the long term, and the return will be there.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
That’s my message to you. Invest for the long term, and the return will be there.
———–
What kind of qualification do you have to provide investment advise? A license for real estate agent?
I thought you are “merely describing CURRENT market condition”! Poor guy!
April 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
>>What kind of qualification do you have to provide investment advise? A license for real estate agent?
Actually, that’s my question to you. As someone who is currently living in a rental and priced out of the market, what qualification do you have to predict anything?
April 13th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Actually, that’s my question to you. As someone who is currently living in a rental and priced out of the market, what qualification do you have to predict anything?
———–
I can predict anything I like. But, unlike you, I don’t make “message for you” kind of stuffs. And that’s why I asked for your qualification – specifically. Because the moment I hear it from you, reminded me Warren Buffett’s quote:
““Beware the glib helper who fills your head with fantasies while he fills his pockets with fees.”
And, unlike you, I don’t make sales pitch.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
RE, I see no reason whatsoever to answer any more questions about my neighborhood when you’ve told us nothing about yours.
Where do you live?
Do you rent or own?
Define the property (size, school district, neighborhood, lot size) and explain why it was a good choice.
How many other properties do you personally own? Where? When did you buy them and how much are they appraised for now? How did you finance them? Did you buy at the peak of the market at any time? (1989-90, 2006, etc) How did that work out for you?
List all properties held over 10 years and prove they doubled within ANY ten year period they were held.
List all your qualifications to discuss real estate as an investment. Include college and graduate degrees as well as professional certifications.
What do you do to make a living? You’ve told you aren’t a real estate agent, but what do you actually do?
Define the Real Bay Area. Be as specific as possible, because people are going to find declining prices once you do so.
I don’t feel like answering any more of your questions until I know a bit more about you.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Madhaus,
My rule of thumb is that you cannot get my Social Security #, the keys to my Porsche, or the password to my bank account, unless you are married to me.
I’d be happy to discuss any substantive issues, but will not share my private information over the internet.
While we’re level setting, let me make two delcarations:
1. I have absolutely no affiliation with Burbed other than as a reader.
2. I am not a realtor, just an average Silicon Valley tech guy.
I guarantee the above two statements with the backing of my personal honor.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Madhaus, regarding your list of the RBA, I don’t think La Honda belongs in there, does it?
But beyond that, personally I think these lists of what the RBA is are something of a folly. The RBA has changed over the years. It used to not include anything in San Mateo county except Menlo Park and Atherton. San Mateo and San Carlos were not included, in the early 90s. The right way to invest in the RBA, in my opinion anyway is to look at the areas that are slightly out of favor at this moment relative to the other areas. that means Campbell is a good investment, now (I really don’t know what you have against Campbell anyway). Campbell is cheaper than San Mateo, and San Mateo doesn’t have good schools either, in fact Campbell Schools are better than San Mateo public schools. There are probably even good areas of Fremont that are good investments now. If a great company with HQ in Fremont emerges, I can guarantee you Fremont will move a notch up on your list.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
WillowGlenner,
The best location is the Peninsula. Living in Cambell restricts your work location to the South Bay more or less. If you work in the upper Peninsula, SF, or most parts of the East Bay, the commute from Campbell will be too far.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Don’t really agree with that RealEstater, because I lived here in the 80s when places like San Carlos were seen as less desirable vs most of the south bay. At that time the thinking was that San Carlos and San Mateo/Belmont etc were too far away from silicon valley. The schools are bad too. Then, probably due to COST (cheaper), some companies started in Belmont, most notably oracle corp, and poof! the RBA now includes San Mateo. Campbell isn’t the top location in the bay area, but it has better schools than most of San Mateo county. Its really more of a matter whether some new company is founded and grows in Campbell. It could easily happen.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
By the way, there is a nice town today that has the same cachet as San Mateo/San Carlos did in the late 80s…. Millbrae. Anybody been to Millbrae? Really nice town, hilly and nice houses there. But you don’t hear it included in RBA, just like San Carlos/San Mateo were not included years ago. But the SF airport was a lure before SJ airport was built out (now SJ is better just in terms of proximity and ease of access), and some other features lured companies to San Mateo county and San Carlos and San Mateo got morphed into RBA. Maybe Millbrae will experience the same effect. Personally I prefer Campbell, for weather and schools.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Hey WG, I should have put Atherton on the list too. But the list isn’t “real,” there is nothing “real” about this RBA silliness, it’s just showing that a certain poster here makes a lot of noise but has little of substance to back any of it up. Notice the refusal to answer a single question with nonsense about SSNs.
As to Campbell as a desireable place to live, there are some nice parts, but there are some truly depressing ones. It seems to have a lot of the drawbacks that the San Jose zips nearby also have: endless tract homes, little character, not much unique about the place. And the whole place is flat (well for that matter, so is Sunnyvale) so it doesn’t even have a “good” section like the Dry Creek Road area in Cambrian. The schools, well, okay, I will have to take your word for it that they’re better than San Mateo’s. I assume they’re better than San Jose’s, too. We never considered Campbell when we were house-hunting, the furthest “downscale” we looked was 95129 (West San Jose, Cupertino schools).
I do agree with your idea about making money by picking the next marginal area that gets hot — but that’s really hard to call. If I had the money and income then that I do now, I would have bought in Emerald Lake (the hilly but relatively underdeveloped neighborhood of Redwood City near 280) back in 1989. I’m sure all the funky old houses have been plowed over and a bunch of McMansions thrown up now. I rented there and loved it, commuting south on 280.
Millbrae and Burlingame are too close to the airport. When the wind shifts, the planes land over your house. There are some beautiful houses in west Burlingame near Hillborough, too.
You said you make money investing in property. Are you cutting back this year, continuing at your usual pace, or buying more? What trends have you noticed?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:03 am
With the shape of the real bay area changing from moment to moment, all I can say is that it would sure suck to buy a house in the Real Bay Area and find that the RBA had shrunk to no longer include it. So my question is, which part of the Real Bay Area is the next to be relegated to the outer darkness of no longer being “special”?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
But the list isn’t “real,” there is nothing “real” about this RBA silliness, it’s just showing that a certain poster here makes a lot of noise but has little of substance to back any of it up.
————–
To be fair, it was Burbed who used term Real Bay Area often (probably invented too) and he has a map for RBA too. But it was more of sarcasm. The funny thing is that someone started arguing very SERIOUSLY based on this sarcasm. It can’t get sillier than that.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am
So my question is, which part of the Real Bay Area is the next to be relegated to the outer darkness of no longer being “special”?
———–
Well, if that happens, it was NEVER part of RBA. You got the wrong map of RBA before buying home.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I am convinced that now is a good time to buy folks.
Cupertino now has 20+ SFH under 1m, even a couple below $700k. Just a couple months before there is probably only 20+ SFH for sale, and I do recall seeing those sub-700 asking in the mid 700 back then.
So come on down and overbid them back to 1m dollars folks!
April 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Cupertino now has 20+ SFH under 1m, even a couple below $700k. Just a couple months before there is probably only 20+ SFH for sale, and I do recall seeing those sub-700 asking in the mid 700 back then.
———–
Either those homes are “undesirable” or they are located in “undesirable area”. Either way, it makes them outside RBA.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I’m sure those Cupertino under-mil SFHs are in Rancho Rinkydinky, and we all know that was NEVER part of the RBA. Pralay, where is this map? We need to shrink it down substantially.
I think when the bubble is all deflated, the RBA will be one block on University Street.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
And yet…
“—Fifty-nine percent think now is a good time to buy. ”
(http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8918410)
That’s > 50%. That makes it a great place for Home Buyers too! Everybody wins!
April 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Pralay, where is this map?
————
Come on! If you Google “Real Bay Area Map”, first thing comes is the Burbed’s map:
http://www.burbed.com/2007/12/17/map-of-the-real-bay-area-investor-free/
But, again, it was a joke. But it seems someone with very low IQ is taking it too seriously.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
That’s > 50%. That makes it a great place for Home Buyers too! Everybody wins!
————-
Or, let it put it this way. 40% is brainwashed by media spin and hysteria. It’s all media’s fault.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
For #54
I mean remaining 40%.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
For #54 I mean remaining 40%.
Fifty Four Forty or Fight!
Say, this will MAKE MORE LAND!
April 15th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Funniest post in this whole thread is when Real Estate cites an article in Forbes as proof that heavyweights support his position
Obviously he doesnt know anything about journalism, or how little mainstream reporters know.
Rest assured, any heavyweights in this arena (or any other) arent talking to Forbes, or at least arent giving anything of value to them.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Just received a report from a local realtor with Alain Pinel. It says that “Here on the Peninsula we’re seeing more multiple-offer situations on desirable, well-priced homes as buyers look each week for new inventory”.
Here are some DOM numbers:
Belmont: 34
Burlingame: 34
Cupertino: 34
Los Altos: 28
Mountain View: 28
Palo Alto: 20
April 16th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Operative word being “well-priced,” which is nebulous to say the least.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Operative word being “well-priced,” which is nebulous to say the least.
————
I love realtors and their trick-words.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
If you don’t trust realtors, go talk to some VCs. Silicon Valley is benefiting from another tech boom. IBM and Itel both reported strong earnings, and more will follow.