Which part of the basic logic is the dumb renter not understanding?

Faux Estater, your logic sucks. Just like your mom.

Assuming buyable inventory is a subset of overall inventory (whatever the fvck this means),

it can still remain stable or go up even if overall inventory drops. Why, you ask?

That’s cuz if the remaining components of overall inventory accounts for (or exceeds) the entire decrease.

Anyway, thank you for your interesting consult. Now pay me $5.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704829704575049111428912890.html?mod=WSJ_HomeAndGarden_sections_RealEstate

Yes, we understand that the title of the SJMN article “In Santa Clara County, sales of luxury homes down in 2009″ is very inconvenient. Posting only the table was definitely clever choice.

With that kind of extraordinary accuracy (whatever that means) you are trying to achieve, I am pretty sure you never going to hit your “sweet spot”. Even if you find one, you will be overbid by fictitious 8 cash offers over $1M (that Clara St property sold below $1M, btw).

Considering the fact that January 2009 was the bottom in RBA, you simply don’t have any chance to find “sweet spot”. You should consider “sweat spot” now.

Define “buyable”. I thought you are an average tech guy (and not an Alain Pinel realtor). A tech guy should be know that you must define the term before applying it.

Currently there are 86 SFH in market in Palo Alto. Please tell us how many of them are not “buyable”.

(Velocity of sarcastic inventory = 100)

When Pralay switches to loser mode, we know the case is closed.

He is unable to come up with even 5 buyable properties. What is there more to argue about?

- When inventory drops, RRI = inventory
- When inventory of neighbor (non-RBA) city drops, RRI = inventory of neighbor city
- When inventory goes up, RRI = buyable inventory (of course without any quantification)

So, please please give us a comparison of “velocity of buyable inventory” between December 2008 and December 2009. We don’t want to hear all the “clamor around inventory” [drop] from Alain Pinel.

Hmmmm. That does not sound right. When Alain Pinel says inventory dropped 36.8% it automatically means buyable inventory dropped. But when inventory goes up, it does NOT mean buyable inventory going up.

(Although RealEstater is clueless in both cases).

Correction: if inventory is I and Buyable inventory is BI, then BI <= I.

I thought RealEstater claims he is an average tech guy!

Apparently, it’s your brain. I can explain things to you, but ultimately your brain needs to process it.

I will even pay you a finders fee to find those mystical houses. As you know, I’ve been shopping for over a year and still couldn’t find something.

So Typical of you! When you cannot make logical argument, the best option for you to invent new argument which you think you can win. Let’s play RealEstater’s game for once. Before that we need to be clear about what exactly he is trying to say. In past he talked about valocity of buyable inventory. Then in #6 he mentions only velocity of buyable inventory (from Alain Pinel). And now, he talks about velocity of buyable inventory. What is useless, RealEstater?
- inventory?
- buyable inventory?
- velocity of buyable inventory?

- Inventory by itself is useless data. Check.
- The velocity of buyable inventory is what matters. Check.
- Buyable inventory is a subset of overall inventory. Check.
- When inventory has dropped, buyable inventory is even lower.

Which part of the basic logic is the dumb renter not understanding?

Neither – its idiocy.

You are allowing? Who are you? Burbed?

Before I allow you to troll more, show us 5 properties in Palo Alto you consider as buyable to you. If you can’t, then we can only assume buyable inventory is 0 from your perspective.

Touché.

Well, I did not need Alain Pinel. It’s YOU who quoted inventory stats from Alain Pinel. Let me put it this way:
Position 1: In past you declared that inventory itself is useless data (or couse it would be useless data, because inventory was high that time, right?).
Position 2: Then post#6 of this thread, you mention 36.8% useless inventory drop to show improvement of the market. No mention of “velocity of buyable inventory”.
Position 3: Then in post#13, you declare “when inventory is low, buyable inventory is even lower”. That means inventory is not exactly useless data. So, your new position make your initial Position 1 invalid, right?

Hypocritical or dishonesty? I guess both.