Shared Top Border
sdcia_head3.jpg (14795 bytes)
SDCIA Message Board
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
metabolic_dude

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #1 

I bought four fouplexes over the course of the last three years. The first I got here in Orange county back in 03. It was for about 500K. It quickly went to 620K the next year. I started looking for more to buy, three months later the cheapest I could get was 670K. The agent suggested buying in San Bernardino and Riverside counties where the same fourplexes were selling for about 400K. I got three over there in the course of two years. All were slightly negative at the time .

 

I am generally a conservative guy but the gains were just too tempting. Anyway, the Orange fourplex is now cash flowing about $300 a month, so I intend to keep it. The negative was a little too much to handle on the others . Fortunately I was able to sell one Riveside for 50K profit 4 months ago. I have about 30K profit on the other two but I am having a really hard time selling any of them.

 

I raised the commission to 5% for the selling agent still no buyers. I really hate to give up the profit I have made thus far but it might still be the best way out.  I have also been having problems lately with the tenants as they are not in the best parts of town. They are also the least priced in the area now. I need to sell before the profit turns to a loss.

 

Any thoughts on how to more aggressively sell the properties. I am not sure if the RE agent can actually do more than she has done. I need to give the prop's some more exposure but do not know where to turn.

 

The more I read Campbell's stuff the more worried I become and think I just need to GET OUT. Any ideas as to the best course of action..........


__________________
When the going get tough the tough gets going......
taddyangle

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,059
Reply with quote  #2 

Fire the agent.  Place the properties on loopnet.com

 

List the property yourself using a MLS direct company (costs about $500).

 

Offer to pay closing costs or some other incentives.  Paint the outside of the units, and some other exterior cheap improvements.

 

Getting rid of hard to mange properties is a good idea. 


__________________
------
Kali

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 85
Reply with quote  #3 

The exchange market is hot now, I would consider listing it on Loopnet if you havent had any success. Increasing commission is good, but if  you arent hitting the right target market wont do you any good. Find the motivated 1031 people who are desperate for a deal.

 

Make sure your agent specializes in the area or that product type, lot of inexperienced newbies out there who dont know much.

 

BTW, what exactly did Mr. Campbell say that made you want to sell. Do you mind sharing the highlights?

 

Advertising in other newspapers might do some good as well, Wall Street Journal , la times, etc....

RonaldStarr

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,440
Reply with quote  #4 

Jose Gonzalez (Metabolic Dude)--CA----------------

 

In my view real estate is a long term investment. 

 

Are you negative before taxes or after taxes?  If the former, but not the latter, you might just decide to hold on.  In general, I feel it is a good idea to be biased toward holding properties for very long times, not jumping in and out of them.  Especially if  they are positive cash flow.  Even if they are break even or a little negative, it may make sense to hold them because the appreciation and tax benefits may outweight the cash flow loss.  Plus, you are getting amortization the loans, mainly from the rents.  Eventually, when the properties are free and clear, the cash flow will be quite enjoyable, I’ll bet.

 

My view is that Robert Campbell is wrong about his projections for CA real estate prices.  Of course, I could be wrong, and he could be right. 

 

It seems that single family house property markets, in CA and probably in other locations, deteriorate when there are many people losing their jobs.  When the local economy is taking big hits.  That does not seem to be happening now. 

 

There is still an imbalance between the number of housing units needed to house the increasing population in CA and the number of housing units being built.  This condition has obtained since about 1989, I believe.  Until the new construction is enough to house all the new people, housing prices in CA are likely to continue to go up.  Greater demand than supply.  Maybe not at a steep rate, but still up.  And not all types of properties at the same rate. 

 

The higher interest rate on mortgages will dampen housing prices and perhaps even send them down some.  But, in my opinion the “down 40-50” scenario is just wrong.

 

Until one has a model of how other variables inpact local housing prices, one can’t be sure of one’s prediction ability.  Campbell did some research on the prices of housing in San Diego over a specific time period.  He looked for variables that correlated with rates of change in prices.  He found some.  If you look at enough variables, you will always find a few that will correlate with the factor of interest.  So, he selected those that showed the highest relationships to price changes.  However, we don’t know if the relationships he found reflect genuine processes in the marketplace or are chance occurrances.  Did he just happen to pick some variables that were correlated at the time of his research but are not really involved in whatever processes change property prices?  Or don’t really measure these processes.  Maybe they were aligned with price changes for a while just through chance. 

 

And we don’t know if the relationships he found are stable and will repeat in the future.  It is quite possible that in the future using the indicators he found, they will not predict accurately.  Maybe they will.  Maybe they won’t.  We just don’t know.

 

That is why I note his predictions but do not believe in them.  I try to use a crude model, the relationship between demand and supply of  housing.  That is what I mentioned above.

 

It seems to me that some of us are biased toward positive views of things.  And some are biased toward negative views.  The overall tendency, it seems to me, is for more people to get fearful and worried about the future than the number who are positive.  Both biases will cause us to be wrong some of the time. 

 

Fear is an extremely strong emotion.  It can protect us from death and perhaps destruction.  However, it seems that for many people, there tends to be an overreaction to the potential difficulties coming up.  I tend toward the positive view and not the “disasters around the corner” view.  There have been just way too many disaster predictions in the past that have not come true, in my opinion. 

 

It sells books and magazine articles.  How many books get sold with the title "Not much is going to be changing soon?"  I'm not accusing Mr. Campbell of trying to raise fears to sell his books.  I think he sincerely believes his disaster predictions.  I don't.

 

Good Figuring It All Out************Ron Starr***********

 

 

 

 

 

taddyangle

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,059
Reply with quote  #5 

Historically the CA market has run a high/low cycle.  Very different from say what TX has typically done historically.

 

I have already seen a 15% decrease in a condo complex that we have in CA, this over a 9 month period.  

 

Yes, there is no model to predict what will happen next so the best we can do is make educated guesses of what we think will happen. I am with you on keeping properties that cash flow or come close to breaking even. But I also know that market timing has paid huge for us, and have found for us a mix of timing and long term holds works well for us.  I can look back and if we kept the properties we exchanged we would be down, both in cash flow and in equity.


__________________
------
pasadena

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 113
Reply with quote  #6 

-->There is still an imbalance between the number of housing units needed to
-->house the increasing population in CA and the number of housing units being built.

OK, let's take that as a given.... how does the decrease of affordability (caused by skyrocketing house prices) effect this equation?  Increase in population is neither a constant, nor a given.  To take an extreme example, if all houses in California were priced at $10M, and wages didn't increase by the same factor, would you expect to see more people flowing into California, or more people leaving California (cashing out and retiring somewhere else)?

Again, migration patterns are not constant, nor do they happen in a vacuum.

hessj

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 139
Reply with quote  #7 

" My view is that Robert Campbell is wrong about his projections for CA real estate prices.  Of course, I could be wrong, and he could be right.  "

 

Naw it will go up forever.

http://www.forsakencraft.com/proof.htm

taddyangle

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,059
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hessj

" My view is that Robert Campbell is wrong about his projections for CA real estate prices.  Of course, I could be wrong, and he could be right.  "

 

Naw it will go up forever.

http://www.forsakencraft.com/proof.htm

 

Nice site.  Based on the data, I agree with the author, there will be serious problems in Temecula/Murrieta.  It appears that there has been no appreciation out there for the last 18-24 months.   Wow, how can that be!


__________________
------
Gekko

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 777
Reply with quote  #9 

-

 

is Temecula/Murrieta a desirable area?

taddyangle

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,059
Reply with quote  #10 

It depends.  I lived there in 1992.  I commuted from Murrieta to Cornado which took about 1 hour and 15 minute back then.  I was stationed in NAS North Island and had to be on post at 0515.  I only did that for 6 months before I got out of the Navy. 

Back then many were moviong out there becasue they could not afford a home.  As an example, we had a friend who bought a 1200-1500 sq ft home for $107k.  Nice and new.  At that same time (about 1993) we bought in Pt Loma for $158k.  Nice and old ready to fall down, our friends nicknamed it the "shack".  It was about 700-800 sq ft. and if I stood on the toilet and looked out the window I would see the tops of sail boats in the harbor.  Called peek-a-boo bay views.  As I am told by the realtor that sold us this shack.

 

Anyway, my point is you got a lot more for the money out there but you had one hell of a commute, I have to believe that the commute is at least 1.5-2 hours one way from Temecula to San Deigo during the peak hour.  Since I drive throught there a bout once a month I also know that Temecula is so crowded and congested.  Nothing but homes and strip malls.  Truely a bedroom community that has no appeal.

 

It is desirable if you want to own a home and get paid $10 an hour, and like putting 35,000 miles a year in your car.  And if you like the heat, it has that going for it as well.


__________________
------
foobeca

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldStarr

My view is that Robert Campbell is wrong about his projections for CA real estate prices. Of course, I could be wrong, and he could be right.

It seems that single family house property markets, in CA and probably in other locations, deteriorate when there are many people losing their jobs. When the local economy is taking big hits. That does not seem to be happening now.

There is still an imbalance between the number of housing units needed to house the increasing population in CA and the number of housing units being built. This condition has obtained since about 1989, I believe. Until the new construction is enough to house all the new people, housing prices in CA are likely to continue to go up. Greater demand than supply. Maybe not at a steep rate, but still up. And not all types of properties at the same rate.



Demand consists of having the need/want to have something and the wherewithall to do something about it (money). The people that are increasing the population in CA hablan español y tienen poco dinero. Necesitará aprender hablar español si usted desea permanecer en CA.

The illegals are also willing/forced to live 20 people to a house, so I don't see how they're going to influence house prices much. On the other hand, you have middle and upper middle class people leaving CA in droves to AZ, NV, NM, CO, TX, ID, OR, WA, and UT.

I would argue that the CA economy is very dependent on real estate based jobs. As much so as it was on aerospace back in 1989. You're going to start seeing realt-whores, appraisers, mortgage brokers, construction workers, Hummer salesmen, boat salesmen, and retail workers lose jobs due to bursting of the bubble and the subsequent "poverty effect."

In a normal RE market, you would not have significant price declines without significant job losses.  But when a bubble exhausts itself, you don't need job losses to start the downfall.  Bubbles eventually exhaust themselves. 
dansimo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 623
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pasadena

-->There is still an imbalance between the number of housing units needed to
-->house the increasing population in CA and the number of housing units being built.

OK, let's take that as a given.... how does the decrease of affordability (caused by skyrocketing house prices) effect this equation?  Increase in population is neither a constant, nor a given.  To take an extreme example, if all houses in California were priced at $10M, and wages didn't increase by the same factor, would you expect to see more people flowing into California, or more people leaving California (cashing out and retiring somewhere else)?

Again, migration patterns are not constant, nor do they happen in a vacuum.



An extreme to make your point, thus not really arguable.

And pop. increases are a given...over 2/3 of population growth in SD and CA and I suppose elsewhere is procreated, inborn, self-made...whatever the term.

And not due to legal or illegal immigration, as foobeca misinformed... y hablo español también.

So, there would have to be a huge exodus due to some catastrophic event for population growth not to be a positive variable.


__________________

"The harder I work, the luckier I get"
foobeca

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #13 
It's a fact that if not for immigration and their anchor babies, that CA would be losing population.  Another fact is that illegals have a much higher birth rate than the natives. 
Borntoflip

Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #14 
I don't believe we need huge job losses in CA to see the housing market tank--the difference between 1990 recession (when aerospace industry tanked) and this is that this time around people have 110% financing and they've kept increasing their HELOCs as prices have gone up, and used that money for living expenses.

Also, anecdotal info from people in the film industry: free lancers and crew members (who mostly live in LA areas of Los Feliz, Echo Park, Hollywood Hills, Studio City, Silver Lake etc) suggests that gigs are harder to come by, more people are unemployed. The popularity of reality shows has made hundreds of TV-writers (scripted sitcoms and dramas) actors and crewmembers unemployed. So it's not only the real estate industry that's losing steam, it's also the film&TV industry, a huge employer in SoCal. I also don't think it's going to be just a short-term slump, because the advances in technology make it possible to produce stuff with lot less, a studio film that used to employ 300 now only needs 50.

And then there's the psychological aspect...Once we start hearing stories of good, decent families trapped, losing money on their house, it will quickly snowball to panic, and the prices will take even a bigger hit.

I have not heard of anyone who is buying in the LA area right now. I'd like to hear if anybody knows anyone who is buying? And why are they buying? Everybody I talk to seems to think prices will go down 10 - 20% next winter, and maybe fall even further, so it would be stupid to buy right now.
hessj

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 139
Reply with quote  #15 

"It appears that there has been no appreciation out there for the last 18-24 months. Wow, how can that be!"

There was appreciation there.  It's already gone.  These people "need" to sell.  Comps do not matter.  Value is what people are willing to pay and with 1 home for sale per 66 people in that city, buyers are smart enough to watch levels climb and pay cheaper prices later.

Thanks for the comment on my site.  I found that data within few minutes.  They are in worse shape out there than people actually know.  I’ve watch the bank own homes soar in the last month dramatically. 

 

ladyinvestor

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 239
Reply with quote  #16 
 The popularity of reality shows has made hundreds of TV-writers (scripted sitcoms and dramas) actors and crewmembers unemployed.
 
I also see where entertainment is going. Reality shows are cheap to produce because regular folks want to be a star and that cuts out actors and crews.
 
Those who will be able to afford having the new TV's that will be required, will be entertained in the safety of their home because going out on the street will be dangerous once people are homeless and desperate.
 
I agree that the panic will snowball and then we will beg and welcome any help from anyone. Then we become docile and easier to control.
 
The bad news is that we are going down hill fast.
The good news is that people are starting to wake up.  
Helping each other is the only way that we can possibly survive the dark days ahead of us.  God help us all.
2Encinitas

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 689
Reply with quote  #17 

Ron, This is a great post!  It is amazing what emotions combined with statistics can drive your mind too.   

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldStarr

Jose Gonzalez (Metabolic Dude)--CA----------------

 

In my view real estate is a long term investment. 

 

Are you negative before taxes or after taxes?  If the former, but not the latter, you might just decide to hold on.  In general, I feel it is a good idea to be biased toward holding properties for very long times, not jumping in and out of them.  Especially if  they are positive cash flow.  Even if they are break even or a little negative, it may make sense to hold them because the appreciation and tax benefits may outweight the cash flow loss.  Plus, you are getting amortization the loans, mainly from the rents.  Eventually, when the properties are free and clear, the cash flow will be quite enjoyable, I’ll bet.

 

My view is that Robert Campbell is wrong about his projections for CA real estate prices.  Of course, I could be wrong, and he could be right. 

 

It seems that single family house property markets, in CA and probably in other locations, deteriorate when there are many people losing their jobs.  When the local economy is taking big hits.  That does not seem to be happening now. 

 

There is still an imbalance between the number of housing units needed to house the increasing population in CA and the number of housing units being built.  This condition has obtained since about 1989, I believe.  Until the new construction is enough to house all the new people, housing prices in CA are likely to continue to go up.  Greater demand than supply.  Maybe not at a steep rate, but still up.  And not all types of properties at the same rate. 

 

The higher interest rate on mortgages will dampen housing prices and perhaps even send them down some.  But, in my opinion the “down 40-50” scenario is just wrong.

 

Until one has a model of how other variables inpact local housing prices, one can’t be sure of one’s prediction ability.  Campbell did some research on the prices of housing in San Diego over a specific time period.  He looked for variables that correlated with rates of change in prices.  He found some.  If you look at enough variables, you will always find a few that will correlate with the factor of interest.  So, he selected those that showed the highest relationships to price changes.  However, we don’t know if the relationships he found reflect genuine processes in the marketplace or are chance occurrances.  Did he just happen to pick some variables that were correlated at the time of his research but are not really involved in whatever processes change property prices?  Or don’t really measure these processes.  Maybe they were aligned with price changes for a while just through chance. 

 

And we don’t know if the relationships he found are stable and will repeat in the future.  It is quite possible that in the future using the indicators he found, they will not predict accurately.  Maybe they will.  Maybe they won’t.  We just don’t know.

 

That is why I note his predictions but do not believe in them.  I try to use a crude model, the relationship between demand and supply of  housing.  That is what I mentioned above.

 

It seems to me that some of us are biased toward positive views of things.  And some are biased toward negative views.  The overall tendency, it seems to me, is for more people to get fearful and worried about the future than the number who are positive.  Both biases will cause us to be wrong some of the time. 

 

Fear is an extremely strong emotion.  It can protect us from death and perhaps destruction.  However, it seems that for many people, there tends to be an overreaction to the potential difficulties coming up.  I tend toward the positive view and not the “disasters around the corner” view.  There have been just way too many disaster predictions in the past that have not come true, in my opinion. 

 

It sells books and magazine articles.  How many books get sold with the title "Not much is going to be changing soon?"  I'm not accusing Mr. Campbell of trying to raise fears to sell his books.  I think he sincerely believes his disaster predictions.  I don't.

 

Good Figuring It All Out************Ron Starr***********

 

 

 

 

 


__________________
Todd Toback
Subscribe to the No Limits Investing Podcast on Itunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/no-limits-podcast/id525192157

http://www.nolimitsrealestateinvesting
Twitter: http://twitter.com/toddtoback
Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/7b2yudx
RobertCampbell

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 7,146
Reply with quote  #18 

Ron,

It seems that single family house property markets, in CA and probably in other locations, deteriorate when there are many people losing their jobs.  When the local economy is taking big hits.  That does not seem to be happening now. 

 

 

As you may know - or should know - all the trend forecasts and price predictions I make - are 100% data driven. 

 

While I respect any point of view that opposes mine and is backed up with data, I will make one comment about your post.  Employment stastics - as any well-trained economist or market watcher knows - is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator, to changes in trends and the economy.

 

This means, if it's your intention to use data to stay ahead of the curve, then don't rely on employment stats.

 

Best wishes,

 

Robert Campbell

 

PS:  Based on what anyone feels is going to happen in the future, we all place our bets.  As investors and speculators, that's the magnificant game we all play.  The bets I've placed are different to the bets others have placed.  Now we wait to see who is right (wins) and who is wrong (loses). 

 

Like winning in Blackjack by counting cards - or winning in the stock market by trading high proability situations - long-term success is not about being right all the time ... but about being right more than you are wrong.  I know that approach doesn't do much for most people's egos - namely, those who insist on always being right - but like it or not, it is the way the world works.

 

My secret to long-term success?  Do everything you can to avoid possible disaster.  That's why it pays to be paranoid.  Good fortune is fickle - today's big winners are tomorrow's big losers as well as the other way around.  I guess you learn that after 35 years of first-hand experience, research, and study.

 

The world will always be a competitive place.  I want all my friends to make a million dollars, but I want to make two million. 

taddyangle

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,059
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hessj

"It appears that there has been no appreciation out there for the last 18-24 months. Wow, how can that be!"

There was appreciation there.  It's already gone.  These people "need" to sell.  Comps do not matter.  Value is what people are willing to pay and with 1 home for sale per 66 people in that city, buyers are smart enough to watch levels climb and pay cheaper prices later.

Thanks for the comment on my site.  I found that data within few minutes.  They are in worse shape out there than people actually know.  I’ve watch the bank own homes soar in the last month dramatically. 

 

Got it, went up and has been heading down to what prices were 18-24 months ago.  Much like what I am seeing in Palm Springs (12-18 months behind) and much like we are seeing in San Diego.

 

Worse shape than they actually know.  Give them 12 more months then they will get it.  It will be interesting to know what percent commute to OC or SD.  I know when I lived there in 1992 it was almost everybody that lived in the apartment complex where I resided.

 

Keep us updated on this, I bet they take it harder than most in so cal.  I know when I worked at the non-profit many of the social workers lived out that way, on social work pay it was all they could afford if they wanted to own.  I bet with gas prices they are feeling it, and when you consider that home prices are declining, and you have a payment of $3,000 a month you must be thinking why not rent in San Diego.  They would save at least $1,000-$1,500 a month once you factor the rent and gas savings.  Which is probably 40% of their annual pay. Let alone the time saved which could be 10-15 hours a week.


__________________
------
metabolic_dude

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertCampbell

Ron,

It seems that single family house property markets, in CA and probably in other locations, deteriorate when there are many people losing their jobs.  When the local economy is taking big hits.  That does not seem to be happening now. 

 

 

As you may know - or should know - all the trend forecasts and price predictions I make - are 100% data driven. 

 

While I respect any point of view that opposes mine and is backed up with data, I will make one comment about your post.  Employment stastics - as any well-trained economist or market watcher knows - is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator, to changes in trends and the economy.

 

This means, if it's your intention to use data to stay ahead of the curve - if that's your intention - then don't rely on employment stats.

 

Best wishes,

 

Robert Campbell

How do income properties behave compared to SFH in a downturn. I think it is almost certain that rents are set to increase in the area where my prop's are,which might be one good factor in holding on. I am just trying to weigh on whether to get out at this point at the risk of loosing the little profit I stand to make. Or take a little time (perhaps 2 to 3 months) and hope to get out with a little profit. My instinct is not to panic . This is where the dilemma is.......


__________________
When the going get tough the tough gets going......
RobertCampbell

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 7,146
Reply with quote  #21 

 

Metabolic Dude,

 

How do income properties behave compared to SFH in a downturn. 

 

In general, worse.

 

My instinct is not to panic . This is where the dilemma is.......


Investment decisions are always a dilemma.  Think odds.  But I will say this: if you're going to panic, panic early.

 

Best wishes,

 

Robert Campbell

hessj

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 139
Reply with quote  #22 

taddy you nailed it

 

ladyinvestor

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 239
Reply with quote  #23 
I'm having a hard time trying to know what to believe. It appears to me that it all depends on what street you are on and if you are short or long term.
 
I live in ========REMOVED======
 
 and noticed there's not much on the market at my end of the street. The last one that sold had 400 less square footage, but with a pool for 835k.  I know he got out in time.                                                  

One guy 6 houses down has had his home on the market for 5 months and asking 995k. I know that is nuts. Most of us are long timers and not leaving. I bought in ============= at that time we paid top dollar...or so we thought.

I put in a call to an agent for the latest stats to see what's up. Here is the chart I was looking at.

 

North County Coastal http://www.rereport.com/sdcncc/

Central San Diego http://www.rereport.com/sdccsd/

North County Inland http://www.rereport.com/sdcnci/

Kali

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 85
Reply with quote  #24 

 

That is an opened ended question with too many variables. First depends on product type (office retail, apts, etc) second depends on quality of tenant (mom and pop, credit national, regional, etc). THirdly it depends on the location. Generally speaking credit national tenants with corporate guarantee lease will not leave if they are not making money, mom and pops will.  MOst importantly commercial is based on CASH FLOW, not appreciation or comps like Housing.

 

Many commerical buyers are extremely bullish in the California market (as am I), long term it is a great play. Great job market and very barriers to entry makes it a hot investment. Yes with rise of interest rates prices will and have gone down, you loose a tenant you will loose value and it maybe difficult to replace in a D location, but not in an A location.  We own a retail property in South OC, beach location and we always have had and always will have a line of credit national tenants wanting to move in no matter what happens. We also own some Class D stuff as well which will have a hard time leasing if the market softens.

 

DO i think Class A retial properties will ever sell at a 12 cap rate here in California? NO, unless interest rates hit 13%, which I doubt.  Now average cap rate for retail is about 6% and demand is out the roof, esecially with all the foreign money, REITS, synidcation and TICS evolving dont expect commercial to crash.

 

 

dansimo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 623
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foobeca
It's a fact that if not for immigration and their anchor babies, that CA would be losing population.  Another fact is that illegals have a much higher birth rate than the natives. 


foobeca sounds a bit fooracist! Where did you get your "facts"?!

I think you should check our gov't. census bureau stats. Maybe you'll trust those...

Again, over 2/3 of population growth for SD and CA comes from births over deaths. And not even the low pop.% of immigrants with their "much higher birth rate than the natives" ("natives"?!, who's a native?!) can make up for a significant % of that 2/3!

Really, you should be careful with stating "facts" before you try to be so rigid in your remarks.

And before you suppose that I'm some bleeding heart liberal who is for open borders, I'm the opposite. But I don't like the politicizing of people's lives for the benefit of some moronic demogogue politico! and how they distort facts for their gain!...and how that distorts people's views and opinions, such as yours.

Thank you and good night!


__________________

"The harder I work, the luckier I get"
russ

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 25
Reply with quote  #26 

>>>("natives"?!, who's a native?!)

 

Someone born in a particular place.  In this context, I would venture to guess born in the United States.

 

 

dansimo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 623
Reply with quote  #27 
thanks for the definition.

but I would hope others understood my intimation!


__________________

"The harder I work, the luckier I get"
metabolic_dude

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 117
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by taddyangle

Fire the agent.  Place the properties on loopnet.com

 

List the property yourself using a MLS direct company (costs about $500).

 

Offer to pay closing costs or some other incentives.  Paint the outside of the units, and some other exterior cheap improvements.

 

Getting rid of hard to mange properties is a good idea. 

 

I now have them listed on loopnet.com. What are some good MLS direct companies.

 

Thanks for the help

 

Jose


__________________
When the going get tough the tough gets going......
Flood

Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #29 

I would like to note: For the first time in more than three decades, the population of San Diego County declined last year.

HungryBear

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by metabolic_dude

The more I read Campbell's stuff the more worried I become and think I just need to GET OUT. Any ideas as to the best course of action..........

 

Its all a function of price.  Well priced stuff is still jumping, but where they had 1 page of small apartment listings a year ago now this is 4 pages of inventory, this according to one of the largest commercial brokerages in CA.

 

I think its going to track residential, dude.

 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Policy