Using this logic, does Irvine live rent free in your mind? 😂
I see this legitimate question triggers you, which is interesting. Brings our a visceral reaction. I see I’ve hit a sensitive spot.
So what city do you live in?
According to his monkey line graphs, Eastwood residents are losing money, not making money. Those residents could have bought Nvida stock instead of buying an Eastwood home and 10x’d so they are losing money.
/S
🤣🤣🤣
If your main point is “you can get returns elsewhere” yes that is correct.
But nobody cares about 2-3 year returns when Irvine is your primary home.
Btw everyone know Irvine. It’s not a hidden gem and the population is only growing.
Sleepy
I respect your balanced, bearish views.
But if prices in Irvine are higher for X amount of years, it’s not “artificially inflated”.
A Rolex can’t be “artificially inflated” if the supply is still low and people are willing to pay higher prices. At that point it’s fair market value and...
If that is the logic, it’s closer to 7%. But even if it’s 2.7%, that reasoning that is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard.
This isn’t trading stocks man.
LL: now you’re backtracking again.
You were criticizing people buying primary homes and USC always said nobody cares about the investment side of their primary home (to paraphrase).
Now “principle residence…doesn’t matter”????? HA! Did your just rug pull everyone? I’m going to save this new...
LL, as an example is:
5% of $100,000 (Santa Ana) better than 2% of $500,000 (Irvine) when it comes to appreciation of your primary home?
Even USCTrojans is now dunking on you.
I want you to see this image again.
Nope there you go re-writing history. I’ll post the image again.
Nobody disagrees with your percentage statement. You keep stating Irvine prices went down. I’ll post that image for you to look 👀 at again! LOLLLLL