All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

 I usually would get accused of rendering a hate speech for suggesting this very line of thought. I guess it just sounds better when someone in CA says it.

While generally speaking, you use leverage to increase your ability to do more...stating that it is 'less risky' than owning the property debt free is sort of a stretch. Buying cash is like lending to yourself at the prevailing market rate. People typically use debt to expand their RE investment. So instead on buying 1 or 2 properties, with leverage, you may be able to get 9 or more. If the market were to tank as you described... you would likely have been invested in a lot more properties and consequently incur more loss.

 The population growth is only one of many factors affecting RE prices... there is a lot more going on in BR than RE... I however haven't looked into the RE market there but if population vastly exceeds inventory (not saying it is there), any decline in population wouldn't necessarily have an effect on prices.

And for any investor, whether a local, out of state or foreign investor looking to invest in LA based on something more concrete than hearsay information... this is a more credible source of wage information for the City of LA or any other City. 

City of LA: Distribution of Household Income (2015)

Median Family Income = $54,000 (thats family income, divide by 2 for each partners half, assuming both couple are working)

Some other factual stats, I am sure you may find interesting -- only 23.9% of wage earners in the City of LA make $100,000 or more. That also includes the self employed.

The federal data is actually much lower but is 2015's info. 

http://tiny.cc/LAEmploymentData

Stories like this isn't exactly painting the picture of the Bay area that some are trying to project on here.. as if it is somewhat insulated from all sorts of risk. But I am sure someone on here will swear this is fake news... its totally fake news... right?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/18/steph-curry-...

 Same faces, saying same thing, again. You have a discussion about home price growth rate not keeping pace with wage level, you start talking about capital appreciation and how all the 7 figure earners live in CA. Just what the heck has that got to do with the discussion....? 

 Its called correcting baseless claims and assertions... and usually you can almost guess the usual suspects...if I tell you that someone saying on here that their mother's income (actual claim), represents the wages in LA or that the majority of LA residents make $100,000 or more, or that LA makes what they think their 'buddy' makes... I tell you that is incorrect. 

You can get upset and bitter about it and resolve to trying to sling whatever mud you can find, doesn't change the facts. What deals you claim to be working or where you bank, has absolutely no meaning to me. What is actually funny is that there are people making serious decision on these incorrect claims. 

Don't get upset when you get corrected. I can suggest working half as hard on getitng just a few facts straight... like publicly available and easily verified information such as wage levels for a city. You have people living in an area with reported income being $15,000 and someone claims on here it is actually $100,000. Can someone clue me in on LA math --  I mean there is a HUGE difference between $15,000 and $100,000. 

 There just isn't any end to these baseless and unverifiable complaints and explanations are they? Now data from the census bureau or local state, county and city government is incorrect because you just happen to say so? Wake up! The facts don't just change because of all these examples you make up. Can you present any factual variable data from any marginally credible source, citing median wage in LA to be $100,000? You cant. All I hear is what you think is going on.

 If you don't understand the little... why try to talk about 100 million? The median is still the best measure of central tendency for these types of data regardless if we were talking a size of 300 million. There we go again with trying all these defensive explanation of why the market produces negative cash flow. Actually, last time I checked, 20, 25, 30 or even 40 percent down payment still produces a negative cash flow in LA based on market prices and without extreme forms of creativity. Introducing leverage in the mix is probably not a route you want to take when trying to discuss negative cash flow in LA.

 That is what is reported for DTLA and unfortunately you go by reported income. Just as you mentioned that you earn money in various other counties but have a residential address in San Diego which gets credits for your earnings, the same would apply to some in DTLA. 

The net effect is that, as a group, the median income for people living there is what is stated and they cannot with that income buy anywhere in LA county for that matter. 

You being a contractor... if I understand that industry, requires you sort of go with or to wherever the construction or job site is... which can be anywhere in the state of California based on your license so its sort of different from many other fields where were you work at doesnt vary per job.

Initially I had looked at county wide data not just city of LA, there wasn't any material difference there although I got a complaint that I had to look at the city of LA specifically. So are you now saying that median wages in LA is low because LA residents dont actually work in LA? There just has to be an unverifiable explanation for this correct?

So when regulators in LA try to control rent prices in LA because of wage levels, are you saying they are regulating LA prices based on San Diego or Orange County employment data?