601–610 of 663 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Common sense? Median rents are $5500 a month. No one can afford that. A city can't exist if people can't live there.
You say no one can afford it, but all the apartments are rented out.
A lot of people hating on LNKD here, but this isn't really company-specific. This is a macro shift. LNKD being down by 40% by only guiding down 8% below estimates is a big warning of how the market is about to treat all bloated growth stocks. In 2013, if they reported the same results, the stock would have been flat or slightly down. It's a major shift in investor sentiment. Bubble bursts always start in the public m…
A lot of people hating on LNKD here, but this isn't really company-specific. This is a macro shift. LNKD being down by 40% by only guiding down 8% below estimates is a big warning of how the market is about to treat all bloated growth stocks. In 2013, if they reported the same results, the stock would have been flat or slightly down. It's a major shift in investor sentiment. Bubble bursts always start in the public m…
As an engineer working at a "well-funded" startup, how can I prepare for the worst?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The Bay Area's long-term employment prospects simply cannot support current home values or rental rates. Why not? What are you basing this on?
Common sense? Median rents are $5500 a month. No one can afford that. A city can't exist if people can't live there.
I'd love to know what the median rent across all rentals is in SF! ~70% are rent controlled. I'd guess the median rent is maybe half? Around $2000? Just a guess.
A lot of people hating on LNKD here, but this isn't really company-specific. This is a macro shift. LNKD being down by 40% by only guiding down 8% below estimates is a big warning of how the market is about to treat all bloated growth stocks. In 2013, if they reported the same results, the stock would have been flat or slightly down. It's a major shift in investor sentiment. Bubble bursts always start in the public m…
With regards to VCs and Unicorn investing, we really only saw institutional money get serious about investing in tech startups after 07/08 when the markets shifted and traditional asset classes didn't return as much as they used to. It's easy to look at startups, see the ones that survive and their high ROI and think it's a great place to invest without seeing all the other ones that morph into lifestyle businesses and don't go anywhere or flame out. Throwing near limitless amounts of institutional money into a very noisy market leads to the rise of cheap capital and the ability for anyone to get funding regardless of the extent of their business plan. I think we will see a retraction of available capital which will lead to an increase in bootstrapping and an increase in vetting by serious VCs who need to improve the hit/miss ratio since capital will be tighter.
I need to drum up more capital to invest. Best time to buy and hold is in a major downswing. You get durable assets for cheap!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what happened to the Small houses and fixer-uppers in the 9/8/8 school districts?
What's the meaning of 10/10/10 or 9/8/8?
ele/mid/hs
A lot of people hating on LNKD here, but this isn't really company-specific. This is a macro shift. LNKD being down by 40% by only guiding down 8% below estimates is a big warning of how the market is about to treat all bloated growth stocks. In 2013, if they reported the same results, the stock would have been flat or slightly down. It's a major shift in investor sentiment. Bubble bursts always start in the public m…
Stop scaring the kiddos with your ghost stories. At least let them enjoy their weekend. The problem is shrinking global liquidity. Losses in the Chinese financial system and in the global energy sector are forcing governments, central banks and sovereign wealth funds to sell assets around the world. These are some of the biggest asset managers in the world. It is unclear to me how this will end. When the mortgage mar…
This may be true in the general case, but there is a more relevant (IMO) general case here, and that is: demand outstripping supply causes prices to ramp up steeply ... but if that condition wavers at all they will drop.
That is to say, if there is even a single marginal house for sale in the SFBA that can't clear, the whole market drops. Right now that doesn't exist. All (normal, conforming) homes in SF are clearing. If that changes - if there are even one or two marginal houses left unsold - the price plummets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 30% decline in bay area real estate values. that won't happen. During the 2008 big burst everywhere in USA was felling apart but in SF real-estate was just down 5%-10%. SF can't expand easily since it's water 3/4 all around. Demand still high and supply very low. That won't change dramatically, with or without a collapse in the public market.
During the 2001-2002 bust, bay area rents fell 50% in marginal neighborhoods. In desirable neighborhoods, rents fell maybe 10%. Prices to buy came down, but not nearly as much. In marginal areas 20%, in desirable neighborhoods, maybe 1%. Small houses and fixer-uppers in the 10/10/10 school districts (ie, Palo Alto) kept going up. One reason is that construction prices fell 30%, so there was allot of tears downs and r…
It was a bit more complicated than that ...
You are correct that rents/prices fell much more in marginal areas, but "marginal" can mean a lot of things. Very expensive, 3-4 million dollar homes are also marginal (or at least, they were at the time) and those fell a lot. There just wasn't a healthy demand for 4 million dollar homes in SF and Marin during that period, and those prices dropped a lot.
So, yes - mid-range (mid-range for SF) houses in desirable areas did not fall a lot ... but just like houses in undesirable areas dropped a lot, so did a lot of other marginal properties - namely, very expensive ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gloomy, but likely correct. A lot of these current valuation numbers just don't make sense. The implied growth rates in many tech stocks is unrealistically high. The Bay Area's long-term employment prospects simply cannot support current home values or rental rates. Once public and private equity valuations drop a lot of software development projects are going to get cut and with them the jobs of many software engine…
Bay Area's real estate is actually pretty cheap, considering how much economical output the area has and how desirable the location has been historically. Look at Vancouver, Hongkong, Shanghai, Moscow, Tokyo, all have waaaaay lower average household income than San Francisco Bay Area, yet wil much more expensive realestate price.