Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: norton
Yes, they've recovered and more than doubled since then but lost ten years of appreciation in the meantime.

I don't think you quite understand. Let me tell you. One property we own was bought 10 years ago for 200K. This property is now worth 350k. Try that in the stock market, without loosing your skin. As I stated, we are in for the long haul, as we were not trying to sell. We have held onto our properties for the past 15 years and some have actually more than doubled in value. Try that in the stock market as some did, and they lost everything.

Again, we were told by some very respectable experts some years back, what was going to happen to California realestate. And they were right on the money. Sure it has a few ups and downs like everything else. But if you look at the big picture, it just goes up and up and up. Supply and demand, and they are not making anymore realestate in Southern California. It's becoming a rare commodity indeed.

70 posted on 06/28/2002 9:45:33 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: Joe Hadenuf
Agreed...long term real estate is better than stocks in most cases.

Kingman AZ, over ten years is a loss, over fifty years probably a gain.

LA over ten is a gain, over twenty also a gain and maybe as good or better than stocks but way less than it looked prior to ol' Rodney's ride.

Issue; most people do not invest in real estate for that long a period and most who did so invested in quite damp properties with bugs and scaly critters already residing in place.

You can go broke in either event.

73 posted on 06/28/2002 10:10:57 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson