Stifel Financial Corporation
It might well be better for the country as a whole, as long as we're open and honest that is not coming exclusively from sacrifices or losses from caricatured "billionaires" and "corporations". Every individual SF home seller will need to take part of the hit that's needed to realize the benefit for the rest of us.
Correct. I’d expect whatever effect that corporations have on single family pricing to be reduced. The corporate bid/price support would be lower than it is today. Maybe not the full 25% because they’d probably be willing to give up some margin to continue to exist. You and I don’t know what the actual impact would be. We can find out what % of SF homes were won by corporations but we don’t know if it was due to terms, like paying cash, or due to higher bid prices, and how much higher. Either way I believe it would be better for our country.
It's funny because I thought Ventura had a larger homeless problem than SF. I used to live in the VTA as well. Ventura/Carp/Summerland/Montecito/SB coast area + Ojai is my second favorite place in California after the Santa Cruz/Capitola/Aptos area.
I am currently not in SF, but would gladly be in SF right now. Instead the neighborhood kids are running rampant for a snow day while I'm stuck ~~redditing~~ working from home. Honestly, I love SF though. I hate LA, but love SF. California South to North: SD-love, OC-love, LA-fuck you, Gold Coast-love, Monterrey Bay/SC-double love, SF-love, Redwoods/Humboldt-love, Cascadia-love, Central Valley-shudders, Sierras-love, Barstow-thanks for having cold drinks on the way to Vegas
I think it will. Prices will stay elevated with a small correction (maybe 15%). This is what I believe to cause the correction: If you look at the CSL chart they had their best quarter and the stock dropped 10+ percent. I believe this is insiders knowing that that their current growth is about to slow. Not due to SF of volume but due to prices easing and causing lower revenues due to the previously elevated pricing. They still cannot keep up with demand pre pandemic. Once we make it through this recession their will be another huge boom in construction. All of the people who put projects on hold (roughly 20% of projects we quote) will realize pricing will never go back to pre pandemic levels (roughly a 50% decrease from current markets). This will cause an upswing in all of the new construction and renovation commercial projects that will kick start the next phase of our construction industry. If the Fed reduces interest rates in the next two to three years it will only add to this growth. Keep in mind they are building a huge ecommerce infrastructure to carry us into the following decades. Manufacturing, distribution centers, cold storage, grow facilities (talking fruits and vegetables), and data centers are going to be expanding rapidly to keep up with the demand the internet has created.
I should preface my response by stating I think we will see a short term correction in the next 12-18 months with a decade of expansion in the area. I would not enter a position now. Rather wait for us to see this correction. I work in commercial roofing. We do everything under the sun from 30 story high rise to industrial projects (ranging in the 250,000 SF +). For the past 18 months our entire industry has been under allocation, extreme lead times, and time of shipment pricing. This has happened across the entire industry where manufacturers have taken some power back from the end consumer (building owners and general contractors). This has created a power shift to where building owners cannot create this chain reaction of beating up the general contractor, who beats up the subcontractor, who beats up the distributor, who beats up the manufacturer to get the cheapest price they can. The paradigm has shifted. There are escalations clauses in almost every commercial contracts where materials are listed as allowances. The owner has to pay the delta in cost for any increases that occur. Most of the manufacturers thought this would deter new construction, and in the beginning it did. However we continue to experience a huge growth in three sectors. Industrial, healthcare, and multifamily. The industrial projects are so large that it is creating a chain effect on the supply chain for these materials long term. Think 1 million square foot facilities, I am quoting roughly 3 of these weekly across the south east. I think that the transition into more industrial projects nationwide is going to create a long term effect on the quantities of material available to the rest of the projects. With material escalation already a new found cornerstone of construction contract language + manufacturers working off volume based margin profits will roll heavy into the next decade. Lay that on top of manufacturers producing more material than they have ever sold in prior years will be a perfect storm for a growth of revenue + profit.
Mostly because they're not that beautiful (they look like old-person wagons. Think Cadillac) and the price is far too high for the performance and comfort. Tesla outperforms because lucid starts at 75k, and that's more than a fully equipped model 3, and anything higher costs more than an S. Add in the lack of charging network of tesla, cost of other EVs and luxury ICE, it's a pretty small market they have. For something anecdotal - I live near the highest value zip code in the US (It's in the SF bay area) and I see Teslas everywhere - Lamborghinis, Audi R8s, and Ferraris regularly. The Lucid just isn't great on any front - I've only seen a handful in the wild.
I hate the feeling of falling in love with a girl at the wrong place wrong time. This girl is from San Diego and I live in SF but shes a 10/10 on personality, looks, humor and everything. Any of you apes ever get over a crush like this? Or do you just keep it in. This girl also happens to be my roommate's best friend since childhood.
I am curious to get some outside perspective on the overall job market. I live in the SF Bay Area and I have been seeing a lot of people recently being laid off. Tech , software, and manufacturing (yes we still do some manufacturing out here) what's the overall outlook across the country ?
Sellers are holding off because they think they will get a better price in the spring when home sales traditionally pick up. These sellers have the luxury of waiting a few months since they aren’t in a hurry to sell right now. What these sellers (and apparently this entire thread) does not realize is that the housing market does not solely consist of young professionals working from a house paid for with a 2-3% mortgage with the luxury of waiting years to sell a house if needed. The housing market is full of people who will need to sell in the immediate future. Could be a death in the family, could be a divorce, could be someone who needs to find a new job elsewhere and can’t work remote, could be a boomer that wants to move to fucking Florida before they die. People will need to sell for a variety of reasons and when they do they will run up against the people who wanted to sell months ago, but held off because they thought things would get better because they were greedy and expected a buyer to pay over asking. All this inventory builds up over time. Now we have chronically under built in many markets for decades. That inventory “piling up” may not be nearly enough to stifle demand in markets like the SF Bay Area (where some suburbs are already seeing six digit price cuts fyi) but it will for many other emerging markets like Denver, Boise, Florida, Phoenix etc. TL; DR decent chances prices will continue to drop in the next 6-12 months
A section of [SF Bay Bridge was rebuilt by the Chinese.](https://theworld.org/stories/2011-10-19/california-turns-chinese-company-labor-build-most-new-bay-bridge-span) It took a couple months. The inspecting team was amazed how fast they get it done that would take \~2 years. The Chinese team had lowest bid for public jobs.
Like Anthony Coumo shoving the elderly into homes *with* the virus, killing tens of thousands? Or when NY cried about packed hospitals, but refused the boat sent to assist? You can make it partisan based, or just look at the fact that political assholes used and abused the situation to their gain, all the while mocking us by disregarding their own policies and mandates regularly. Like SF's mayor just feelin' it and needing to dance, or pelosi flexing on plebs to get her hair done.
NFL has killed me this year but Patriots is a bad matchup for the Vikings I feel. Hard to envision Vikings running the ball on that Patriots defense which has been nothing short of amazing recently, especially when you ignore the one game they played against my Bears where we actually used Justin Fields correctly for the first time. I put $200 on SF to win their division 2 months ago at +120 and I wish I had put more, cashout is a lot higher now.
not wholly true, just harder than TO. but VAN does have those white collar jobs, too. especially for the gold miners. also, though you won’t get rich, tech in VAN and tech in TO and US is arbitraging slowly because of remote work. the local offices are rubbing the risk of losing cheap local tech because they can just remote work and make more to a US office. and they can’t just hire remote workers since, as just said, they demand US (but Texas tech salaries, not SF tech salaries). so they’re being forced to offer Van tech more. remote work is doing wonders for making tech less reliant of SF salaries but also raising salaries in the cheapest cities like VAN.
This is why I had to leave Vancouver. The math doesn't work. The network I had in Vancouver is weaker than t3 and t2 American cities I have lived in. It's cheaper to be in the US, it's easier to raise capital, and it's a better place to run a company. If Vancouver/Toronto could compete with NYC/SF on network opps...maybe...but it is nowhere close.
The McDonald’s beyond meat product didn’t test well in SF and Dallas that’s when I took a long put position. Also the price at the grocery store seems beyond the budget during period of increased inflation. I could be wrong the puts were cheap enough and really I dump more on a night out at the bar.
That seems like an overly simplistic view point. Sure, FSD is far from good enough to serve as a robotaxi today, but the videos you see on YouTube are people putting the software in the most difficult positions imaginable under strict supervision and seeing what it does. That's not average use. When you look at average use, there are plenty of examples of 5+ hours of driving with zero interventions, including all the way from SF to LA. Looking at the examples you shared, that first one definitely could've resulted in a crash, although the software is clearly showing it was planning to go around the car before the intervention. Whether it would've achieved that is questionable though. As for the second one, that's just a last-minute change of direction, but the car was clearly prepared to stop for the pedestrians if it had to. Regardless, these kinds of anecdotes are dangerous to take as proof. I've had countless of moments where I missed something and had to take evasive action at the last minute when driving manually. FSD making mistakes doesn't mean it's less safe than human driving, it just needs to make fewer mistakes than humans. > TBH I don't even understand how it is legal to operate it in the USA, even with driver monitoring. There are several features that had to be deactivated in Germany because it wouldn't be approved for that - lane changes being one of them. And even then, they are still not getting approval (I doubt they will even in the mid-term future) This is very strange reasoning. If software is improving safety, it should be approved. You can't say "it didn't get approved in this one country, therefore it's not safe". That's not how data works. As long as doesn't show that it's less safe - and 100.000+ people driving it with not a single crash so far certainly seems to suggest that it IS safe - we shouldn't be banning lifesaving software. That would be like banning seatbelts back in the 50s because a few people had trouble getting out of a burning car.
That's san francisco, doesn't mean the whole country. I would have a few questions about just those San Fran properties: 1. What % of total housing is vacant? 2. What is their specific metric to determine vacancy? 3. How many of these are owned by foreign nationals to hide and stach their cash in the US? Very interesting article non the less. How ever, maybe instead of more taxes the SF government could ease building permit requirements and such to induce more construction as opposed to penalizing people for property they own and using as they wish. One of the main things America was founded on was individual property rights.
I was in an elevator one time at the Embarcadero Center in SF. He was very busy, using his headset and in a heated argument with the person on the phone. I was doing an IT project and had to get off at the top floor. Coincidently, so did he. I was just standing there, minding my own business by the buttons, when I heard a cacophy erupt from the midsection of Mr. Ackman. It was a wet, greasy noise. It was clearly evident the caller on the other end had heard the movement. Bill stares at me, I can feel him giving me an occular pat down and assessing my threatlevel. He knows, I am introverted, and merely an IT guy. "George, I'll have to get back to you. Somebody just shit my pants." He double tapped his earpiece and got off at the floor just below mine. Staring at me, piercing my soul as he waddled his shit filled trousers out the elevator. Bill Ackman has terrible elevator etiquette.
How about you calm down first before you insult others without even proving your point. Why would you compare balance sheet with SP500 when talking about the cumulative effect of quantitative easing? If you're so sure that you know, please enlighten us clueless on the effect of QE/QT on long term interest rate. Btw, just showing me a bunch of correlation chart isn't very quantitative and no conclusion can be drawn from it. I'm not the one saying no one knows for sure. Multiple Fed officials said it publicly. From my memory, Waller, Williams, even Powell said so in one of the FOMC press conference early this year. If you know any economist who's certain he knows the effect of QE/QT, feel free to name those people here. Feel free to view these articles below from Richmond and SF Fed, where one states the uncertainty among economists over QE/QT effects, and the other showing the QE impact over the last 24 months is not as exaggerated as you make it out to be. [https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ\_focus/2022/q3\_federal\_reserve](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2022/q3_federal_reserve) [https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/indicators-data/proxy-funds-rate/](https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/indicators-data/proxy-funds-rate/)
> they will literally never catch up on self driving Cruise (owned by GM) is [far ahead](https://www.youtube.com/@cruise5585) of Tesla. They have working robo-taxis in SF and expanding soon to Phoenix and Austin. And a substantially lower number of disengagements compared to FSD i.e. much more reliable.
>Unpopular Opinion: Owning your home not necessary a better financial decision than renting a similar property. Think you mean "is not necessarily". >1. Owning can be much more expensive. True and owning is more expensive in the short term while less expensive in the long run. The first few years of owning a home is when every maintenance issue comes up. >2. Rents don’t necessarily increase with the cost of land. Look up any region with low cap rates (SF, LA, Seattle). Rents are determined by supply and demand, not cost. Too much of house prices are based on speculation demand instead of actual housing demand. Rentals can't work that way. >3. When you own a home, it often becomes your largest investment by far. Not exactly. The real "investment" on owning a home is in future housing cost. When my home is paid for, then the savings in not paying rent is my return in investment, not the current price of the property. >4. You’re no worse off putting the money you save from a down payment and maintenance in a index fund. ... One could argue you’d likely be wealthier due to the better long term performance of the stock market. The country argument is that if your rent cost are going up over time. Again, the real return for owning a home is eventually not paying rent. >My only point is owning is not necessarily a better financial decision than renting. Do the math before you start regurgitating conventional wisdom. Agreed. Espionage in HCOL areas.
>Everyone seems to think that owning their home is always better than renting. I think everyone realizes that owning is only *almost always* better than renting. >Owning can be much more expensive. In many markets, the cost of land is so prohibitive that the mortgage payments can get quite large. Additionally there are a lot of repairs and maintenance over the 30 years of paying off a mortgage that people tend to ignore in their analysis. These pretty much all have to be included in the rent, though. Whether your or a landlord replaces the roof, the money will ultimately come from you, as the LL will charge enough rent to cover the cost of repairs. And people - renters, mostly - tend to vastly overstate the cost of repairs and maintenance to a house. In some cases by including discretionary upgrades ("I redid my kitchen for $40,000") with maintenance and repairs ("I spent $200 on a plumber to fix the dishwasher"). >Rents don’t necessarily increase with the cost of land. Look up any region with low cap rates (SF, LA, Seattle). Rents are determined by supply and demand, not cost. Yes, although rents tend to increase with inflation, and it's much worse to be a renter during a period of high inflation. >When you own a home, it often becomes your largest investment by far. Many homes only investment is in their home. This lack of diversification can have dramatic consequences (ie the Great Recession) A home is not an investment; it's a place to live. It is true that you should avoid overspending on your home. But you should also avoid overspending on your rent. >You’re no worse off putting the money you save from a down payment and maintenance in a index fund. You can rent your whole life and have the same net worth as someone who buys their house and puts all their money in mortgage payments. One could argue you’d likely be wealthier due to the better long term performance of the stock market. Yes, you are almost always worse off. You are ignoring leverage. (And, again, maintenance is included in the rent). If I continue to rent and put $20,000 in an index fund returning 7%, at the end of 30 years I'll have $152,000. If I put $20k down on a $400,000 house (because almost no first time homebuyers put down 20%) appreciating at 3% a year, the house will be worth $970k in 30 years. Even if the house didn't appreciate at all in real terms I'd still have a net worth of $400k just in the house. Buying puts me massively ahead (or simply substantially ahead) either way. And that ignores things like: (1) the mortgage is now paid off; and (2) if I had continued to rent, my rent would have increased every year, on average. There are two situations where renting can be more advantageous. The first is that real estate prices are sticky, so sometimes when housing prices go up dramatically, rental prices move more slowly and you may be in a situation where it is actually cheaper to rent. Over time the difference tends to disappear, though. The second is that most rent/buy comparisons (reasonably) assume renting vs buying an equivalent residence...you should compare a 3br/2bath rental with the same type of home, not with a 6 br/3bath home. However, in many locations there is no ownership equivalent of a studio or 1BR apartment. Even though it is not equivalent to the smallest condo you could buy (2 BR/2bath where I live), it probably will be cheaper, so if your goal is to save money absolutely, not comparatively, you will save money with place smaller than a place you can buy. Probably.
Depends entirely on where when you bought, and what’s available. If you are living in or around those cities you mentioned and want a home there you probably HAVE to rent. But say you bought a 2 story house in the outer mission in SF in 1992. You just finished paying the mortgage on a house that you bought for 300k that’s now worth 3,000,000. By your theory you’d have to invest the 60k you saved from that downpayment, and cover that 2.7 mil increase in value over 30 years, while renting increasingly more expensive apartments, and paying to move every few years to stay in your budget as you’re priced out of where you lived, and forced to move further and further away from where you work, play etc. Hard to see the value.
>Phở Hà Nội opening a huge new restaurant on University Ave, steps from \#Stanford University. Palo Alto and the SF Peninsula are in for a treat. Bún bò Huế for me. [sfgate.com/food/article/b…](https://t.co/9hcVukxoBQ) ^Cassandra ^B.C. ^[@michaeljburry](http://twitter.com/michaeljburry) ^at ^2022-11-20 ^12:40:16 ^EST-0500
It's true we have a lot of land, but there aren't many jobs in those places. Not many immigrants are moving to places like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc. We certainly do not have a shortage of land, but almost everywhere we have a shortage of housing which is causing many American citizens to become homeless or go into debt just to afford rent. In the past most immigrants were men looking for work who would only marry and/or have children once they found a job and a place to live. Many of the refugee immigrants arriving now are children and their mothers (or just children by themselves), a lot of whom don't even know Spanish. They're not to blame but they are very, very difficult to integrate into the population and some of them don't have any interest in doing so. Obviously there are a lot of hardworking undocumented immigrants in the US but the recent arrivals have very limited ability to find jobs and afford housing without a lot of government support. They are also highly concentrated in the border states and a few large cities (NYC, LA, SF, etc) which already have horrible housing crises and enormous homeless populations. It's hard to measure the number of homeless people in the US obviously but the last point-in-time study (I used work in homeless shelter system) estimated 50% of homeless lived in metro LA and another 25-30% in NYC. People come here because of the jobs and the welfare system but end up homeless bc most jobs in these cities don't pay enough to get housing and health insurance.
>Wechat was started within tencent. It seems like it was a side project something intended to be a company. Doesn't matter, it was a side project to QQ and the team only consisted of 47 people to get to 1B users. Full stop. >You have a source for this claim? What claim? >And if they were that small project size, they were getting help from their parent company? Even if, the disparity between 8,000 employees for an app that does one primary thing, Status Updates, and doesn't do them well vs. the world's only "superapp" that does several things extremely well - including Status Updates. Instagram made it to 30 million users with <10 employees - 4 of which engineers. Even Tencent wasn't nearly as big as it is today in like 2010. >Hr functions, existing tech stack. Yes, you've precisely defined the problem with tech in 2022 and how tech's invincible era is seemingly over after 2 decades. It just so happens Elon is the one to show SF how lean you're going to be able to run some of these tech companies.
THE FORTUNE ARTICLE VERBATIM, (courtesy of a well times escape key no subscription blur removal required) Elon Musk sent an email this morning around 9 AM asking “anyone who actually writes software” to meet him at Twitter at 2PM today, amid a wave of departures at the company following a Thursday deadline for employees to recommit. According to a source at Twitter, preliminary data at the company indicates that between 1,000 and 1,200 Twitter employees opted not to click “yes,” by Thursday’s deadline, on a form that required employees to affirm their intention to keep working at Twitter. Employees who did not click yes, were effectively deemed to have resigned. It’s unclear exactly how many employees remain at Twitter. On Friday, Musk sent an email summoning remaining employees who “actually write software” to meet him at the Twitter headquarters. “Before doing so, please email me a bullet point summary of what your code commits have achieved in the last \~6 months, along with up to 10 screenshots of the most salient lines of code,” Musk wrote. About 20 minutes after his first email, Musk sent a follow-up to address remote workers. He directs them to “email the request below” and he will perform “short, technical interviews” over video. Only those who cannot physically get to Twitter HQ or “have a family emergency” are excused, Musk said. Then, several minutes after the second email, Musk sent a third email asking employees to fly to SF to be present in person if they can. “I will be at Twitter HQ until midnight and then back again tomorrow morning,” Musk wrote. Roughly an hour later, Musk sent a fourth email to staff telling them “flying out to SF would be appreciated, but is not essential.” The director of engineering sent a message to the capacity engineering team at Twitter, who are responsible for making sure everyone has enough resources for their servers to run, via Slack shortly after Musk’s correspondence to the company. “Team – Working to get more info on Elon’s ask. Feel free to reach out if you have any \[questions\],” the director said. “On travel, \[the VP of Engineering on Core Infrastructure\]’s recommendation is to send the code snippet and bullets first. Then, decide if travel is appropriate. This is evolving, but we expect there to be some sort of method prioritize \[sic\] over the next hour or so.”
Twitter will be fine. WeChat made it to 1B users with 100x more utility and only 47 employees. Twitter isn't halfway there and does one thing very mediocrely (is that a word) and had over 8,000 employees Put yourself in the employees shoes: they lived in an adult daycare and now have to actually work. Hard. They can get the same salary at a million other places in SF right now. So why wouldn't you? Unless you want TWTR equity. Plenty of legends like George Hotz have stepped up to work at Twitter and make it awesome. Elon *wants* the company to be *extremely* lean. Look @ TSLAs OpEx relative to top line - it's trending in AAPLs direction.
AH! You must work for Salesforce. The "we do it all" mantra, the "issue of training", etc. I'm surprised that you didn't also bring up "but we CATER it toward your business" bullshit line as well. It's bullshit. SF is shit, and it only gets sold to upper managers who believe the metrics will be there.
Dude should’ve gotten a construction loan, that way the appraiser takes project scope and costs into consideration in determining the prospective value at completion. Not a 1:1 ratio for every dollar put in, but a lot better than basing it solely on sales/SF.