4 ms·
16% is not alarming to me given the situation and how ridiculous real estate is in SF. I expected a higher number than that.
by dexterdog 6y ago
16% is not alarming to me given the situation and how ridiculous real estate is in SF. I expected a higher number than that.
- texasbigdata 6y agoAnnualize it though!
- lostlogin 6y agoIt’s realestate, so let’s seasonally adjusted it too (though maybe they only do this where I live). Realestate figures always have so many adjustments that I can’t tell what anything means.
- gentleman11 6y agoWhat is a typical rate? 16% seems Very high to me but I’m not familiar with the market
- fredophile 6y agoIt's not even 16% of rentals; it's 16% of the surveyed owners who, on average, rent more than 30 rental units each.
- stx 6y agoSo it could be that of those owners they had one or two tenants break a lease? This would be a much lower number of actual tenants breaking their lease but we do not know with the data provided.
- fredophile 6y agoRight. All the provided numbers tell us is that out of about 10 000 renters at least 50 and no more than 9750 broke their lease. We really need to know where in this range the real numbers are and where we'd expect them to be in a normal year. Before somebody complains about my numbers, I did round values to make the math simpler. The real values aren't that far off.