For me, the $##M house on broadway owned by L.E. is as much “sillicon valley” as his $##M property in Atherton in the way that they both fit the same “who cares about mortgages when you spend $##M cash from your computer stocks”?

this was my prefered quote from the article:

And luxury homes — properties listed for more than $3.5 million — might be holding up best because buyers who can afford these prices aren’t concerned about interest-rate fluctuations or the credit crunch. SPECIFICALLY for the chosen number of 3.5M.

Now please debate about whereas $3.5M is the right number for san francisco as in “above this number, just put the property on the market and wait” while “under that number, some marketing effort is seriously needed to get an offer at or above asking” [all in summer and fall 2008 of course]

or does this number represent something else? or should we choose another number, another limit?

to quote myself, I think I said many times in 2005 and early 2006 that the lower limit of the bullet proof market was 1.5 and that number was skyrocketing as the properties were still climbing high and fast. But for me, and for 2008, I’d rather put it at 2.4, maybe 2.8M

All my south bay friends who are single want to move to the City.