|
Why buy a house?
In article ,
shinypenny wrote: condo values in california lag the housing market, but not by much. In the Boston area, condo values are appreciating faster than single families, due to the reasons you state below, plus the fact that there's few areas left to build new housing. Condos lag the single family housing market going both ways. They are the last to appreciate and decline the fastest. Recently, condo prices have indeed outpaced SFR prices, just as prices in less desirable neighborhoods have outpaced prices in the more desirable neighborhoods. It's a ripple effect. Once prices of SFRs in desirable neighborhoods come down in price people opt for those over the other neighborhoods and condos, which props up their prices as compared to the alternatives. This is very evident at the top end of the real estate market. Prices in places like Malibu and Beverly Hills have been relatively stagnant compared to more moderately priced areas. However, in the last California real estate recession they also held their values the best (actually, it was almost-as-expensive San Marino and La Canada that held their values the best but other expensive areas like BH were not far behind). Desirable housing is the first to appreciate and the last to fall. Less desirable housing (i.e. most condos) has a shorter real estate cycle and is not as good to hold over the long term - although lots of money can be made with good timing (e.g. buy low and sell high). Dimitri |
Why buy a house?
In article ,
Steve wrote: No, they don't always go up. Sometimes they go down. Or people just won't sell until they can break even, just like in the stock market. In the long run, housing prices tend to appreciate with inflation. As with stocks, any individual house or location may not appreciate at all. In general, though, single-family housing appreciates given enough time. Dimitri |
Why buy a house?
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In the long run, housing prices tend to appreciate with inflation. As with stocks, any individual house or location may not appreciate at all. In general, though, single-family housing appreciates given enough time. Agreed. Of course, you only get the benefit of what your house does grin, so averages don't necessarily matter except as an indicator of what future result is more likely than another. That said, I think that it's reasonable to buy a house to meet current and near future reasonably anticipated needs while staying within your comfort level for housing expense. It doesn't necessarily make sense to simply buy based upon the most expensive property someone is willing to lend you the money to get into, simply because all of finance is a balancing act--if too high a proportion is going into housing, something has to give, meaning that other things won't be handled adequately. But, as well, given the high transaction costs generally involved with real estate, it doesn't really generally make sense to buy something you'll need to replace in the near future--in that case, you are betting (perhaps heavily) that the appreciation is great enough to cover the transaction costs involved. To me a personal residence is first and foremost a *functional* item that provides me with both fulfillment of my need for shelter *and*, hopefully, an enjoyable living experience. And my own bias (yours can be different--that's fine) is that I want one where I'm comfortable with the expense/cash flow involved so that appreciation and continued low interest rates (which help feed appreciation) are simply a nice side effect, not something that I "really, really" need to happen to be able to avoid financial disaster. I have seen people who are betting the farm on home appreciation and continued low interest by stretching themselves as far as they can buying the largest property they can with an interest only ARM and as little down as possible. Now, that strategy has worked (very) well the past few years in many areas--but if it doesn't in the future (and there are clearly times in the not so distant past when it wouldn't have worked well at all), they may be in a world of hurt down the line when facing higher interest rates, a slow housing market and economic conditions that threaten their income. |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
"jetgraphics" wrote in message ... Lou wrote: I hate to say it, but it's not women in particular. [who use lotsa TP] But you have to recognize that the ladies use TP for #1 & #2, while gentlemen only use it for #2. And the frequency of #1 exceeds #2. Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, I posted what I did because, in my household, my wife uses far less toilet paper than I do. and often choose rolls of nice old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months. I have no idea what most guys do, but for myself, I choose nice soft tissue. The stuff you mention is coarse and scratchy, and far to prone to fall apart in the middle of the job. When ladies are present, then fluffy/soft/fragile rolls get consumed about 2 per week/per female. I'd be curious to see some actual statistics rather than a few anecdotes. I was surprised, for instance, to learn that teenage boys spend more money per week on clothes and grooming products than teenage girls. |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
Lou wrote in message ... jetgraphics wrote Lou wrote I hate to say it, but it's not women in particular. [who use lotsa TP] But you have to recognize that the ladies use TP for #1 & #2, while gentlemen only use it for #2. And the frequency of #1 exceeds #2. Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, I posted what I did because, in my household, my wife uses far less toilet paper than I do. Is that because you are a very ****ty person ? and often choose rolls of nice old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months. I have no idea what most guys do, but for myself, I choose nice soft tissue. The stuff you mention is coarse and scratchy, and far to prone to fall apart in the middle of the job. When ladies are present, then fluffy/soft/fragile rolls get consumed about 2 per week/per female. I'd be curious to see some actual statistics rather than a few anecdotes. I doubt any academic has bothered to collect them. I was surprised, for instance, to learn that teenage boys spend more money per week on clothes and grooming products than teenage girls. Dont believe it. |
Why buy a house?
"Steve" wrote in message ... "Lou" wrote: You said it - the rent includes those costs (in other words, you're still paying for them), plus a profit for the landlord Well, maybe, depending on the rental market at any particular time. Not sure what "profit" for the landlord means. Positive cash flow? "Profit" means the same thing for a landlord as it does for anyone else - total money in minus total money out - for a business it's more or less the same thing as net income. Not the same thing as cash flow at all, which is a measure of liquidity. Usually it's the total of net income after taxes plus noncash charges (stuff like depreciation and amortization). It's quite possible to have a "negative" net income - in other words a loss - and still have a positive cash flow. |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote: Lou wrote in message ... I was surprised, for instance, to learn that teenage boys spend more money per week on clothes and grooming products than teenage girls. Dont believe it. I don't either. Link? Dimitri |
Why buy a house?
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:32:18 +0000, D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article , Keith wrote: Of course not! I don't have a "positive cash flow" on my stocks either. Look at the long term. If landlords didn't make money there wouldn't be any landlords. Add to that the tax breaks given to owner-occupied dwellings and it's rather obvious that you're better off renting to yourself than renting from someone who doesn't care a crap about your financial well-being. There was a time when people bought stocks because of the positive cash flow (dividends). I guess that was before Tulip Mania, er Dot Bombs. No, that time (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) was when capital-gains weren't so oneroulsy taxed. Until the recent tax changes it was better to deffer capital to growth and change it in when one wished. Whether you like it or not, tax law rules investment. ...which is why (true to this thread) owning a home is *so* important. -- Keith |
Why buy a house?
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:55:28 -0700, Steve wrote:
Keith wrote: You said it - the rent includes those costs (in other words, you're still paying for them), plus a profit for the landlord Well, maybe, depending on the rental market at any particular time. Not sure what "profit" for the landlord means. Positive cash flow? Of course not! I don't have a "positive cash flow" on my stocks either. Look at the long term. If landlords didn't make money there wouldn't be any landlords. Ok, I'll ask again - if it's not related to cash flow, what does "make money" mean for a landlord? I'm assuming that this is a rhetorical question, since you seem to be a reasonably bright perosn. Any increase in value is a gain, whether that increase is paid (and taxable) today or paid next year or decade (thus is deffered). Again, if there was no profit in owning there would be no landlords. Thus you're better off being your own landlord, so you can take that profit. Add the special tax incentives for owner-occupied dwellings and it's quite obvious that owning is better than renting. -- Keith |
Why buy a house?
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:24:35 -0400, jetgraphics wrote:
Keith wrote: Poor credit isn't necessarily going to cut it. You never know until you apply. I know of folks who were turned down from commercial lenders and scored USDA mortgages. I know folks who had NO credit history, having NEVER borrowed, and scored USDA mortgages. No credit bad credit. I had no credit when I bought my first home. No problem. Now it's no problem getting any credit I want. Yeah - as long as they can get a piece of the action. "They" as in the creditor? Sure, why *shouldn't" they get a "piece of the action. They're "risking" the money. We are both benefiting from the transaction, or we wouldn't enter into the contract. It's a bureaucracy, folks, fill out the forms and get in line... Yeah, free money for the deadbeats? I don't think so! They interview to determine if the cause of the bad credit has been eradicated. Obviously, bad things happen to good people, sometimes. Don't presume the worst about everyone. I presume the worst in any government plan. I haven't been let down too many times. Do you think it's good to kick someone when he's down? Or is it better to help him to stand on his feet? No, it's better to train people to handle debt. Sometimes life's a bitch. Learn to handle it and you'll grow. -- Keith |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
"Timm Simpkins" wrote in message ... "jetgraphics" wrote in message ... Lou wrote: (snip) Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, and often choose rolls of nice old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months. When ladies are present, then fluffy/soft/fragile rolls get consumed about 2 per week/per female. Well, I get the large rolls of Charmin, since I end up using way too much of that 80 grit 1 ply John Wayne TP. All that stuff seems to do is smear stuff around. Funny, I find that the expensive soft stuff turns into a handful of smelly dryer lint halfway through the job. The 'different strokes for different folks' saying would really seem to apply here. I like the 80-grit Scottissue. And the single rolls actually fit in my undersink cabinet, unlike the 4-packs. aem sends.... |
Why buy a house?
Steve wrote: Mark wrote: To follow up more on #2 - if you can afford it now, get it now. Simply because, if you know you'll want/need something bigger down the road, you may not be able to afford it then. House prices go up - and fast. They may slow down for a period, but they always go up. No, they don't always go up. Sometimes they go down. Or people just won't sell until they can break even, just like in the stock market. if they go down below what i paid, im buying another one. |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:54 -0400, "Lou"
wrote: I'd be curious to see some actual statistics rather than a few anecdotes. I was surprised, for instance, to learn that teenage boys spend more money per week on clothes and grooming products than teenage girls. As I recall, I always spent far more on teenage girls than I did on clothes and grooming products. |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
jetgraphics ) wrote:
: wrote: : : For those who want to try out a portable battery powered bidet: : http://www.thefactoryoutlet.com/bidets/bidet2a.asp : : Do these things above really work well? : : YUP. : The pump can put out a nice spray, almost stinging when the batteries are : new. : And for those who aren't sure one load of warm water will do, take an extra : water bottle to refill the reservoir. : Here's a similar Panasonic product that connects to the home wiring and water pipes: http://www.sandman.com/intimst.html WORLD'S BEST TOILET SEAT and ELECTRONIC BIDET --Jerry Leslie Note: is invalid for email |
Why buy a house?
Bob Ward wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jul 2004 08:35:08 -0700, (Larry Bud) wrote: I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least). $ wise, you need to run the numbers, however there are a few perks outside the money which you may not have considered: Wrong. If the bank REALLY owned it, they could come and paint purple polkadots on it, or evict you on a whim. Now why would they want to devalue something they own? Don't pay your mortgage or property taxes for a while, and then come back and tell me they don't own it. Obviously if you owned it, they couldn't kick you out. Eventually, you may own it, but of course, you stil need permission from the government to live there. |
Why buy a house?
It doesn't necessarily make sense to simply buy based upon the most
expensive property someone is willing to lend you the money to get into, But, as well, given the high transaction costs generally involved with real estate, it doesn't really generally make sense to buy something you'll need to replace in the near future Excellent point Ed! Thanks! |
Why buy a house?
I think two things got mixed up here. The legal ownership of a house is
recorded on the title of the house. If it's you who purchase the house then from the legal perspective you are the owner of the house. However, if you get a mortgage from a bank then you're using the house as a collateral to secure the mortgage. If you failed the payment and broken the mortgage contract then according the procedure specified by the law, the ownership of the house eventually transfer to the bank and the bank is free to do whatever to the house to recover their money. From a Christian's perspective, nothing we own is really ours. Everything we own is just lent to us temporarily. 100 years later most of the house currently owned by people of this newsgroup will probably still standing but few, if any, will register to the current owner's name. FC Larry Bud wrote: Bob Ward wrote in message . .. (snip) Wrong. If the bank REALLY owned it, they could come and paint purple polkadots on it, or evict you on a whim. Now why would they want to devalue something they own? Don't pay your mortgage or property taxes for a while, and then come back and tell me they don't own it. Obviously if you owned it, they couldn't kick you out. Eventually, you may own it, but of course, you stil need permission from the government to live there. |
Why buy a house?
FC wrote:
If you failed the payment and broken the mortgage contract then according the procedure specified by the law, the ownership of the house eventually transfer to the bank and the bank is free to do whatever to the house to recover their money. But, as well, it's important to note that while the mortgage is outstanding, you generally have other contractual commitments that effectively limit your rights as an owner of the secured property. Generally these limitations aren't ones that you really notice, but they are limitations that don't exist for someone who owns the property "free and clear" of any restrictions. Obviously, you can't sell the property and pocket the proceeds grin. But, just as well, you also have agreed not to do certain things to the property (like demolish the structure, convert it to a use other than as your principal residence, etc.) , to keep it insured at certain levels and to deposit funds in advance with the lender who will then pay the taxes and insurance. Now, as an *owner* you still have the right to do or not do most of those things--but, if you do, you would either have to get the lender's approval *OR* pay off the mortgage. Since most homeowners don't have the funds sitting around to pay off the mortgage short of selling the property grin, that means they are effectively must follow the terms of the mortgage to the extent it limits what they could otherwise do as an owner. So back to what started this subthread--I agree that someone who has an interest only mortgage is still an owner. What they aren't doing, however, is making progress towards getting rid of the restrictions I noted above and have the overhanging problem that *eventually* that mortgage will need to be either refinanced or paid off. Since no one *has* to give you a mortgage, that means down the line you'll either need to "ante up" the payoff at that date (not likely for most of those taking out interest only loans) or qualify for a replacement mortgage much as a buyer would. You could look at the second case as, for all practical purposes, buying the property again, though at the price of the original mortgage principal balance (kind of locking in an option to buy at today's price at some point in the future). That means that, generally, this type of loan is the "best fit" if you don't plan to stay in the house long but expect the property to appreciate. You can still be in a bind if you put little down and the house doesn't appreciate enough to cover transaction costs on a sale--you may find you have to put cash in to get out. That could be a real problem if you were "stretching" initially to get into the property (indicating a lack of other resources). I think anyone taking on an interest only ARM mortgage does need to think through the "what ifs" on interest rates and appreciation. Rates could (and most likely will) go up, and while appreciation *generally* takes place in real estate, it doesn't have to on any *particular* property or over any *particular* time period (especially if that period is relatively short). If the property doesn't appreciate (for whatever reason), rates go up and your income stays flat, is that going to be a financial disaster? Someone with a "standard" fixed rate mortgage doesn't have the same exposure to those risks, which is what I think the real point should be for someone looking at that option. -- Ed Zollars, CPA Phoenix, Arizona |
Why buy a house?
|
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
Bob Ward wrote:
|| On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:54 -0400, "Lou" || wrote: || ||| ||| I'd be curious to see some actual statistics rather than a few ||| anecdotes. I was surprised, for instance, to learn that teenage ||| boys spend more money per week on clothes and grooming products ||| than teenage girls. ||| || || || As I recall, I always spent far more on teenage girls than I did on || clothes and grooming products. You probably still do! |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
ameijers wrote:
|| "Timm Simpkins" wrote in message || ... ||| "jetgraphics" wrote in message ||| ... |||| Lou wrote: || (snip) |||| Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, and often choose rolls |||| of nice old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months. When ladies |||| are present, then fluffy/soft/fragile rolls get consumed about 2 |||| per week/per female. ||| ||| Well, I get the large rolls of Charmin, since I end up using way ||| too much of that 80 grit 1 ply John Wayne TP. All that stuff seems ||| to do is smear stuff around. ||| || Funny, I find that the expensive soft stuff turns into a handful of || smelly dryer lint halfway through the job. The 'different strokes || for different folks' saying would really seem to apply here. I || like the 80-grit Scottissue. And the single rolls actually fit in || my undersink cabinet, unlike the 4-packs. || || aem sends.... Terribly unfrugal to buy TP by the inDUHvidual roll. |
Why buy a house?
"Mike M." wrote in message .net... wrote in message ... ...and given a chance I'll vote for the ammendment that proposes to increase the homestead exemption to more fairly represent actual values. Sadly, it probably won't make the ballot - too much lost revenue at stake. ... Sounds too good to be true, so it probably won't happen. Hmm, that didn't take long. *******s! Associated Press Posted July 15 2004, 1:09 PM EDT TALLAHASSEE -- A proposed ballot measure to double the state's $25,000 homestead exemption and another that could have led to the revocation of some sales tax exemption are flawed and can't be on the November ballot, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday. |
Why buy a house?
You can give yourself some insurance as to its future value. The more
expensive the house, the more apt the value is to increase, that is unless the expensive house is built in the middle of a slum. Starter homes are less likely to increase in value since generally they are small, cheaply built homes that have no yard and low income neighbors who often seem less likely to keep their yards nicely groomed and well be more likely to have several non-working vehicles parked in various stages of repair throughout their property. "Steve" wrote in message ... Mark wrote: To follow up more on #2 - if you can afford it now, get it now. Simply because, if you know you'll want/need something bigger down the road, you may not be able to afford it then. House prices go up - and fast. They may slow down for a period, but they always go up. No, they don't always go up. Sometimes they go down. Or people just won't sell until they can break even, just like in the stock market. |
Why buy a house?
"Timm Simpkins" wrote:
not be able to afford it then. House prices go up - and fast. They may slow down for a period, but they always go up. No, they don't always go up. Sometimes they go down. Or people just won't sell until they can break even, just like in the stock market. You can give yourself some insurance as to its future value. The more expensive the house, the more apt the value is to increase This is true, except when it's not. You're probably better off with mid-range houses, somewhere around the median price for your area. Higher-end houses can go thru long periods of time when there simply are not many buyers in the market. |
Why buy a house?
Timm Simpkins wrote in message ... You can give yourself some insurance as to its future value. Yes, but your line is FAR too superficial. The more expensive the house, the more apt the value is to increase, Mindlessly superficial, most obviously with houses that are more expensive because they happen to be where there has just been a big surge in prices. A less expensive house in an area which hasnt yet seen the flow on of that big surge is much better insurance on the future value. that is unless the expensive house is built in the middle of a slum. Some slums dont stay slums forever. Starter homes are less likely to increase in value since generally they are small, cheaply built homes that have no yard and low income neighbors who often seem less likely to keep their yards nicely groomed and well be more likely to have several non-working vehicles parked in various stages of repair throughout their property. Sure, but there are also run down areas which are cheap which do get extensively rebuilt over time too. "Steve" wrote in message ... Mark wrote: To follow up more on #2 - if you can afford it now, get it now. Simply because, if you know you'll want/need something bigger down the road, you may not be able to afford it then. House prices go up - and fast. They may slow down for a period, but they always go up. No, they don't always go up. Sometimes they go down. Or people just won't sell until they can break even, just like in the stock market. |
Why buy a house?
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:37:34 -0700, Larry Bud wrote:
Bob Ward wrote in message . .. On 13 Jul 2004 08:35:08 -0700, (Larry Bud) wrote: I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least). $ wise, you need to run the numbers, however there are a few perks outside the money which you may not have considered: Wrong. If the bank REALLY owned it, they could come and paint purple polkadots on it, or evict you on a whim. Now why would they want to devalue something they own? Don't pay your mortgage or property taxes for a while, and then come back and tell me they don't own it. Obviously if you owned it, they couldn't kick you out. Eventually, you may own it, but of course, you stil need permission from the government to live there. Also, most landlords can't repaint their units or evict their tenants on a whim. Does that mean the tenants own the unit? -- Lance Lamboy "Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
Bob Ward wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:54 -0400, "Lou" wrote: I'd be curious to see some actual statistics rather than a few anecdotes. I was surprised, for instance, to learn that teenage boys spend more money per week on clothes and grooming products than teenage girls. As I recall, I always spent far more on teenage girls than I did on clothes and grooming products. Yes, but at your age, it's time you stopped. |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
"SHARX" wrote in message news:4bAJc.46672$Rf.9461@edtnps84... ameijers wrote: || "Timm Simpkins" wrote in message || ... ||| "jetgraphics" wrote in message ||| ... |||| Lou wrote: (snip) || aem sends.... Terribly unfrugal to buy TP by the inDUHvidual roll. Only a few pennies per roll difference where I buy it. Worth it for the convenience of storage. I tried the big packs, but the unwrapped rolls seem to soak up all the humidity in the bathroom and deteriorate. In my tiny apartment, the bottom of the vanity is the only convenient place to store the extras. aem sends..... |
Why buy a house?
Mike M. wrote:
|| "Mike M." wrote in message || .net... ||| ||| wrote in message ||| ... ||| |||| ...and given a chance I'll vote for the ammendment that proposes to ||| increase the homestead exemption to more fairly represent actual ||| values. ||| ||| Sadly, it probably won't make the ballot - too much lost revenue at ||| stake. || || ... || ||| Sounds too good to be true, so it probably won't happen. || || Hmm, that didn't take long. *******s! || || Associated Press || Posted July 15 2004, 1:09 PM EDT || || TALLAHASSEE -- A proposed ballot measure to double the state's || $25,000 homestead exemption and another that could have led to the || revocation of some sales tax exemption are flawed and can't be on || the November ballot, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday. Sounds like the SAME FLORIDA Supreme Court that did ITS level best to give Florida to Al Bore. |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
ameijers wrote:
|| "SHARX" wrote in message || news:4bAJc.46672$Rf.9461@edtnps84... ||| ameijers wrote: ||||| "Timm Simpkins" wrote in message ||||| ... |||||| "jetgraphics" wrote in message |||||| ... ||||||| Lou wrote: || (snip) ||||| aem sends.... ||| ||| Terribly unfrugal to buy TP by the inDUHvidual roll. ||| || Only a few pennies per roll difference where I buy it. Worth it for || the convenience of storage. I tried the big packs, but the unwrapped || rolls seem to soak up all the humidity in the bathroom and || deteriorate. In my tiny apartment, the bottom of the vanity is the || only convenient place to store the extras. A few pennies a roll gradually adds up to a LOT of MONEY. Also, why is your air conditioning not also lowering the humidity in your apartment? || || aem sends..... |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
"SHARX" wrote in message news:8QKJc.42432$2i3.39227@clgrps12... A few pennies a roll gradually adds up to a LOT of MONEY. Also, why is your air conditioning not also lowering the humidity in your apartment? Not everyone has air conditioning. In northern US states and Canada it's very common to find homes without them. Also there are other areas where the air is dry enough that evaporative/swamp coolers are used to moderate to good effect. If you live in a humid state it's very likely that you have never heard of swamp cooling. Those add humidity, and if you've ever lived in a house with a swamp cooler you'll quickly learn to seal up your chips, crackers, cereal, cookies and anything else that is supposed to have some crispiness to them. |
Why buy a house?
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
... Timm Simpkins wrote in message ... You can give yourself some insurance as to its future value. Yes, but your line is FAR too superficial. The more expensive the house, the more apt the value is to increase, Mindlessly superficial, most obviously with houses that are more expensive because they happen to be where there has just been a big surge in prices. If you've ever invested in real property, you learn really fast which homes are overpriced. I'm also speaking in general, not in all cases. A 1300 sq. ft. home selling for $250,000 is generally not a good bet as far as investment unless it's been built on a large lot and is in the middle of a lot of larger homes in the middle of L.A. A less expensive house in an area which hasnt yet seen the flow on of that big surge is much better insurance on the future value. Speculation is fine if you have some good logical basis for your prediction. The problem is, if you know the value of the property is going to increase then usually so does everyone else, and usually appraisers are one of the first to know. That screws you generally. Some slums dont stay slums forever. .... Sure, but there are also run down areas which are cheap which do get extensively rebuilt over time too. More speculation. If you're looking at property in the middle of a slum, there's very little chance that you can predict when or if the slum will get cleaned up. If you can predict the future of slums or less desirable property, you should probably try your hand at roulette. The odds are generally better that you'll come out on top. |
Why buy a house?
"Steve" wrote in message
... "Timm Simpkins" wrote: not be able to afford it then. House prices go up - and fast. They may slow down for a period, but they always go up. No, they don't always go up. Sometimes they go down. Or people just won't sell until they can break even, just like in the stock market. You can give yourself some insurance as to its future value. The more expensive the house, the more apt the value is to increase This is true, except when it's not. You're probably better off with mid-range houses, somewhere around the median price for your area. Higher-end houses can go thru long periods of time when there simply are not many buyers in the market. Are we talking about the $350,000 house or the $3,500,000 house? I said more expensive, not outrageously expensive. The longest I've ever had to hold on to a higher dollar house for was 7 months. The house appraised for $480,000 and I sold it for $450,000. When realizing a return of about 150,000 or about 400% of my initial down payment and mortgage payments combined, I think it worked out pretty good. That may seem like a mid-range home to you, but where I live that's on the very high end of the home prices. |
Why buy a house?
Timm Simpkins wrote in message ... Rod Speed wrote Timm Simpkins wrote You can give yourself some insurance as to its future value. Yes, but your line is FAR too superficial. The more expensive the house, the more apt the value is to increase, Mindlessly superficial, most obviously with houses that are more expensive because they happen to be where there has just been a big surge in prices. If you've ever invested in real property, That isnt what was being discussed. What was being discussed was buying a house to live in and what sort of house to buy. you learn really fast which homes are overpriced. I'm also speaking in general, not in all cases. A 1300 sq. ft. home selling for $250,000 is generally not a good bet as far as investment unless it's been built on a large lot and is in the middle of a lot of larger homes in the middle of L.A. More grossly superficial silly stuff. A less expensive house in an area which hasnt yet seen the flow on of that big surge is much better insurance on the future value. Speculation is fine if you have some good logical basis for your prediction. And that is as logical a basis as you're ever likely to find. The problem is, if you know the value of the property is going to increase then usually so does everyone else, Bull****. Plenty arent aware of those basics WITH HOUSES THEY ARE CONSIDERING BUYING TO LIVE IN. and usually appraisers are one of the first to know. That screws you generally. Bull**** it does, particularly when you are planning to own the house THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LIVE IN, for quite a while and are aware that the area hasnt YET become popular. Some slums dont stay slums forever. Sure, but there are also run down areas which are cheap which do get extensively rebuilt over time too. More speculation. It isnt hard to get that right if you know what you are doing. If you're looking at property in the middle of a slum, there's very little chance that you can predict when or if the slum will get cleaned up. Crap, and it isnt necessarily a slum anyway, just an area which hasnt yet seen a big hike in property values. If you can predict the future of slums or less desirable property, you should probably try your hand at roulette. The odds are generally better that you'll come out on top. More utterly mindless drivel. |
Why buy a house?
"Lance Lamboy" wrote in message
. com... On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:37:34 -0700, Larry Bud wrote: Bob Ward wrote in message . .. On 13 Jul 2004 08:35:08 -0700, (Larry Bud) wrote: I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least). $ wise, you need to run the numbers, however there are a few perks outside the money which you may not have considered: Wrong. If the bank REALLY owned it, they could come and paint purple polkadots on it, or evict you on a whim. Now why would they want to devalue something they own? Don't pay your mortgage or property taxes for a while, and then come back and tell me they don't own it. Obviously if you owned it, they couldn't kick you out. Eventually, you may own it, but of course, you stil need permission from the government to live there. Also, most landlords can't repaint their units or evict their tenants on a whim. Does that mean the tenants own the unit? The lender is actually the owner of the house, but by contract they cannot do anything unless the buyer breaks their contract. Once the contract is fulfilled the buyer owns the house "outright," which gives little extra legal latitude over a person who still owes money to a bank. The bank, unlike the government, cannot legally take a home from you or make any changes to that home without you breaking the contract. |
Why buy a house?
"Timm Simpkins" wrote in message ... "Lance Lamboy" wrote in message . com... On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:37:34 -0700, Larry Bud wrote: Bob Ward wrote in message . .. On 13 Jul 2004 08:35:08 -0700, (Larry Bud) wrote: I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least). $ wise, you need to run the numbers, however there are a few perks outside the money which you may not have considered: Wrong. If the bank REALLY owned it, they could come and paint purple polkadots on it, or evict you on a whim. Now why would they want to devalue something they own? Don't pay your mortgage or property taxes for a while, and then come back and tell me they don't own it. Obviously if you owned it, they couldn't kick you out. Eventually, you may own it, but of course, you stil need permission from the government to live there. Also, most landlords can't repaint their units or evict their tenants on a whim. Does that mean the tenants own the unit? The lender is actually the owner of the house, Wrong. They ONLY get the house IF there is a default. but by contract they cannot do anything unless the buyer breaks their contract. They dont get the house on any breach of contract. Once the contract is fulfilled the buyer owns the house "outright," which gives little extra legal latitude over a person who still owes money to a bank. Waffle. The bank, unlike the government, cannot legally take a home from you or make any changes to that home without you breaking the contract. More waffle. |
Why buy a house?
Rod, since you're obviously so much more knowledgeable about everything than
I am, and you have obviously bought and sold more property in more areas than I have, then why do you even reply to my posts. Obviously arguing with such a "mindless, puerile" person is beneath you. It seems that whenever you see a single word I type your ass puckers so tight that your underwear goes straight up your ass and B-Lines it for your brain where the **** stains just flow straight through your fingers. You would think that a more beneficial use of that energy could be made by shoving coal up your ass and using that heat and pressure to make yourself **** diamonds. I think the fact that I have bought and sold over 27 million dollars worth of real estate and bought and kept over 8 million more on top of that in the last 11 years probably makes me somewhat of an expert. I have run across generally unknown information one time in those 11 years that gave me the upper hand you're speaking of while buying. I signed one contract within 2 weeks in the area and on the third week I found that every single appraiser in the area had found out about the proposed interstate exit. Immediately I found it impossible to find the deals I desired. Prices doubled and tripled. If you think you're such an excellent predictor of future events, I welcome you to try it. I don't bother myself with that kind of crap much, unless I get a hell of a deal off its current value. |
Why buy a house?
Timm Simpkins wrote in message ... Rod, since you're obviously so much more knowledgeable about everything than I am, and you have obviously bought and sold more property in more areas than I have, Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your predicament better than that pathetic effort, Simpkins. then why do you even reply to my posts. I choose to rub your nose in the stupidity of the crap you post, Simpkins. You get to like that or lump it. reams of your puerile **** any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs reams of your puerile posturing any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs If you think you're such an excellent predictor of future events, Never said anything even remotely resembling anything like that, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist. |
Bidet: was: Why buy a house?
Timm Simpkins wrote:
|| "SHARX" wrote in message || news:8QKJc.42432$2i3.39227@clgrps12... ||| ||| A few pennies a roll gradually adds up to a LOT of MONEY. Also, why ||| is your air conditioning not also lowering the humidity in your ||| apartment? || || Not everyone has air conditioning. In northern US states and Canada || it's very common to find homes without them. Also there are other || areas where the air is dry enough that evaporative/swamp coolers are || used to moderate to good effect. If you live in a humid state it's || very likely that you have never heard of swamp cooling. Those add || humidity, and if you've ever lived in a house with a swamp cooler || you'll quickly learn to seal up your chips, crackers, cereal, || cookies and anything else that is supposed to have some crispiness || to them. EXCUSE me!!! I DO live in Canada and anyone here in EDMONTON without central air conditioning is a masochist. I, for one, believe in controlling my environment, not vice versa. |
Why buy a house?
From a Christian's perspective, nothing we own is really ours.
Everything we own is just lent to us temporarily. Agreed A point most people fail to recognize |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter