"Bob Ward" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:04:24 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:


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.


OK, professor - now explain second mortgages. How does one borrow
additional money against an unowned asset?

If you have ever gotten a mortgage on a house, you'll notice lenders lend in
stages, there is a primary lender, who gets the money first, and if there
are leftovers any subsequent lenders get their money later. They
essentially become co-owners with seniority rankings.

"Barry Gold" wrote in message
...
Bob Ward wrote:
OK, professor - now explain second mortgages. How does one borrow
additional money against an unowned asset?

You borrow against your equity -- the difference between the current
value of the house and what you owe on the first mortgage.

But I think nowadays most loans are made on "trust deeds", not
"mortgages". Under a trust deed, the borrower remains(*) the owner,

Actually, that's not true. I believe you're speaking of what's more
commonly known as a land trust. A land trust is a contract that is often
used to circumvent the bank's due on sale clause. It basically guarantees
you the actual deed upon faithful execution of the contract, but in the
interim the owner retains actual ownership. You haven't technically sold
the property, but promised to transfer ownership upon completion of a
contract. The contract can transfer complete control of the property to you
if written correctly, and is almost identical to a mortgage.

but the lender is a "trustee", with the power to sell the house if
the buyer breaks the loan contract.

Hence the buyer can take out a second trust deed, using the same
asset.

(*) or becomes the owner, in the case where the trust deed is used to
buy the house.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising
liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Barry Gold wrote in message
...
Bob Ward wrote:

OK, professor - now explain second mortgages. How does
one borrow additional money against an unowned asset?

You borrow against your equity -- the difference
between the current value of the house and what
you owe on the first mortgage.

Not necessarily.

But I think nowadays most loans are
made on "trust deeds", not "mortgages".

Wrong.

Under a trust deed, the borrower remains(*) the owner,

Just like they do with a mortgage too.

but the lender is a "trustee", with the power to sell
the house if the buyer breaks the loan contract.

Just like with mortgages too.

The lender obviously aint the owner because in
the absence of a default, they cannot do what
they like with the property they purportedly own.

Hence the buyer can take out a second
trust deed, using the same asset.

Or can have a second mortgage without that
producing anything different ownership wise.

A mortgage is a lien, not ownership.

Yes, you are correct, but it is more than that because a regular lien
doesn't allow the lien holder to take control of the property under any
circumstances. A lien generally prohibits the sale of property until some
legal claim is satisfied. As far as I know the only other type of lien that
can allow for the forfeiture of property is a tax lien.

While a mortgage only allows the bank the right to take control of the
property after default, the mortgage does dictate actions that must be taken
by the buyer. Try to bulldoze a perfectly good building when the bank owns
it and see what happens. If you're actually the owner the bank should have
no say in the matter.


(*) or becomes the owner, in the case where
the trust deed is used to buy the house.

Irrelevant to whether the mortgager owns the house
in the absence of a default. Of course they dont.

A mortgage lien has more power than all but a tax lien. No other lien gives
the lien holder the power the right to take control of property, but
prevents its sale until legal claims are taken care of.

Now, we're talking about semantics here. A mortgage contract is MUCH more
than a lien. It can proscribe anything the bank wants, and it can prescribe
anything they want as well. Try getting away without paying homeowner's
insurance or flattening your house. You'll have to answer to the bank. If
I own property, the only person I have to answer to is myself.

Now I agree that the legal definition of their status is not an owner, but a
lien holder, but the actual effect of their status is owner since it is much
greater than lien holder.

"doubter" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:04:24 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:

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.

This single statement destroys any credibility you may have had. The
lender has
a lien on the house, no more, no less. That is a far cry from owning it.
Now
tell us again about all the property you own and have bought and sold.
Right!

"SoCalMike" wrote in message
news:IHWJc.92072$MB3.58342@attbi_s04...

I've never heard that rule of thumb before. Anyone that uses that as a
rule
of thumb is nuts. The rule of thumb is that each month's rent should be
about 1% of the total value of the property. If it's not, you end up
with
no cash flow, and if your rent is 1/2 of the mortgage payment the other
half, plus maintenance comes out of your pocket. Not very wise.

i bought at $120k... this place will sell for $200k. i pay $627/mo in
mortgage payments. so if i decided to rent this place out, what should i
charge? $1200/mo seems maybe about right, but probably on the high side.
no way its worth $2000/mo.

You are correct, but when looking for rental property, you need to factor in
the amount of rent you could get for it. I tend to purchase homes for
rental in "starter home" areas since the prices are low. If someone is able
to pay $2000/mo in rent, they're less likely to have to live in a rented
place, and are more likely to be purchasing a home. I will look at a house
and do a little research about the area. I will then decide what I can make
from it in rent and I will offer accordingly. There are many other aspects
to consider, but if you start from the 1% rule and guardedly move from there
you're in much better shape.

"Steve" wrote in message
...

People keep making the claim that renters don't actually save on
property taxes, etc, because all the landlord's expenses -
maintenance, taxes, mortgage, insurance, utilities - are built into
the rent. As if the landlord adds up all his expenses, tacks on
whatever profit he wants, then charges that amount as rent.

Smart landlords do that before they ever purchase the property. If they
can't at least break even with the going rental rages, they generally don't
buy the property in the first place.


In fact, renters pay the going rental rates, which may have little
relation to a particular landlord's actual expenses. Some (many?)
landlords, particularly in the case of single-family houses, are not
covering all their expenses in the rent, much as they'd like to.
They're holding on, renting for as much as they can get, hoping to
make up the shortfall through appreciation somewhere down the road.

The landlords that do that are few and far between. I don't say there arent
any, but the ones that are either don't understand what investment property
means or they have little other choice.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

You say I'm wrong, and that what I post is crap, show me
how I'm wrong. I'll definitely take you to school on this issue.
I know real estate, and you clearly haven't owned anything
more expensive than your collection of used butt plugs.

Hahahahaha!!

I like that one Timm

So much for your puerile posturing about
'Come on. You people "were" better than this'

Just another pathetic hypocrite.

It has to do with putting people in their
place when they show their "puerile" nature.

Pity that flagrant hypocrite tried claiming that it never did anything
like that.

She agreed with me when I said that was how your type of people should be
dealt with. She's not a hypocrite, she's a newly reformed people pleaser.


reams of your puerile **** any 3 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...
SHARX wrote
Barbara Bomberger wrote:
|| On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:18:04 GMT, "SHARX"
|| wrote:
||
|||
||| WHY should a person buy a big a house as they can afford. We could
||| afford to buy a much larger, more expensive house but the one we
||| have meets our NEEDS. Get frugal, eh?
||
|| Frugal is buying a house that wil meet your long term needs
||
|| No one said expensive, no one said necessarily as much as you can
|| afford, I just said buy WHAT you can afford. Any other inference was
|| yours.
||
|| However, it would not be frugal to be a young couplle, know you were
|| planning on four kids, and buy a one or two bedroom house. It would
|| be shortsighted, to say the least. Better to get the kind of home
|| you want for the type of family you will want at the beginning.

Having 4 kids is NOT frugal and contributes DIRECTLY to overpopulation.

Overpopulation is pure rubbish.

Nope.

I'm not saying that this is preferable, but it is possible to fit
the entire population of the world inside the state of Texas
if the population density was the same as Mexico City's.

Irrelevant. It aint what fits that matters, its providing a viable
standard of living with the population increasing all the time.

If you've ever been on an airplane and looked
down, you would know that there are actually very
few areas that are populated, at least in the US,

Irrelevant to providing a viable standard of living.

Quite a bit of the philipines is relatively low density
of population wise, and the economy is completely
****ed because of the population increase, stupid.

and there is even more open land in Canada.

There's plenty of 'open land' in the Sahara too.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:36:36 GMT, "SHARX"
wrote:

wrote:
|| On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:41:54 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
|| wrote:
||
||| I didn't say it was comfortable, only that it's much more common
||| than one might think. Also it matters what part of Canada you're
||| in. Just as the US, Canada has warmer and cooler areas.
||
|| I guess that anyone who can read would have seen that he is located
|| in _Edmonton_ which I think is in Alberta.

Correctomundo. My Edmonton is in Alberta, not Kentucky or in England.



Obviously, Kentucky and England tied for first choice. Edmunton lost
the flip of the coin.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:29:05 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:


"Bob Ward" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:33:04 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:


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.


All of that, and you STILL don't understand the law?


What's the law got to do with anything I've been talking about?



Nothing at all to do with what YOU have been talking about, but you
have some strange ideas about property ownership for a self-proclaimed
real-estate expert.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:53:19 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:


"Bob Ward" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:04:24 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:


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.


OK, professor - now explain second mortgages. How does one borrow
additional money against an unowned asset?

If you have ever gotten a mortgage on a house, you'll notice lenders lend in
stages, there is a primary lender, who gets the money first, and if there
are leftovers any subsequent lenders get their money later. They
essentially become co-owners with seniority rankings.



Only after default.

Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote
Barry Gold wrote
Bob Ward wrote:

OK, professor - now explain second mortgages. How does
one borrow additional money against an unowned asset?

You borrow against your equity -- the difference
between the current value of the house and what
you owe on the first mortgage.

Not necessarily.

But I think nowadays most loans are
made on "trust deeds", not "mortgages".

Wrong.

Under a trust deed, the borrower remains(*) the owner,

Just like they do with a mortgage too.

but the lender is a "trustee", with the power to sell
the house if the buyer breaks the loan contract.

Just like with mortgages too.

The lender obviously aint the owner because in
the absence of a default, they cannot do what
they like with the property they purportedly own.

Hence the buyer can take out a second
trust deed, using the same asset.

Or can have a second mortgage without that
producing anything different ownership wise.

A mortgage is a lien, not ownership.

Yes, you are correct,

As always.

but it is more than that because a regular lien doesn't allow the
lien holder to take control of the property under any circumstances.

Irrelevant to who owns it.

A lien generally prohibits the sale of
property until some legal claim is satisfied.

Correct. As so does the usual method of financing a car purchase too.

That is what secured loans are about.

A mortgage is a secured loan, NOT transfer of ownership.

As far as I know the only other type of lien that
can allow for the forfeiture of property is a tax lien.

That is just plain wrong with any secured loan.

A LEASE does involve the operation writing the
lease owning the property until the end of the lease.

While a mortgage only allows the bank the right to take control
of the property after default, the mortgage does dictate actions
that must be taken by the buyer. Try to bulldoze a perfectly
good building when the bank owns it and see what happens.

Separate issue entirely to who OWNS it.

If you're actually the owner the bank
should have no say in the matter.

Wrong again.

AND in some circumstances even if you do own the property
outright, you may not be able to bulldoze a perfectly good
building, particularly one that is heritage listed etc.

Thats an entirely separate issue to ownership.

Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...

A mortgage lien has more power than all but a tax lien. No other
lien gives the lien holder the power the right to take control of
property, but prevents its sale until legal claims are taken care of.

Now, we're talking about semantics here. A mortgage contract is MUCH more
than a lien. It can proscribe anything the bank wants, and it can prescribe
anything they want as well. Try getting away without paying homeowner's
insurance or flattening your house. You'll have to answer to the bank. If
I own property, the only person I have to answer to is myself.

Not true. You normally have to answer to the local council etc as well,
particularly with substantial changes to the property, even just legal use.

Separate issue entirely to ownership.

Now I agree that the legal definition of their
status is not an owner, but a lien holder, but
the actual effect of their status is owner

Nope. It is with a LEASE tho.

since it is much greater than lien holder.

Doesnt change ownership.


"doubter" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:04:24 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:

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.

This single statement destroys any credibility you may have had. The
lender has
a lien on the house, no more, no less. That is a far cry from owning it.
Now
tell us again about all the property you own and have bought and sold.
Right!

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:15:43 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:
Now, we're talking about semantics here. A mortgage contract is MUCH more
than a lien. It can proscribe anything the bank wants, and it can prescribe
anything they want as well. Try getting away without paying homeowner's
insurance or flattening your house. You'll have to answer to the bank. If
I own property, the only person I have to answer to is myself.

You talk in such circles that your posts are rubbish. The buyer of a house,
financed with a mortgage, is the owner the property fee simple absolute. For
consideration of borrowing money on the owner's property, the owner allows the
lender to place a lien on the property. Also because the lender wants their
loan backed by something of value, the owner agrees to properly protect the
lender's investment by carrying insurance. If the loan is on the combined value
of the house and land, then obviously the owner cannot destroy the house.

This is no different than financing a new car purchase. The lender has a lien
on the car and demands that insurance be carried on the car, usually with a loss
payable clause naming the lender.

A land contract is a totally different issue. It is a contract to purchase
property, the title remains with the current owner (the seller) until the
contract is fulfilled, at which time the title passes to the buyer. This is
generally used only when the buyer can't qualify for traditional financing since
such an arrangement greatly favors the seller.

If I own property, the only person I have to answer to is myself.

This is also not true in many, if not most areas of the US. Local zoning and or
environmental laws and regulations prevent the property owner from doing many
things to their own property. Unauthorized grading, tree removal and water
diversion are just a few examples. That doesn't mean the city, county or state
is part owner of the land.

Now I agree that the legal definition of their status is not an owner, but a
lien holder,

That is NOT what you said in your prior post. You exact unequivocal words were
"The lender is actually the owner of the house..." This is clearly wrong.
Comments can only be made on what you said, not what you think you meant to say.

but the actual effect of their status is owner since it is much
greater than lien holder.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you obviously do not understand real estate
ownership. When you actually own property you will start to gain such
understanding.

Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote
Timm Simpkins wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

You say I'm wrong, and that what I post is crap, show me
how I'm wrong. I'll definitely take you to school on this issue.
I know real estate, and you clearly haven't owned anything
more expensive than your collection of used butt plugs.

Hahahahaha!!

I like that one Timm

So much for your puerile posturing about
'Come on. You people "were" better than this'

Just another pathetic hypocrite.

It has to do with putting people in their
place when they show their "puerile" nature.

Pity that flagrant hypocrite tried claiming
that it never did anything like that.

She agreed with me when I said that was
how your type of people should be dealt with.

Obvious lie.

She's not a hypocrite,

Obvious lie.

reams of your puerile **** any 3 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

So much for your puerile posturing about
'Come on. You people "were" better than this'

Just another pathetic hypocrite.

You've convinced me to adopt your "style" of talking to people Rodless

Puerile **** to you

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...
Sandra Loosemore wrote in
message ...

A couple comments....

When you rent, your landlord still has to pay property taxes,
mortgage, maintenance, deal with less than 100% occupancy
and/or deadbeat tenants, and make a profit besides.

Not necessarily on that last. Some just use rental property
as a way of getting a return on their investment and the
entire concept of 'profit' doesnt really enter into it.

Profit doesn't enter into the concept of RoI? Strange accountant you
are.


They certainly need to achieve a surplus over
those costs, but thats not the same thing as profit.

You just said that profit doesn't enter into it but now you say that
to have a successful investment in rental property you need to have a
P&L NPBT?

Make up your mind.

Do you think those expenses aren't
just getting passed on to the tenants?

Corse they are most of the time. Not always tho,
particularly when the market for rental property is poor.

If the investor has a negative cash flow and exhausts the working
capital, then the investor will either have to sell the property or
increase the rent. Very simple math.

When you buy your own home, you at least
cut out the expense of the middleman.

Its more complicated than that, particularly when the
property is fully paid off so there is no mortgage cost.

The OP is correct - when you own a property you cut out the landlord -
technically, you become your own landlord and the benefits (and risk)
are yours.

js

"Timm Simpkins" wrote:
Smart landlords do that before they ever purchase the property. If they
can't at least break even with the going rental rages, they generally don't
buy the property in the first place.

In the case of single-family houses, many were not originally
purchased as investment property - they were purchased to live in.
The purchasers had no intention of becoming landlords, and the
purchase decision was not evaluated on the basis of rental return.
Various circumstances (job loss or transfer, divorce, etc) caused
these properties to become rentals, at least temporarily, pending a
sale decision somewhere down the road.

"Timm Simpkins" wrote in message
...

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
nk.net...

It all depends on the area of the country and the housing prices. In my
area, Silicon Valley, the mortgage payment on a house, after making a
20%
down payment, will be about three times as high as what you could rent
an
equivalent property for. Add property taxes and insurance to that, and
you're at 3.5x. The rule of thumb is that you shouldn't pay more than
twice
as much in a mortage payment as the property would rent for. Eventually
it
will shift as more people sell their rental properties the rents will
rise
due to smaller supply and the selling prices will level off.

I've never heard that rule of thumb before. Anyone that uses that as a
rule
of thumb is nuts. The rule of thumb is that each month's rent should be
about 1% of the total value of the property.

If that were true, my house would rent out for $9000 per month, but in
reality it would rent for about $2500 per month. So renting is a great deal
wiser than buying. If I were to buy my house today, with 20% down, I'd be
paying about $7000/month on 15 year 5.5% mortgage, including property taxes.
The tax advantage would bring it down to about $4000 in real terms. If I
were buying today, I wouldn't (and couldn't).

This is for a very ordinary, 41 year old, suburban tract home, less than
2000 square feet, in Silicon Valley, not a mansion. The median price in my
county is $599,000.

From $25K to $900K in 41 years is a 9% per year increase, not spectacular as
an investment, even when you deduct the cost of rent you didn't pay.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:41:51 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
.. .

People keep making the claim that renters don't actually save on
property taxes, etc, because all the landlord's expenses -
maintenance, taxes, mortgage, insurance, utilities - are built into
the rent. As if the landlord adds up all his expenses, tacks on
whatever profit he wants, then charges that amount as rent.

Smart landlords do that before they ever purchase the property. If they
can't at least break even with the going rental rages, they generally don't
buy the property in the first place.

Except that much of the rental property out there was not BOUGHT for
the purpose. I for example, own a home in Arlington Virginia. I did
not buy it planning to rent. HOwever, we have chosen to live and work
overseas for five years, so the home will be rented. I am only making
my mortage, at this point.

I chose not to sell the house because of the area and the fact that
housing prices will always be acceptable there.

Barb

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

This is for a very ordinary, 41 year old, suburban tract home, less than
2000 square feet, in Silicon Valley, not a mansion. The median price in
my county is $599,000.

In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA, new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car garage)
start at $95,000 - $105,000.

Some gutless ****wit troll currently desperately cowering behind
Jonathan Smith wrote in message m...
just the puerile **** thats all that this desperately
cowering gutless troll can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone sometime.

wrote in message
...

So much for your puerile posturing about
'Come on. You people "were" better than this'

Just another pathetic hypocrite.

You've convinced me to adopt your "style" of talking to people Rodless

More of your pathological lying. You've always
been doing precisely what you were howling about.

Just another flagrant hypocrite.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:25:22 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:


Where he lives is not relevant to what I said.

I have to differ with you since you said:

I didn't say it was comfortable, only that it's much more common than
one
might think. Also it matters what part of Canada you're in. Just as
the
US, Canada has warmer and cooler areas.

Why did you bring the subject of Canada up in the discussion then?????

Everywhere in Canada has much milder summers than the majority of the US.
Just because one weenie needs AC doesn't mean everyone uses it. It's very
common for the elderly to feel comfortable at 80 degrees also. Anyway, drop
the Canada stuff. It happens and there's no use arguing about it.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote
Timm Simpkins wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

You say I'm wrong, and that what I post is crap, show me
how I'm wrong. I'll definitely take you to school on this issue.
I know real estate, and you clearly haven't owned anything
more expensive than your collection of used butt plugs.

Hahahahaha!!

I like that one Timm

So much for your puerile posturing about
'Come on. You people "were" better than this'

Just another pathetic hypocrite.

It has to do with putting people in their
place when they show their "puerile" nature.

Pity that flagrant hypocrite tried claiming
that it never did anything like that.

She agreed with me when I said that was
how your type of people should be dealt with.

Obvious lie.

She's not a hypocrite,

Obvious lie.

reams of your puerile **** any 3 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

I like how you clip out the parts of my posts that prove what an idiot you
are.

"Timm Simpkins" wrote in message ...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote
Timm Simpkins wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

You say I'm wrong, and that what I post is crap, show me
how I'm wrong. I'll definitely take you to school on this issue.
I know real estate, and you clearly haven't owned anything
more expensive than your collection of used butt plugs.

Hahahahaha!!

I like that one Timm

So much for your puerile posturing about
'Come on. You people "were" better than this'

Just another pathetic hypocrite.

It has to do with putting people in their
place when they show their "puerile" nature.

Pity that flagrant hypocrite tried claiming
that it never did anything like that.

She agreed with me when I said that was
how your type of people should be dealt with.

Obvious lie.

She's not a hypocrite,

Obvious lie.

reams of your puerile **** any 3 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:39:58 -0400, jetgraphics
wrote:

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

This is for a very ordinary, 41 year old, suburban tract home, less than
2000 square feet, in Silicon Valley, not a mansion. The median price in
my county is $599,000.

In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA, new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car garage)
start at $95,000 - $105,000.

Cripes man! You should see what you can get for $35,000 in
Hopkinsville, Kentucky! Unbelieveable.

Em

In article ,
Auntie Em Auntie Em wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:39:58 -0400, jetgraphics
wrote:

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

This is for a very ordinary, 41 year old, suburban tract home, less than
2000 square feet, in Silicon Valley, not a mansion. The median price in
my county is $599,000.

In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA, new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car garage)
start at $95,000 - $105,000.

Cripes man! You should see what you can get for $35,000 in
Hopkinsville, Kentucky! Unbelieveable.


I am curious how things became so cheap. Obviously, it would cost more to
build a house than $35,000 and it would cost more than $100,000 in
California. The neighbor's just put a (ordinary cement) driveway in
for $8,500. How are builders able to make a profit on a $95K house?


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote
in message ...
Auntie Em Auntie Em wrote
jetgraphics wrote:
Steven M. Scharf wrote

This is for a very ordinary, 41 year old, suburban tract home,
less than 2000 square feet, in Silicon Valley, not a mansion.
The median price in my county is $599,000.

In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA,
new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car garage)
start at $95,000 - $105,000.

Cripes man! You should see what you can get for
$35,000 in Hopkinsville, Kentucky! Unbelieveable.

I am curious how things became so cheap.

Usual effect, older houses in areas with little demand.

Obviously, it would cost more to build a house than $35,000

Not necessarily. Depends on when it was built.

and it would cost more than $100,000 in California.

Not necessarily with older houses.

The neighbor's just put a (ordinary cement) driveway in for $8,500.

Those are unlikely to have cement driveways.

How are builders able to make a profit on a $95K house?

She didnt say they were newly built houses.

She's likely comparing apples and oranges.

Auntie Em wrote:
Cripes man! You should see what you can get for $35,000 in
Hopkinsville, Kentucky! Unbelieveable.

Cool! Is that a suburb of Silicon Valley?

Timm Simpkins wrote:
|| wrote in message
|| ...
||| On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:25:22 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
||| wrote:
|||
||||
|||| Where he lives is not relevant to what I said.
|||
||| I have to differ with you since you said:
|||
||||| I didn't say it was comfortable, only that it's much more common
||||| than one might think. Also it matters what part of Canada you're
||||| in. Just as the US, Canada has warmer and cooler areas.
|||
||| Why did you bring the subject of Canada up in the discussion
||| then?????
||
|| Everywhere in Canada has much milder summers than the majority of
|| the US. Just because one weenie needs AC doesn't mean everyone uses
|| it. It's very common for the elderly to feel comfortable at 80
|| degrees also. Anyway, drop the Canada stuff. It happens and
|| there's no use arguing about it.

Well, *****I ******* feel most comfortable at about 70 F, winter or summer,
with a relative humidity of about 35 to 40 %, NO HIGHER!. We have the
technology to control OUR indoor environments, so, LET'S DO IT!!!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...
Some gutless ****wit troll currently desperately cowering behind
Jonathan Smith wrote in message m...
just the puerile **** thats all that this desperately
cowering gutless troll can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone sometime.

Lost again, did you Rodney?

Didn't take long. Pathology all over again.

js

"Timm Simpkins" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Barry Gold wrote in message
...
Bob Ward wrote:

OK, professor - now explain second mortgages. How does
one borrow additional money against an unowned asset?

You borrow against your equity -- the difference
between the current value of the house and what
you owe on the first mortgage.

If you don't own the property in question, you don't have any equity. A
renter, for instance, doesn't build up any equity in a rental property, no
matter how much has been paid in rent over any period of time, no matter
what market conditions have done to change the money value of the property.

A mortgage is a lien, not ownership.

Yes, you are correct, but it is more than that because a regular lien
doesn't allow the lien holder to take control of the property under any
circumstances. A lien generally prohibits the sale of property until some
legal claim is satisfied. As far as I know the only other type of lien
that
can allow for the forfeiture of property is a tax lien.

A "lein" is the right to take another's property if an obligation is not
discharged. A mechanics lein is a right to secure payment for
work/materials expending in erecting or reparing a structure. A garageman's
lein extends a mechanics lein to include payment for work on automobiles.

A lein holder may not always take the specific property that has the lein
attached - a mechanics lein may (or may not) allow the mechanic to "take"
the contents of a bank account, for instance, to satisfy a claim. In that
respect, a mortgage lein is different - the only thing at risk is the
mortgaged property..

While a mortgage only allows the bank the right to take control of the
property after default, the mortgage does dictate actions that must be
taken
by the buyer. Try to bulldoze a perfectly good building when the bank
owns
it and see what happens. If you're actually the owner the bank should
have
no say in the matter.

You're playing with words - the mortgage is secured by that "perfectly good
building". You as the owner have borrowed money on the pledge that the
lender can assume ownership of a particular property in the event of
default. Deliberately destroying that property, for whatever reason, does
not release you from your promise, and a lender would be pretty foolish to
allow you to destroy the value of your collaterol.

"SHARX" wrote in message
news:F11Kc.59115$eO.53090@edtnps89...
Barbara Bomberger wrote:
|| On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:18:04 GMT, "SHARX"
|| wrote:
||
|||
||| WHY should a person buy a big a house as they can afford. We could
||| afford to buy a much larger, more expensive house but the one we
||| have meets our NEEDS. Get frugal, eh?
||
|| Frugal is buying a house that wil meet your long term needs
||
|| No one said expensive, no one said necessarily as much as you can
|| afford, I just said buy WHAT you can afford. Any other inference was
|| yours.
||
|| However, it would not be frugal to be a young couplle, know you were
|| planning on four kids, and buy a one or two bedroom house. It would
|| be shortsighted, to say the least. Better to get the kind of home
|| you want for the type of family you will want at the beginning.

Having 4 kids is NOT frugal and contributes DIRECTLY to overpopulation.
Think globally, act locally, eh? In fact having 4 kids is EXTREMELY
selfish.


Not in the developed world - birthrates are at or below replacement level in
western Europe and North America, for instance.

As just about anyone who's ever had kids knows, having kids is about as
opposite to selfish as you can get - a halfway decent parent takes time,
sleep, wealth, and effort that could have been used for self gratification
and unconditionally turns these things over to another human being.

Besides, if you aren't going to spend the money you earn, who are you going
to leave it to when you die if you don't have kids - the government?

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:

How are builders able to make a profit on a $95K house?

She didnt say they were newly built houses.


She did. See below.


In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA, new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car
garage) start at $95,000 - $105,000.


Dimitri

Some gutless ****wit troll currently desperately cowering behind
Jonathan Smith wrote in message ...
just the puerile **** thats all that this desperately
cowering gutless troll can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone sometime.

D. Gerasimatos wrote
in message ...
Rod Speed wrote
D. Gerasimatos wrote
Auntie Em Auntie Em wrote
jetgraphics wrote:
Steven M. Scharf wrote

This is for a very ordinary, 41 year old, suburban tract home,
less than 2000 square feet, in Silicon Valley, not a mansion.
The median price in my county is $599,000.

In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA,
new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car garage)
start at $95,000 - $105,000.

Cripes man! You should see what you can get for
$35,000 in Hopkinsville, Kentucky! Unbelieveable.

I am curious how things became so cheap.

Usual effect, older houses in areas with little demand.

Obviously, it would cost more to build a house than $35,000

Not necessarily. Depends on when it was built.

and it would cost more than $100,000 in California.

Not necessarily with older houses.

The neighbor's just put a (ordinary cement) driveway in for $8,500.

Those are unlikely to have cement driveways.

How are builders able to make a profit on a $95K house?

She didnt say they were newly built houses.

She did.

Nope, jetgraphics did.

She's likely comparing apples and oranges.

In other words her comment about what is
buyable in Hopkinsville, Kentucky is quite
different property to what jetgraphics listed.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:15:36 GMT, someone wrote:


i bought at $120k... this place will sell for $200k. i pay $627/mo in
mortgage payments. so if i decided to rent this place out, what should i
charge?

The following have NOTHING to do with what to charge for rent:

1) What you paid.
2) What YOUR payments are

The following only has a very indirect effect on what to charge for
rent, in that it establishes a cap on what an alternative would cost:

3) What the place would sell for.

What determines what to charge for rent:

THE RENTAL MARKET.
What do comparable places rent for.

-v.

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Auntie Em Auntie Em wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:39:58 -0400, jetgraphics
wrote:

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

This is for a very ordinary, 41 year old, suburban tract home, less
than
2000 square feet, in Silicon Valley, not a mansion. The median price
in
my county is $599,000.

In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA, new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car
garage)
start at $95,000 - $105,000.

Cripes man! You should see what you can get for $35,000 in
Hopkinsville, Kentucky! Unbelieveable.


I am curious how things became so cheap. Obviously, it would cost more to
build a house than $35,000 and it would cost more than $100,000 in
California. The neighbor's just put a (ordinary cement) driveway in
for $8,500. How are builders able to make a profit on a $95K house?


I daresay that even in the low-cost south, they are likely entry-level
modulars, not 'real' houses, with garages tacked on the end. Only other
possible explanation would be if it was a subsidized targeted development
tacked on to a mass of higher-end houses to pretend they care about having a
diverse suburb. Some locales, and some federal financing programs, are
encouraging that sort of thing.

aem sends...

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 06:37:39 +1000, someone wrote:


Just rubbing your nose in the financial basics.

Ha ha ha Rod. I have owned investment property since 1978. I have
likely both made and lost more money in real estate than you ever
have. I have testified as an expert witness on numerous property
value disputes involving real estate parcels of $1m to $100m +. Also
MBA and Attorney. You delude yourself, all you know is a little and
you thnk it is everything.

-v.