Rent Forever, Don’t Buy A Home

[lazyj10]

In the U.S. the first 275k (or 240k, I can't recall) is tax free on your principal residence.

And honestly, at the end of the day, desirable places will almost certainly recoup their values or not plummet.

If you're talking the city of SF or Marin, those places didn't see a huge nominal decrease across the board. Sure new construction fell some, but places in nice neighborhoods didn't. When you move further east the prices went south because they weren't originally desirable nor had the infrastructure to support pricing.

 

[lazyj10]

In the U.S. the first 275k (or 240k, I can't recall) is tax free on your principal residence.

And honestly, at the end of the day, desirable places will almost certainly recoup their values or not plummet.

If you're talking the city of SF or Marin, those places didn't see a huge nominal decrease across the board. Sure new construction fell some, but places in nice neighborhoods didn't. When you move further east the prices went south because they weren't originally desirable nor had the infrastructure to support pricing.

 

[unbornseed]

Originally Posted by Toy Collector123

Originally Posted by UnbornSeed

Originally Posted by tim teufel


so you been in your home 3 years and you only owe 120k on it? how much money did you put down? and why would you get a 30 year mortgage? something isnt adding up fam

Paid 400..put 200k down. Did 30 year because the payment was 800 a month plus tax and insurance and I got 5.75% apr cause it was a duplex so I wanted actually needed the breathing room and at the time I was alone but a few months later I rented out the other unit and been sending in more ever since. I loaned my sister money so its around 140k..I can show you screens if you dont believe me.
Paid off about 50k in 3 years. I have 142 and some change left so at the same rate of overpayment I'll be done in 7 years. 

Goodness that's terrible. No 'smart' investor would put %50 down on a house no matter the costs and expect to walk away with a nice profit in their late 30s, especially in a home, better yet a dubplex. Not hating, but cmon man. what if the market never recovers and you sell for a lost? I've known a lot of people in real estate (im in real estate on the side as an investor) and if they put something down like that, its for an apartment building or hotel/storage facility. but then i don't know your finances so I can't really clown you.

In the history of the housing market...it always recovers. You just have to ride the wave. I chose to ride the wave with a low mortgage payment vs using that 200k now to keep up with the mortgage. Im not an investor. I bought the house because I grew up in it and when I got the chance to buy it I jumped on it.  I do know a couple investors who only buy in cash to avoid interest...are they not smart?   
Since my duplex is near USC my home falls under the USC incentive program which means USC will pay me on top of the rent I get if I rent to USC students.  When I bought it I was only 27 and a mid 700 credit score and no one was willing to finance me without 20% so I checked my finances and put the 200k down because a. I didnt want no high %## mortgage even if I was getting help b. I had 60k left in savings so I had a rainy day fund. c. I would've more than likely paid the 200k into the principal regardless because I dont like having a balance.
Here is the difference

vs

For me..It was the right decision.

 

[unbornseed]

Originally Posted by Toy Collector123

Originally Posted by UnbornSeed

Originally Posted by tim teufel


so you been in your home 3 years and you only owe 120k on it? how much money did you put down? and why would you get a 30 year mortgage? something isnt adding up fam

Paid 400..put 200k down. Did 30 year because the payment was 800 a month plus tax and insurance and I got 5.75% apr cause it was a duplex so I wanted actually needed the breathing room and at the time I was alone but a few months later I rented out the other unit and been sending in more ever since. I loaned my sister money so its around 140k..I can show you screens if you dont believe me.
Paid off about 50k in 3 years. I have 142 and some change left so at the same rate of overpayment I'll be done in 7 years. 

Goodness that's terrible. No 'smart' investor would put %50 down on a house no matter the costs and expect to walk away with a nice profit in their late 30s, especially in a home, better yet a dubplex. Not hating, but cmon man. what if the market never recovers and you sell for a lost? I've known a lot of people in real estate (im in real estate on the side as an investor) and if they put something down like that, its for an apartment building or hotel/storage facility. but then i don't know your finances so I can't really clown you.

In the history of the housing market...it always recovers. You just have to ride the wave. I chose to ride the wave with a low mortgage payment vs using that 200k now to keep up with the mortgage. Im not an investor. I bought the house because I grew up in it and when I got the chance to buy it I jumped on it.  I do know a couple investors who only buy in cash to avoid interest...are they not smart?   
Since my duplex is near USC my home falls under the USC incentive program which means USC will pay me on top of the rent I get if I rent to USC students.  When I bought it I was only 27 and a mid 700 credit score and no one was willing to finance me without 20% so I checked my finances and put the 200k down because a. I didnt want no high %## mortgage even if I was getting help b. I had 60k left in savings so I had a rainy day fund. c. I would've more than likely paid the 200k into the principal regardless because I dont like having a balance.
Here is the difference

vs

For me..It was the right decision.

 

[l smokecity l]

^^^^
Honestly, bro you did the right thing. When purchasing anything its always better to put more money than less money which made a huge difference in payment and eliminated PMI. You walked right into equity which only benefits you. Even if the value of the property goes down you are setting yourself up in the best way by having a manageable monthly payment with a smaller loan. All that means is you will pay your loan off faster which leads to an all profit free and clear property. Who wouldn't want that? What people fail to realize is that you do actually have to ride the wave. People got so used to flipping houses left and right and seeing a profit that when the market turned they weren't ready for it. Especially now a days Real Estate is one of those investments that you will wait a little longer but the benefits are still there. You did the SMART thing putting more money down on your property which is one of the basics of Real Estate.

 

[l smokecity l]

^^^^
Honestly, bro you did the right thing. When purchasing anything its always better to put more money than less money which made a huge difference in payment and eliminated PMI. You walked right into equity which only benefits you. Even if the value of the property goes down you are setting yourself up in the best way by having a manageable monthly payment with a smaller loan. All that means is you will pay your loan off faster which leads to an all profit free and clear property. Who wouldn't want that? What people fail to realize is that you do actually have to ride the wave. People got so used to flipping houses left and right and seeing a profit that when the market turned they weren't ready for it. Especially now a days Real Estate is one of those investments that you will wait a little longer but the benefits are still there. You did the SMART thing putting more money down on your property which is one of the basics of Real Estate.

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by Supermanblue79

I still don't understand how some of you experts on mortgages, don't even have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.

   
 
.......

 thats NT for you.
 
 

 @ trying to justify not buying a house by lining someone elses pockets.......*why didnt EYE think of that??*
 
- i mean even if you do buy a home......put money into it and after fees, repairs, insurance, etc., you break even? its still a win-win right? you just basically had a roof over your head for X amount of years for free.
 
 
....like i said, ive seen this movie before. the replies are interesting and funny though.
 
 
 

 
 
  

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by Supermanblue79

I still don't understand how some of you experts on mortgages, don't even have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.

   
 
.......

 thats NT for you.
 
 

 @ trying to justify not buying a house by lining someone elses pockets.......*why didnt EYE think of that??*
 
- i mean even if you do buy a home......put money into it and after fees, repairs, insurance, etc., you break even? its still a win-win right? you just basically had a roof over your head for X amount of years for free.
 
 
....like i said, ive seen this movie before. the replies are interesting and funny though.
 
 
 

 
 
  

 

[toy collector123]

I see Unborn. Guess it worked out for you.

Anyways, More info on this USC incentive program? Any other universities have this?

 

[toy collector123]

I see Unborn. Guess it worked out for you.

Anyways, More info on this USC incentive program? Any other universities have this?

 

[im not you]

[h1]Affordable rental housing scarce in U.S., study finds[/h1][h3]By Dina ElBoghdady, Tuesday, April 26, 12:02 AM[/h3]
The share of renters who spend more than half their income on housing is at its highest level in half a century and it’s no longer just low-income tenants who are feeling the pain, according to a Harvard University study scheduled for release Tuesday.

About 26 percent of renters — or 10.1 million people — spent more than half their pre-tax household income on rent and utilities in 2009. That’s because incomes slipped dramatically from their peak at the start of the decade even as rents kept rising.

The study offers the latest in a series of grim statistics about the scarcity of rental housing, especially for the working poor. The supply has not kept up with demand in part because of a shortage of apartments, a key source of new rentals. Developers cut back on such projects when the economy deteriorated in 2009, which drove down vacancies and boosted rents. Analysts say they expect rents to keep climbing as developers try to ramp up new projects and catch up with demand.

In many areas, the demand is driven by families who lost their homes to foreclosure during the housing bust and ended up searching for rentals. Meanwhile, as the job market recovers, more newly employed young adults appear to be seeking their own apartments instead of living with their parents, putting even more upward pressure on rental rates, according to one of the study’s researchers.

Ideally, renters should not spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, the study said. Low-income tenants have struggled during the past decade to stay within that limit. And increasingly so have renters with moderate incomes, defined as making between two and three times the minimum wage. By 2009, 7.5 percent of moderate-income renters spent more than half their income on rent, twice as many as in 2001.

“It’s a real squeeze for the lower-income and moderate-income families, and we’re even starting to see it affecting middle-income families, too,â€

 

[im not you]

[h1]Affordable rental housing scarce in U.S., study finds[/h1][h3]By Dina ElBoghdady, Tuesday, April 26, 12:02 AM[/h3]
The share of renters who spend more than half their income on housing is at its highest level in half a century and it’s no longer just low-income tenants who are feeling the pain, according to a Harvard University study scheduled for release Tuesday.

About 26 percent of renters — or 10.1 million people — spent more than half their pre-tax household income on rent and utilities in 2009. That’s because incomes slipped dramatically from their peak at the start of the decade even as rents kept rising.

The study offers the latest in a series of grim statistics about the scarcity of rental housing, especially for the working poor. The supply has not kept up with demand in part because of a shortage of apartments, a key source of new rentals. Developers cut back on such projects when the economy deteriorated in 2009, which drove down vacancies and boosted rents. Analysts say they expect rents to keep climbing as developers try to ramp up new projects and catch up with demand.

In many areas, the demand is driven by families who lost their homes to foreclosure during the housing bust and ended up searching for rentals. Meanwhile, as the job market recovers, more newly employed young adults appear to be seeking their own apartments instead of living with their parents, putting even more upward pressure on rental rates, according to one of the study’s researchers.

Ideally, renters should not spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, the study said. Low-income tenants have struggled during the past decade to stay within that limit. And increasingly so have renters with moderate incomes, defined as making between two and three times the minimum wage. By 2009, 7.5 percent of moderate-income renters spent more than half their income on rent, twice as many as in 2001.

“It’s a real squeeze for the lower-income and moderate-income families, and we’re even starting to see it affecting middle-income families, too,â€

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by Supermanblue79

I still don't understand how some of you experts on mortgages, don't even have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.

   
 
.......

 thats NT for you.
 
 

 @ trying to justify not buying a house by lining someone elses pockets.......*why didnt EYE think of that??*
 

- i mean even if you do buy a home......put money into it and after fees, repairs, insurance, etc., you break even? its still a win-win right? you just basically had a roof over your head for X amount of years for free.

 
....like i said, ive seen this movie before. the replies are interesting and funny though.
 
 
 

 
 
  
What do you base this on? Seriously, I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't anything concrete. 
A broad statement like that is just plain foolish. A coworker of mine purchased a home in 2001 for 550k with 10% down. He's poured about 200k in repairs into it. He still has a little over 350k in mortgage to go. 

He rents his 2nd floor so it helps a bit but he's realized that at best he'll break even on this thing and in the end it hasn't been worth the headache even though he can sell it for about 850k now.  

I heard Marc Faber make a good point. He said US housing still isn't cheap but in some places it's reasonable. 

[h1]

[h1]Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Decreased 3.3% From Year Earlier[/h1]
By Alex Kowalski - Apr 26, 2011

Residential real estate prices dropped in February by the most in more than a year, a sign the U.S. housing market is struggling to stabilize.

The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values in 20 cities fell 3.3 percent from February 2010, the biggest year-over-year decrease since November 2009, the group said today in New York. The decline matched the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey.

Increases in foreclosures are adding to a growing inventory of unsold homes, which may further depress prices and dissuade potential buyers anticipating even cheaper dwellings. Declining property values also limit construction and restrain consumer spending as homeowners have less equity to borrow against.

“We see weakness in home prices nationally in the first half of this year because of the large pipeline of foreclosures,â€

[/h1]

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by Supermanblue79

I still don't understand how some of you experts on mortgages, don't even have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.

   
 
.......

 thats NT for you.
 
 

 @ trying to justify not buying a house by lining someone elses pockets.......*why didnt EYE think of that??*
 

- i mean even if you do buy a home......put money into it and after fees, repairs, insurance, etc., you break even? its still a win-win right? you just basically had a roof over your head for X amount of years for free.

 
....like i said, ive seen this movie before. the replies are interesting and funny though.
 
 
 

 
 
  
What do you base this on? Seriously, I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't anything concrete. 
A broad statement like that is just plain foolish. A coworker of mine purchased a home in 2001 for 550k with 10% down. He's poured about 200k in repairs into it. He still has a little over 350k in mortgage to go. 

He rents his 2nd floor so it helps a bit but he's realized that at best he'll break even on this thing and in the end it hasn't been worth the headache even though he can sell it for about 850k now.  

I heard Marc Faber make a good point. He said US housing still isn't cheap but in some places it's reasonable. 

[h1]

[h1]Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Decreased 3.3% From Year Earlier[/h1]
By Alex Kowalski - Apr 26, 2011

Residential real estate prices dropped in February by the most in more than a year, a sign the U.S. housing market is struggling to stabilize.

The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values in 20 cities fell 3.3 percent from February 2010, the biggest year-over-year decrease since November 2009, the group said today in New York. The decline matched the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey.

Increases in foreclosures are adding to a growing inventory of unsold homes, which may further depress prices and dissuade potential buyers anticipating even cheaper dwellings. Declining property values also limit construction and restrain consumer spending as homeowners have less equity to borrow against.

“We see weakness in home prices nationally in the first half of this year because of the large pipeline of foreclosures,â€

[/h1]

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Kind of fitting for this thread:

Incidentally, for not much more than that loss, net-net, you could have rented the same house and owed nothing (same 2010 average rental for the same "median" house was $850, or $10,200 - and you didn't have to pay property taxes or hazard insurance on the house either.)

Given taxes and insurance rates around here you were way ahead to rent rather than buy.

ALOT of foolish pride is runnin rampant in this thread...at da end of da day, when this economy goes in da tank, whoever has da most captial to work with is gonna be da biggest winners...

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Kind of fitting for this thread:

Incidentally, for not much more than that loss, net-net, you could have rented the same house and owed nothing (same 2010 average rental for the same "median" house was $850, or $10,200 - and you didn't have to pay property taxes or hazard insurance on the house either.)

Given taxes and insurance rates around here you were way ahead to rent rather than buy.

ALOT of foolish pride is runnin rampant in this thread...at da end of da day, when this economy goes in da tank, whoever has da most captial to work with is gonna be da biggest winners...

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

btw, I just heard in an speech by an economist that the Banks have been selling  97% of all mortgage loans that they originate to the Feds the last few years.
How long do you think the feds can keep this up? Without them the market collapses. 

The Feds can keep it up forever.  It's the beauty of fiat money.  The #1 rule of finance is "don't fight the Fed".

They can't keep it up forever. That much we know. Entire nations become insolvent quite often. 
In the short term they are quite powerful (whoever prints the money; in our case the US treasury/Fed)  but it's impossible to keep this up in the medium to long term. 

I sure as hell wouldn''t want to buy at a time when literally an entire market is  artificially propped up. There is no way to know what the real value is. You can only guess. 

especially when da US is REAL close to defaulting on our debts...and let's just say ALOT of foreign countries is holding US dollars ain't trying to see our currency go down da tubes, so if da FED keeps playing these bootygames expect

da world to develop a new world currency and dump da dollar like a some cold fries....

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

btw, I just heard in an speech by an economist that the Banks have been selling  97% of all mortgage loans that they originate to the Feds the last few years.
How long do you think the feds can keep this up? Without them the market collapses. 

The Feds can keep it up forever.  It's the beauty of fiat money.  The #1 rule of finance is "don't fight the Fed".

They can't keep it up forever. That much we know. Entire nations become insolvent quite often. 
In the short term they are quite powerful (whoever prints the money; in our case the US treasury/Fed)  but it's impossible to keep this up in the medium to long term. 

I sure as hell wouldn''t want to buy at a time when literally an entire market is  artificially propped up. There is no way to know what the real value is. You can only guess. 

especially when da US is REAL close to defaulting on our debts...and let's just say ALOT of foreign countries is holding US dollars ain't trying to see our currency go down da tubes, so if da FED keeps playing these bootygames expect

da world to develop a new world currency and dump da dollar like a some cold fries....

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by Supermanblue79

I still don't understand how some of you experts on mortgages, don't even have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.

   
 
.......

 thats NT for you.
 
 

 @ trying to justify not buying a house by lining someone elses pockets.......*why didnt EYE think of that??*
 

- i mean even if you do buy a home......put money into it and after fees, repairs, insurance, etc., you break even? its still a win-win right? you just basically had a roof over your head for X amount of years for free.

 
....like i said, ive seen this movie before. the replies are interesting and funny though.
 
 
 

 
 
  

What do you base this on? Seriously, I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't anything concrete. 
A broad statement like that is just plain foolish. A coworker of mine purchased a home in 2001 for 550k with 10% down. He's poured about 200k in repairs into it. He still has a little over 350k in mortgage to go. 

He rents his 2nd floor so it helps a bit but he's realized that at best he'll break even on this thing and in the end it hasn't been worth the headache even though he can sell it for about 850k now.  

I heard Marc Faber make a good point. He said US housing still isn't cheap but in some places it's reasonable. 




.......whats so broad statementish about what i said?
 
 
....and for the third time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BUYING A FIXER UPPER. so miss me with the whines and crys about repairs. the ONLY repairs im talking about are preventative maintenance, seeing as how im talking about new construction or something 1-2 years old.
 
.....of course right? im not talking about anything concrete. im just talking out my !%! like the average NTer? kinda like those speaking on mortgages that dont have mortgages right?

 
 
- its always the same excuses time and time again.
 
 
 
 
  

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by Supermanblue79

I still don't understand how some of you experts on mortgages, don't even have a mortgage.
Hitting NT with stats, graphs, and still...don't have a mortgage.

   
 
.......

 thats NT for you.
 
 

 @ trying to justify not buying a house by lining someone elses pockets.......*why didnt EYE think of that??*
 

- i mean even if you do buy a home......put money into it and after fees, repairs, insurance, etc., you break even? its still a win-win right? you just basically had a roof over your head for X amount of years for free.

 
....like i said, ive seen this movie before. the replies are interesting and funny though.
 
 
 

 
 
  

What do you base this on? Seriously, I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't anything concrete. 
A broad statement like that is just plain foolish. A coworker of mine purchased a home in 2001 for 550k with 10% down. He's poured about 200k in repairs into it. He still has a little over 350k in mortgage to go. 

He rents his 2nd floor so it helps a bit but he's realized that at best he'll break even on this thing and in the end it hasn't been worth the headache even though he can sell it for about 850k now.  

I heard Marc Faber make a good point. He said US housing still isn't cheap but in some places it's reasonable. 




.......whats so broad statementish about what i said?
 
 
....and for the third time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BUYING A FIXER UPPER. so miss me with the whines and crys about repairs. the ONLY repairs im talking about are preventative maintenance, seeing as how im talking about new construction or something 1-2 years old.
 
.....of course right? im not talking about anything concrete. im just talking out my !%! like the average NTer? kinda like those speaking on mortgages that dont have mortgages right?

 
 
- its always the same excuses time and time again.
 
 
 
 
  

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by seasoned vet



   
 
.......

 thats NT for you.
 
 

 @ trying to justify not buying a house by lining someone elses pockets.......*why didnt EYE think of that??*
 

 
....like i said, ive seen this movie before. the replies are interesting and funny though.
 
 
 

 
 
  

What do you base this on? Seriously, I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't anything concrete. 
A broad statement like that is just plain foolish. A coworker of mine purchased a home in 2001 for 550k with 10% down. He's poured about 200k in repairs into it. He still has a little over 350k in mortgage to go. 

He rents his 2nd floor so it helps a bit but he's realized that at best he'll break even on this thing and in the end it hasn't been worth the headache even though he can sell it for about 850k now.  

I heard Marc Faber make a good point. He said US housing still isn't cheap but in some places it's reasonable. 

.......whats so broad statementish about what i said?
 
 
....and for the third time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BUYING A FIXER UPPER. so miss me with the whines and crys about repairs. the ONLY repairs im talking about are preventative maintenance, seeing as how im talking about new construction or something 1-2 years old.
 
.....of course right? im not talking about anything concrete. im just talking out my !%! like the average NTer? kinda like those speaking on mortgages that dont have mortgages right?

 
 
- its always the same excuses time and time again.
 
 
 
 
  

What's with the demented argument about never owning a mortgage? Is it supposed to be some unattainable feat? 200k may be excessive but homes constantly need repairs. things break down over time. with new construction/1-2yrs, you do know you're referring to a small percentage o the market.btw as advice, it's best not to buy a new home because problems as a result of poor construction ususally don't start showing up until a few years later. Considering that most residential homes are built like *!@@ in the US it's just not wise to go for a new home. Yeh, I know about the guarantee but I also know a thing or two about contractors.You're giving out poor advice.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by seasoned vet



   
 
.......

 thats NT for you.
 
 

 @ trying to justify not buying a house by lining someone elses pockets.......*why didnt EYE think of that??*
 

 
....like i said, ive seen this movie before. the replies are interesting and funny though.
 
 
 

 
 
  

What do you base this on? Seriously, I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't anything concrete. 
A broad statement like that is just plain foolish. A coworker of mine purchased a home in 2001 for 550k with 10% down. He's poured about 200k in repairs into it. He still has a little over 350k in mortgage to go. 

He rents his 2nd floor so it helps a bit but he's realized that at best he'll break even on this thing and in the end it hasn't been worth the headache even though he can sell it for about 850k now.  

I heard Marc Faber make a good point. He said US housing still isn't cheap but in some places it's reasonable. 

.......whats so broad statementish about what i said?
 
 
....and for the third time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BUYING A FIXER UPPER. so miss me with the whines and crys about repairs. the ONLY repairs im talking about are preventative maintenance, seeing as how im talking about new construction or something 1-2 years old.
 
.....of course right? im not talking about anything concrete. im just talking out my !%! like the average NTer? kinda like those speaking on mortgages that dont have mortgages right?

 
 
- its always the same excuses time and time again.
 
 
 
 
  

What's with the demented argument about never owning a mortgage? Is it supposed to be some unattainable feat? 200k may be excessive but homes constantly need repairs. things break down over time. with new construction/1-2yrs, you do know you're referring to a small percentage o the market.btw as advice, it's best not to buy a new home because problems as a result of poor construction ususally don't start showing up until a few years later. Considering that most residential homes are built like *!@@ in the US it's just not wise to go for a new home. Yeh, I know about the guarantee but I also know a thing or two about contractors.You're giving out poor advice.

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

What do you base this on? Seriously, I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't anything concrete. 
A broad statement like that is just plain foolish. A coworker of mine purchased a home in 2001 for 550k with 10% down. He's poured about 200k in repairs into it. He still has a little over 350k in mortgage to go. 

He rents his 2nd floor so it helps a bit but he's realized that at best he'll break even on this thing and in the end it hasn't been worth the headache even though he can sell it for about 850k now.  

I heard Marc Faber make a good point. He said US housing still isn't cheap but in some places it's reasonable. 

.......whats so broad statementish about what i said?
 
 
....and for the third time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BUYING A FIXER UPPER. so miss me with the whines and crys about repairs. the ONLY repairs im talking about are preventative maintenance, seeing as how im talking about new construction or something 1-2 years old.
 
.....of course right? im not talking about anything concrete. im just talking out my !%! like the average NTer? kinda like those speaking on mortgages that dont have mortgages right?

 
 
- its always the same excuses time and time again.
 
 
 
 
  

What's with the demented argument about never owning a mortgage? Is it supposed to be some unattainable feat? 200k may be excessive but homes constantly need repairs. things break down over time. with new construction/1-2yrs, you do know you're referring to a small percentage o the market.btw as advice, it's best not to buy a new home because problems as a result of poor construction ususally don't start showing up until a few years later. Considering that most residential homes are built like *!@@ in the US it's just not wise to go for a new home. Yeh, I know about the guarantee but I also know a thing or two about contractors. You're giving out poor advice.

.....he's right. what was i thinking?
 
- you shouldnt buy a brand new to 2 year old home because problems as a result of poor construction usually dont show up until a few years later.
 
......you also shouldnt but a home thats broken in because things break down over time. and repairing a home can get really expensive.
 
 
 
.....THERE ARE ONLY 2 OPTIONS TO BUYING A HOUSE. you either buy brand new or you buy one older. repairs will have to be made on both regardless. one comes with a 1 year warranty, one doesnt. one is prone to have MAJOR repairs, one isnt. ill let you guess which one is which 

.
 
- the point missed is  im not saying one is better than the other for someone else. but if that same individual is whining and crying about repairs, i would advise that indivudual to go for the newer home vs the older one.
 
 
.......that is unless you know of some other type of home that never requires repairs?
 
 
  

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

What do you base this on? Seriously, I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't anything concrete. 
A broad statement like that is just plain foolish. A coworker of mine purchased a home in 2001 for 550k with 10% down. He's poured about 200k in repairs into it. He still has a little over 350k in mortgage to go. 

He rents his 2nd floor so it helps a bit but he's realized that at best he'll break even on this thing and in the end it hasn't been worth the headache even though he can sell it for about 850k now.  

I heard Marc Faber make a good point. He said US housing still isn't cheap but in some places it's reasonable. 

.......whats so broad statementish about what i said?
 
 
....and for the third time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BUYING A FIXER UPPER. so miss me with the whines and crys about repairs. the ONLY repairs im talking about are preventative maintenance, seeing as how im talking about new construction or something 1-2 years old.
 
.....of course right? im not talking about anything concrete. im just talking out my !%! like the average NTer? kinda like those speaking on mortgages that dont have mortgages right?

 
 
- its always the same excuses time and time again.
 
 
 
 
  

What's with the demented argument about never owning a mortgage? Is it supposed to be some unattainable feat? 200k may be excessive but homes constantly need repairs. things break down over time. with new construction/1-2yrs, you do know you're referring to a small percentage o the market.btw as advice, it's best not to buy a new home because problems as a result of poor construction ususally don't start showing up until a few years later. Considering that most residential homes are built like *!@@ in the US it's just not wise to go for a new home. Yeh, I know about the guarantee but I also know a thing or two about contractors. You're giving out poor advice.

.....he's right. what was i thinking?
 
- you shouldnt buy a brand new to 2 year old home because problems as a result of poor construction usually dont show up until a few years later.
 
......you also shouldnt but a home thats broken in because things break down over time. and repairing a home can get really expensive.
 
 
 
.....THERE ARE ONLY 2 OPTIONS TO BUYING A HOUSE. you either buy brand new or you buy one older. repairs will have to be made on both regardless. one comes with a 1 year warranty, one doesnt. one is prone to have MAJOR repairs, one isnt. ill let you guess which one is which 

.
 
- the point missed is  im not saying one is better than the other for someone else. but if that same individual is whining and crying about repairs, i would advise that indivudual to go for the newer home vs the older one.
 
 
.......that is unless you know of some other type of home that never requires repairs?
 
 
  

 

[theswoosh]

I just bought a home for $223 in a great neighborhood. Every home around me that is on the market is going for no less than $375K. Fortunatly in Seattle home prices in good neighborhoods are slowly beginning to rise.

Buying a home for the purpose of making money is like anyother market. If you don't do your reasearch, your going to loose a lot of money. If you can buy a home in a great neighborhood now, BUY, but please don't buy a home for the sake of buying a home. May as well keep "investing" money in DS Jordan's.