I voted yes, with the I voted yes, with the understanding that it means selling any home.
I would not sell my primary home in Carmel Valley or my bay area home, even though both homes have already reached peak and in one case gone above peak.
I would however dump my condos if I could get peak prices, which I believe would each be around $300k for a 1/1 (or close to it).
an
April 1, 2015 @
10:41 PM
I vote no, because I was I vote no, because I was assuming the OP was talking about the primary resident. I would vote yes for rental, only if it gets there quickly. I wouldn’t sell if it gets there 15 years from now.
CA renter
April 1, 2015 @
11:48 PM
I voted no only because we I voted no only because we live in our “dream house.” It’s already at peak price, maybe above. We’ve often joked that we wish we didn’t love it so much because we would definitely sell if it wasn’t our toe-tag house (where we want to live out our final years).
FlyerInHi
April 2, 2015 @
11:19 AM
CA renter wrote:I voted no [quote=CA renter]I voted no only because we live in our “dream house.” It’s already at peak price, maybe above. We’ve often joked that we wish we didn’t love it so much because we would definitely sell if it wasn’t our toe-tag house (where we want to live out our final years).[/quote]
CAr, just teasing you…. When are we going to see deflation?
When the facts change, do you change your mind? I do.
I’m pretty much ideology free. I go with what works and is good for business.
CA renter
April 2, 2015 @
11:08 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:CA renter [quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]I voted no only because we live in our “dream house.” It’s already at peak price, maybe above. We’ve often joked that we wish we didn’t love it so much because we would definitely sell if it wasn’t our toe-tag house (where we want to live out our final years).[/quote]
CAr, just teasing you…. When are we going to see deflation?
When the facts change, do you change your mind? I do.
I’m pretty much ideology free. I go with what works and is good for business.[/quote]
What do you think we’ve been seeing since the stock market (dot-com) imploded? The undercurrent is deflationary, and that’s what all the central banks around the world are fighting tooth and nail. Even after all these years with trillions of dollars’ worth of manipulations, they still can’t manage to keep it at bay.
Deflation is their #1 challenge.
BTW, always feel free to tease away! It’s good to have some friendly and respectful back-and-forth around here. There is no better way to ensure you’re on the right track than to be challenged by others who have educated, opposing viewpoints.
FlyerInHi
April 2, 2015 @
11:16 AM
AN wrote:I vote no, because I [quote=AN]I vote no, because I was assuming the OP was talking about the primary resident. I would vote yes for rental, only if it gets there quickly. I wouldn’t sell if it gets there 15 years from now.[/quote]
I’m with you.
As you pointed out, peak in nominal terms is not the same as peak in real terms.
But, pretty much, if we have another bubble (real terms), I would sell everything and only keep a small condo as a base.
an
April 2, 2015 @
11:49 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:I’m with you. [quote=FlyerInHi]I’m with you.
As you pointed out, peak in nominal terms is not the same as peak in real terms.
But, pretty much, if we have another bubble (real terms), I would sell everything and only keep a small condo as a base.[/quote]Yes, if there’s a bubble in real term, then I would sell everything. People have to keep in mind that the last peak in 2005-2008 was 7-10 years ago. If you add 2-3% inflation every year, then we would have to be back to peak price + 15-20% more on top of that to be at similar place in real terms.
NotCranky
April 2, 2015 @
12:38 PM
I have a friend who has I have a friend who has several rentals and did not sell any of them in the bubble, his rents have kept going up too. Type of guy that has a nice diversified portfolio built from a young age. I don’t see where selling all real estate because of a bubble is something you automatically want to do at the time. Hindsight with stock market gains should be put aside in thinking about this. I don’t think many of us predicted that? Several pigs have accurately predicted the the market would keep rolling once it got started but I don’t think many predicted the start. It was pretty doom and gloom around here. There were only a few gold bugs. Besides by the time the bubble hits most people are at an age they need to start thinking conservatively, my friend was. Aside from the unpredictable stock run-up , the extent of it, what good would the money be doing between the last peak and now?
Disclaimer, I sold at peak but I don’t have a lot in common with my friend. I used the equity during the run up to buy my land and it kept going up enough to pay for the first house I built too, so I sold it. It wouldn’t have been a bad thing to carry it a few years all underwater. I lost realtor fees other associated selling costs and would have to pay as much to replace it plus all the lost expenses in doing so. A loose consensus here was that it would be back to peak by 2014 to 2017. Rents went up, Some predicted rents would go to hell i(Bugs). Hindsight on my part but not a huge boon to sell it. Leveraging it worked out well.
Also , are you people with kids really going to sell your primary? Are many people with elementary school aged children?
flyer
April 2, 2015 @
2:53 PM
No–especially, as CAr No–especially, as CAr mentioned–when you have your dream house–and purchased it many years ago, as many of us have. As far as the rentals
go–I’m open–but probably not.
joec
April 2, 2015 @
6:03 PM
If money wasn’t an issue, I’d If money wasn’t an issue, I’d be hesitant to sell any real estate in prime (very desirable areas). It’s hard to imagine things going much worst if you can just continue to rent your property with good cash flow.
Selling just gives you cash. What will you do with the cash then? Probably end up making other poor investments or shill/sham folks will get you to buy an annuity.
an
April 2, 2015 @
6:11 PM
joec wrote:If money wasn’t an [quote=joec]If money wasn’t an issue, I’d be hesitant to sell any real estate in prime (very desirable areas). It’s hard to imagine things going much worst if you can just continue to rent your property with good cash flow.
Selling just gives you cash. What will you do with the cash then? Probably end up making other poor investments or shill/sham folks will get you to buy an annuity.[/quote]
If we see a real bubble again, I’ll sell and sit on cash waiting for the bottom.
an
April 1, 2015 @
10:41 PM
. .
Jazzman
April 2, 2015 @
10:28 AM
It all depends when you It all depends when you bought.
NotCranky
April 2, 2015 @
10:55 AM
Jazzman wrote:It all depends [quote=Jazzman]It all depends when you bought.[/quote]
Not really. It could though in some cases. Whether the timing was good or not could go either way with sales decisions. Some people who paid near peak might be happy to get out, or might not be moved much at all by a return to peak. Some people who bought low might still have other reasons for not selling.Some have already posted on this thread and there are many owners with similar views.
Jazzman
April 10, 2015 @
12:10 PM
Blogstar wrote:Jazzman [quote=Blogstar][quote=Jazzman]It all depends when you bought.[/quote]
Not really. It could though in some cases. Whether the timing was good or not could go either way with sales decisions. Some people who paid near peak might be happy to get out, or might not be moved much at all by a return to peak. Some people who bought low might still have other reasons for not selling.Some have already posted on this thread and there are many owners with similar views.[/quote]
That is right. Many would not or could not sell, which is why rapidly increasing home prices does not create true wealth. Even if you realize your gains, you are left with few investment alternatives and long cycles. But if home prices reached bubble levels, and you were considering selling anyway, it would be a good time to sell.
The-Shoveler
April 2, 2015 @
6:12 AM
Depends,
If I saw the same Depends,
If I saw the same crazy No-Doc And No-Down 100% (I even saw 120%) loans to anyone who could fog a mirror. then I might.
(I am not seeing that currently).
High Price alone does not a bubble make.
To Sell your primary (or even a good rental) you have to expect to get a 40-50% discount in most cases to make it worth it, otherwise the fee’s and other expenses will eat all your profit and you will go through a lot of hassle and work for next to nothing.
A 10-20% decline will only generate hassle and work for next to nothing.
NotCranky
April 2, 2015 @
8:26 AM
I voted no, Although I do I voted no, Although I do have a love hate relationship with the distance from civilization, it is 20 acres with 2 houses on it. I have no intentions of leaving the general area so replacement would be costly too.
Rental income is tied to it and not easily replaceable.The second house could be for extended family if needed. We would be better off taking equity for a third house, perhaps with some sweat equity potential in it, than selling. Getting older though, I like owning it,not spreading the value out and taking risk back into the picture.
Also, I want my kids to decide if they want it or not when they are grown ups.
The property(land) could be used to set up different kinds of businesses. While not using it for commercial purposes, that seems like something not to let go of.
The-Shoveler
April 2, 2015 @
8:35 AM
Blogstar wrote:
The [quote=Blogstar]
The property(land) could be used to set up different kinds of businesses. While not using it for commercial purposes, that seems like something not to let go of.[/quote]
My Brother had a contracting Biz and had a property with a few Acres that he could park his Trucks and other equipment etc…
When he sold that to buy a fancy new tract home (where he was not allowed to have his equipment) at a much bigger expense, it was the beginning of the end for his biz and marriage etc.. IMO.
It’s a long sad story but, IMO He could have easily road out the slow times if he had stuck with his original home.
fun4vnay2
April 2, 2015 @
6:46 PM
I answered may be.
Bought my I answered may be.
Bought my first home/primary in early 2000s and sold it in 2007.
Then bought again in late 2011.
I invested the cash in stocks and almost double the money in last 4 years… but now I need to exit stocks and invest it somewhere else…
I have elementary school going kids and they adapt easier then we think..
In the last 20 years, I have been to 5 different places in USA, covered all the coast. I am in SD because I have a cushy job. If I find another/better opportunity elsewhere, I’d move on 🙂
Reality
April 2, 2015 @
9:10 PM
Of course one should sell Of course one should sell today if 2005 prices were here. Those numbers would be rich today. Probably not 20 years from now.
Nobody’s home in this area is above peak today (4/2/2015) though, unless they did massive upgrades. GMAFB.
Coronita
April 2, 2015 @
9:22 PM
JohnAlt91941 wrote:Of course [quote=JohnAlt91941]Of course one should sell today if 2005 prices were here. Those numbers would be rich today. Probably not 20 years from now.
Nobody’s home in this area is above peak today (4/2/2015) though, unless they did massive upgrades. GMAFB.[/quote]
that would be incorrect. Look for SFH that are less than $1million in Carmel Valley. There aren’t many.
(former)FormerSanDiegan
April 3, 2015 @
3:26 PM
In my neighborhood prices are In my neighborhood prices are significantly higher (~10 to 15% higher) than in 2005. So I guess since I haven’t sold I would have to answer no.
Even if that weren’t the case I wouldn’t sell a house in SO Cal at the price level of the previous peak 7-10 years after that peak. At no point in the past 50 years or so has that been the right move. Maybe this time is different. But I doubt it.
masayako
April 6, 2015 @
10:08 PM
Bought mine in 2010 at the Bought mine in 2010 at the lowest price point in my area. Now it’s worth 28% more. I don’t think I will sell it unless it reach 40%+.
So, the answer is: “It depends.”
I don’t feel like price is at the peak yet. People are not doing crazy things & buy a home at all cost. When that happens, I will sell & cash it like I did at the last bubble. (bought in 2002, sold in 2006, profited 25% last time)
moneymaker
April 7, 2015 @
6:48 AM
The consensus seems to be The consensus seems to be sell the investment, keep the home, which basically boils down to the fact that people with money typically don’t like to rent. Now if you have lots of money then there is a sense of freedom with renting as it gives you the choice of pulling up roots at any time and moving. I hate moving but if I could get more than twice what I paid in 2009 it would be very tempting. I bought at less than half peak.
scaredyclassic
April 7, 2015 @
7:17 AM
I cannot pack fast enough to I cannot pack fast enough to time the housing market
gzz
April 7, 2015 @
12:24 PM
“Bought mine in 2010 at the “Bought mine in 2010 at the lowest price point in my area. Now it’s worth 28% more.”
I think everywhere in San Diego county is up more than 28% from the bottom. The element of the market that has gone up the least is $5 million+, which also went down the least in the crash.
According to our host, the median detached house in price per square foot terms is up about 53% from the bottom.
flyer
April 7, 2015 @
4:06 PM
Another reason many don’t Another reason many don’t plan to sell, is because they want to pass their properties onto their kids. This is the case for us, and many people we know.
Reality
April 7, 2015 @
8:53 PM
flyer wrote:Another reason [quote=flyer]Another reason many don’t plan to sell, is because they want to pass their properties onto their kids. This is the case for us, and many people we know.[/quote]
Why don’t they just pass on the money?
flyer
April 8, 2015 @
4:55 AM
Many of us have purchased Many of us have purchased property in San Diego over the last 25+ years. There has been a great deal of appreciation during that time period–which continues–so, without going into all of the estate and tax planning techniques being used, suffice it to say that, for most of us, passing the properties on works out best for all concerned.
Coronita
April 8, 2015 @
5:46 AM
JohnAlt91941 wrote:flyer [quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=flyer]Another reason many don’t plan to sell, is because they want to pass their properties onto their kids. This is the case for us, and many people we know.[/quote]
Why don’t they just pass on the money?[/quote]
Because then you would need to pay capital gains taxes, not to mention your kids would lose the low property tax status if they then had to rebuy the same property.
If they inherit your property, there would be a “step-up” in that house’s cost-basis, I believe up to the the FMV of that home upon your death, as long as you didn’t die in 2010. That said, obama wanted to “fix” this too in his executive order #XYZ, I lost count.
Primary home doesn’t really count because you get the the first $250k($500k joint) capital gains tax free. At least this is my pseudo-understanding. So it use to be if you had more than one property, you would live in one for 2 years, claim that as a primary home, and sell. And then move into your other home, and claim that as your primary for two years, and sell, and so forth. They eliminated that too.
Obviously, being not an accountant, it’s best to go talk to a CPA if this really concerns you.
NotCranky
April 8, 2015 @
7:43 AM
JohnAlt91941 wrote:flyer [quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=flyer]Another reason many don’t plan to sell, is because they want to pass their properties onto their kids. This is the case for us, and many people we know.[/quote]
Why don’t they just pass on the money?[/quote]
Because in some cases the kids have fond memories of having lived in the property ,an attachment to the community , and the property is possibly somewhat unique in some ways. Most of the time they probably just sell it anyway. Most of the time they probably just sell it anyway.
flyer
April 8, 2015 @
3:32 PM
Exactly right flu, and Exactly right flu, and Blogstar, along with lots of other things. Our kids have said they never want to sell their childhood home, but, as we all know, that could change. We’d like to give them those options, rather than making the decisions for them.
moneymaker
April 8, 2015 @
3:50 PM
I’m going to have to side I’m going to have to side with JohnAlt91941. If one sells at peak (hence maximizing profit then gives cash (up to $14k/yr.) to future inheritees, which would be tax free, then that is the best way in many ways as the “kids” get the money more slowly and you get to live to see them enjoy it. I think the problem is most people are either short sighted or they want to take it with them. Here comes the disclaimer “I am not a tax professional”, so maybe there is a legitimate reason why this method is not more common.
flyer
April 8, 2015 @
4:46 PM
Understand your thinking, and Understand your thinking, and am aware of what you mentioned, but, professionals have advised us otherwise with our particular estate, and we’re all happy with the plan.
We are very much aware of how short this life is, and we know we’re all just passing through this moment in eternity, but we’re still trying to make the best decisions we can along the way, and have no interest in taking anything with us–even if that was possible–well, maybe the beach, if we could.
In the meantime, we’re already seeing our kids enjoy all of the other investments we, and their grandparents set up for them years ago, so it’s a win/win.
This type of planning involves very individual decisions, and that’s why I didn’t go into great detail. Everyone should definitely do what they think is best.
moneymaker
April 8, 2015 @
4:56 PM
flyer- You are correct every flyer- You are correct every case is different. If your kids are doing well then I would not rock the boat,in fact leaving behind a sizable estate can cause problems, fighting over the will and whatever else, in the original post I was not even thinking about inheritance merely economic choices.
Coronita
April 1, 2015 @ 10:22 PM
I voted yes, with the
I voted yes, with the understanding that it means selling any home.
I would not sell my primary home in Carmel Valley or my bay area home, even though both homes have already reached peak and in one case gone above peak.
I would however dump my condos if I could get peak prices, which I believe would each be around $300k for a 1/1 (or close to it).
an
April 1, 2015 @ 10:41 PM
I vote no, because I was
I vote no, because I was assuming the OP was talking about the primary resident. I would vote yes for rental, only if it gets there quickly. I wouldn’t sell if it gets there 15 years from now.
CA renter
April 1, 2015 @ 11:48 PM
I voted no only because we
I voted no only because we live in our “dream house.” It’s already at peak price, maybe above. We’ve often joked that we wish we didn’t love it so much because we would definitely sell if it wasn’t our toe-tag house (where we want to live out our final years).
FlyerInHi
April 2, 2015 @ 11:19 AM
CA renter wrote:I voted no
[quote=CA renter]I voted no only because we live in our “dream house.” It’s already at peak price, maybe above. We’ve often joked that we wish we didn’t love it so much because we would definitely sell if it wasn’t our toe-tag house (where we want to live out our final years).[/quote]
CAr, just teasing you…. When are we going to see deflation?
When the facts change, do you change your mind? I do.
I’m pretty much ideology free. I go with what works and is good for business.
CA renter
April 2, 2015 @ 11:08 PM
FlyerInHi wrote:CA renter
[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]I voted no only because we live in our “dream house.” It’s already at peak price, maybe above. We’ve often joked that we wish we didn’t love it so much because we would definitely sell if it wasn’t our toe-tag house (where we want to live out our final years).[/quote]
CAr, just teasing you…. When are we going to see deflation?
When the facts change, do you change your mind? I do.
I’m pretty much ideology free. I go with what works and is good for business.[/quote]
What do you think we’ve been seeing since the stock market (dot-com) imploded? The undercurrent is deflationary, and that’s what all the central banks around the world are fighting tooth and nail. Even after all these years with trillions of dollars’ worth of manipulations, they still can’t manage to keep it at bay.
Deflation is their #1 challenge.
BTW, always feel free to tease away! It’s good to have some friendly and respectful back-and-forth around here. There is no better way to ensure you’re on the right track than to be challenged by others who have educated, opposing viewpoints.
FlyerInHi
April 2, 2015 @ 11:16 AM
AN wrote:I vote no, because I
[quote=AN]I vote no, because I was assuming the OP was talking about the primary resident. I would vote yes for rental, only if it gets there quickly. I wouldn’t sell if it gets there 15 years from now.[/quote]
I’m with you.
As you pointed out, peak in nominal terms is not the same as peak in real terms.
But, pretty much, if we have another bubble (real terms), I would sell everything and only keep a small condo as a base.
an
April 2, 2015 @ 11:49 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:I’m with you.
[quote=FlyerInHi]I’m with you.
As you pointed out, peak in nominal terms is not the same as peak in real terms.
But, pretty much, if we have another bubble (real terms), I would sell everything and only keep a small condo as a base.[/quote]Yes, if there’s a bubble in real term, then I would sell everything. People have to keep in mind that the last peak in 2005-2008 was 7-10 years ago. If you add 2-3% inflation every year, then we would have to be back to peak price + 15-20% more on top of that to be at similar place in real terms.
NotCranky
April 2, 2015 @ 12:38 PM
I have a friend who has
I have a friend who has several rentals and did not sell any of them in the bubble, his rents have kept going up too. Type of guy that has a nice diversified portfolio built from a young age. I don’t see where selling all real estate because of a bubble is something you automatically want to do at the time. Hindsight with stock market gains should be put aside in thinking about this. I don’t think many of us predicted that? Several pigs have accurately predicted the the market would keep rolling once it got started but I don’t think many predicted the start. It was pretty doom and gloom around here. There were only a few gold bugs. Besides by the time the bubble hits most people are at an age they need to start thinking conservatively, my friend was. Aside from the unpredictable stock run-up , the extent of it, what good would the money be doing between the last peak and now?
Disclaimer, I sold at peak but I don’t have a lot in common with my friend. I used the equity during the run up to buy my land and it kept going up enough to pay for the first house I built too, so I sold it. It wouldn’t have been a bad thing to carry it a few years all underwater. I lost realtor fees other associated selling costs and would have to pay as much to replace it plus all the lost expenses in doing so. A loose consensus here was that it would be back to peak by 2014 to 2017. Rents went up, Some predicted rents would go to hell i(Bugs). Hindsight on my part but not a huge boon to sell it. Leveraging it worked out well.
Also , are you people with kids really going to sell your primary? Are many people with elementary school aged children?
flyer
April 2, 2015 @ 2:53 PM
No–especially, as CAr
No–especially, as CAr mentioned–when you have your dream house–and purchased it many years ago, as many of us have. As far as the rentals
go–I’m open–but probably not.
joec
April 2, 2015 @ 6:03 PM
If money wasn’t an issue, I’d
If money wasn’t an issue, I’d be hesitant to sell any real estate in prime (very desirable areas). It’s hard to imagine things going much worst if you can just continue to rent your property with good cash flow.
Selling just gives you cash. What will you do with the cash then? Probably end up making other poor investments or shill/sham folks will get you to buy an annuity.
an
April 2, 2015 @ 6:11 PM
joec wrote:If money wasn’t an
[quote=joec]If money wasn’t an issue, I’d be hesitant to sell any real estate in prime (very desirable areas). It’s hard to imagine things going much worst if you can just continue to rent your property with good cash flow.
Selling just gives you cash. What will you do with the cash then? Probably end up making other poor investments or shill/sham folks will get you to buy an annuity.[/quote]
If we see a real bubble again, I’ll sell and sit on cash waiting for the bottom.
an
April 1, 2015 @ 10:41 PM
.
.
Jazzman
April 2, 2015 @ 10:28 AM
It all depends when you
It all depends when you bought.
NotCranky
April 2, 2015 @ 10:55 AM
Jazzman wrote:It all depends
[quote=Jazzman]It all depends when you bought.[/quote]
Not really. It could though in some cases. Whether the timing was good or not could go either way with sales decisions. Some people who paid near peak might be happy to get out, or might not be moved much at all by a return to peak. Some people who bought low might still have other reasons for not selling.Some have already posted on this thread and there are many owners with similar views.
Jazzman
April 10, 2015 @ 12:10 PM
Blogstar wrote:Jazzman
[quote=Blogstar][quote=Jazzman]It all depends when you bought.[/quote]
Not really. It could though in some cases. Whether the timing was good or not could go either way with sales decisions. Some people who paid near peak might be happy to get out, or might not be moved much at all by a return to peak. Some people who bought low might still have other reasons for not selling.Some have already posted on this thread and there are many owners with similar views.[/quote]
That is right. Many would not or could not sell, which is why rapidly increasing home prices does not create true wealth. Even if you realize your gains, you are left with few investment alternatives and long cycles. But if home prices reached bubble levels, and you were considering selling anyway, it would be a good time to sell.
The-Shoveler
April 2, 2015 @ 6:12 AM
Depends,
If I saw the same
Depends,
If I saw the same crazy No-Doc And No-Down 100% (I even saw 120%) loans to anyone who could fog a mirror. then I might.
(I am not seeing that currently).
High Price alone does not a bubble make.
To Sell your primary (or even a good rental) you have to expect to get a 40-50% discount in most cases to make it worth it, otherwise the fee’s and other expenses will eat all your profit and you will go through a lot of hassle and work for next to nothing.
A 10-20% decline will only generate hassle and work for next to nothing.
NotCranky
April 2, 2015 @ 8:26 AM
I voted no, Although I do
I voted no, Although I do have a love hate relationship with the distance from civilization, it is 20 acres with 2 houses on it. I have no intentions of leaving the general area so replacement would be costly too.
Rental income is tied to it and not easily replaceable.The second house could be for extended family if needed. We would be better off taking equity for a third house, perhaps with some sweat equity potential in it, than selling. Getting older though, I like owning it,not spreading the value out and taking risk back into the picture.
Also, I want my kids to decide if they want it or not when they are grown ups.
The property(land) could be used to set up different kinds of businesses. While not using it for commercial purposes, that seems like something not to let go of.
The-Shoveler
April 2, 2015 @ 8:35 AM
Blogstar wrote:
The
[quote=Blogstar]
The property(land) could be used to set up different kinds of businesses. While not using it for commercial purposes, that seems like something not to let go of.[/quote]
My Brother had a contracting Biz and had a property with a few Acres that he could park his Trucks and other equipment etc…
When he sold that to buy a fancy new tract home (where he was not allowed to have his equipment) at a much bigger expense, it was the beginning of the end for his biz and marriage etc.. IMO.
It’s a long sad story but, IMO He could have easily road out the slow times if he had stuck with his original home.
fun4vnay2
April 2, 2015 @ 6:46 PM
I answered may be.
Bought my
I answered may be.
Bought my first home/primary in early 2000s and sold it in 2007.
Then bought again in late 2011.
I invested the cash in stocks and almost double the money in last 4 years… but now I need to exit stocks and invest it somewhere else…
I have elementary school going kids and they adapt easier then we think..
In the last 20 years, I have been to 5 different places in USA, covered all the coast. I am in SD because I have a cushy job. If I find another/better opportunity elsewhere, I’d move on 🙂
Reality
April 2, 2015 @ 9:10 PM
Of course one should sell
Of course one should sell today if 2005 prices were here. Those numbers would be rich today. Probably not 20 years from now.
Nobody’s home in this area is above peak today (4/2/2015) though, unless they did massive upgrades. GMAFB.
Coronita
April 2, 2015 @ 9:22 PM
JohnAlt91941 wrote:Of course
[quote=JohnAlt91941]Of course one should sell today if 2005 prices were here. Those numbers would be rich today. Probably not 20 years from now.
Nobody’s home in this area is above peak today (4/2/2015) though, unless they did massive upgrades. GMAFB.[/quote]
that would be incorrect. Look for SFH that are less than $1million in Carmel Valley. There aren’t many.
(former)FormerSanDiegan
April 3, 2015 @ 3:26 PM
In my neighborhood prices are
In my neighborhood prices are significantly higher (~10 to 15% higher) than in 2005. So I guess since I haven’t sold I would have to answer no.
Even if that weren’t the case I wouldn’t sell a house in SO Cal at the price level of the previous peak 7-10 years after that peak. At no point in the past 50 years or so has that been the right move. Maybe this time is different. But I doubt it.
masayako
April 6, 2015 @ 10:08 PM
Bought mine in 2010 at the
Bought mine in 2010 at the lowest price point in my area. Now it’s worth 28% more. I don’t think I will sell it unless it reach 40%+.
So, the answer is: “It depends.”
I don’t feel like price is at the peak yet. People are not doing crazy things & buy a home at all cost. When that happens, I will sell & cash it like I did at the last bubble. (bought in 2002, sold in 2006, profited 25% last time)
moneymaker
April 7, 2015 @ 6:48 AM
The consensus seems to be
The consensus seems to be sell the investment, keep the home, which basically boils down to the fact that people with money typically don’t like to rent. Now if you have lots of money then there is a sense of freedom with renting as it gives you the choice of pulling up roots at any time and moving. I hate moving but if I could get more than twice what I paid in 2009 it would be very tempting. I bought at less than half peak.
scaredyclassic
April 7, 2015 @ 7:17 AM
I cannot pack fast enough to
I cannot pack fast enough to time the housing market
gzz
April 7, 2015 @ 12:24 PM
“Bought mine in 2010 at the
“Bought mine in 2010 at the lowest price point in my area. Now it’s worth 28% more.”
I think everywhere in San Diego county is up more than 28% from the bottom. The element of the market that has gone up the least is $5 million+, which also went down the least in the crash.
According to our host, the median detached house in price per square foot terms is up about 53% from the bottom.
flyer
April 7, 2015 @ 4:06 PM
Another reason many don’t
Another reason many don’t plan to sell, is because they want to pass their properties onto their kids. This is the case for us, and many people we know.
Reality
April 7, 2015 @ 8:53 PM
flyer wrote:Another reason
[quote=flyer]Another reason many don’t plan to sell, is because they want to pass their properties onto their kids. This is the case for us, and many people we know.[/quote]
Why don’t they just pass on the money?
flyer
April 8, 2015 @ 4:55 AM
Many of us have purchased
Many of us have purchased property in San Diego over the last 25+ years. There has been a great deal of appreciation during that time period–which continues–so, without going into all of the estate and tax planning techniques being used, suffice it to say that, for most of us, passing the properties on works out best for all concerned.
Coronita
April 8, 2015 @ 5:46 AM
JohnAlt91941 wrote:flyer
[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=flyer]Another reason many don’t plan to sell, is because they want to pass their properties onto their kids. This is the case for us, and many people we know.[/quote]
Why don’t they just pass on the money?[/quote]
Because then you would need to pay capital gains taxes, not to mention your kids would lose the low property tax status if they then had to rebuy the same property.
If they inherit your property, there would be a “step-up” in that house’s cost-basis, I believe up to the the FMV of that home upon your death, as long as you didn’t die in 2010. That said, obama wanted to “fix” this too in his executive order #XYZ, I lost count.
Primary home doesn’t really count because you get the the first $250k($500k joint) capital gains tax free. At least this is my pseudo-understanding. So it use to be if you had more than one property, you would live in one for 2 years, claim that as a primary home, and sell. And then move into your other home, and claim that as your primary for two years, and sell, and so forth. They eliminated that too.
Obviously, being not an accountant, it’s best to go talk to a CPA if this really concerns you.
NotCranky
April 8, 2015 @ 7:43 AM
JohnAlt91941 wrote:flyer
[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=flyer]Another reason many don’t plan to sell, is because they want to pass their properties onto their kids. This is the case for us, and many people we know.[/quote]
Why don’t they just pass on the money?[/quote]
Because in some cases the kids have fond memories of having lived in the property ,an attachment to the community , and the property is possibly somewhat unique in some ways. Most of the time they probably just sell it anyway. Most of the time they probably just sell it anyway.
flyer
April 8, 2015 @ 3:32 PM
Exactly right flu, and
Exactly right flu, and Blogstar, along with lots of other things. Our kids have said they never want to sell their childhood home, but, as we all know, that could change. We’d like to give them those options, rather than making the decisions for them.
moneymaker
April 8, 2015 @ 3:50 PM
I’m going to have to side
I’m going to have to side with JohnAlt91941. If one sells at peak (hence maximizing profit then gives cash (up to $14k/yr.) to future inheritees, which would be tax free, then that is the best way in many ways as the “kids” get the money more slowly and you get to live to see them enjoy it. I think the problem is most people are either short sighted or they want to take it with them. Here comes the disclaimer “I am not a tax professional”, so maybe there is a legitimate reason why this method is not more common.
flyer
April 8, 2015 @ 4:46 PM
Understand your thinking, and
Understand your thinking, and am aware of what you mentioned, but, professionals have advised us otherwise with our particular estate, and we’re all happy with the plan.
We are very much aware of how short this life is, and we know we’re all just passing through this moment in eternity, but we’re still trying to make the best decisions we can along the way, and have no interest in taking anything with us–even if that was possible–well, maybe the beach, if we could.
In the meantime, we’re already seeing our kids enjoy all of the other investments we, and their grandparents set up for them years ago, so it’s a win/win.
This type of planning involves very individual decisions, and that’s why I didn’t go into great detail. Everyone should definitely do what they think is best.
moneymaker
April 8, 2015 @ 4:56 PM
flyer- You are correct every
flyer- You are correct every case is different. If your kids are doing well then I would not rock the boat,in fact leaving behind a sizable estate can cause problems, fighting over the will and whatever else, in the original post I was not even thinking about inheritance merely economic choices.