- This topic has 65 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 12, 2008 at 12:33 PM #12710May 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM #202728
WaitingToExhale
ParticipantDavelj,
This is an interesting discussion, and one that’s pretty relevant. To be clear, when you specifiy “mortgage is comparable to your rent (or the rent on a comparable home),” do you mean an interest-only mortgage as you mention in paragraph 3?
So with an interest-only loan, you are basically “renting-with-benefits” (the benefits in this case being the tax savings, so more cash at the end of the year). The downsides are you are responsible for all maintenance costs and you are tied to the home (in the context of job-changes, moving etc).
Of course, one should be sure one can afford the payment when the loan resets to avoid future trouble, as well.
Does this capture the issue fairly well?
May 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM #202862ParticipantDavelj,
This is an interesting discussion, and one that’s pretty relevant. To be clear, when you specifiy “mortgage is comparable to your rent (or the rent on a comparable home),” do you mean an interest-only mortgage as you mention in paragraph 3?
So with an interest-only loan, you are basically “renting-with-benefits” (the benefits in this case being the tax savings, so more cash at the end of the year). The downsides are you are responsible for all maintenance costs and you are tied to the home (in the context of job-changes, moving etc).
Of course, one should be sure one can afford the payment when the loan resets to avoid future trouble, as well.
Does this capture the issue fairly well?
May 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM #202826ParticipantDavelj,
This is an interesting discussion, and one that’s pretty relevant. To be clear, when you specifiy “mortgage is comparable to your rent (or the rent on a comparable home),” do you mean an interest-only mortgage as you mention in paragraph 3?
So with an interest-only loan, you are basically “renting-with-benefits” (the benefits in this case being the tax savings, so more cash at the end of the year). The downsides are you are responsible for all maintenance costs and you are tied to the home (in the context of job-changes, moving etc).
Of course, one should be sure one can afford the payment when the loan resets to avoid future trouble, as well.
Does this capture the issue fairly well?
May 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM #202800ParticipantDavelj,
This is an interesting discussion, and one that’s pretty relevant. To be clear, when you specifiy “mortgage is comparable to your rent (or the rent on a comparable home),” do you mean an interest-only mortgage as you mention in paragraph 3?
So with an interest-only loan, you are basically “renting-with-benefits” (the benefits in this case being the tax savings, so more cash at the end of the year). The downsides are you are responsible for all maintenance costs and you are tied to the home (in the context of job-changes, moving etc).
Of course, one should be sure one can afford the payment when the loan resets to avoid future trouble, as well.
Does this capture the issue fairly well?
May 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM #202774ParticipantDavelj,
This is an interesting discussion, and one that’s pretty relevant. To be clear, when you specifiy “mortgage is comparable to your rent (or the rent on a comparable home),” do you mean an interest-only mortgage as you mention in paragraph 3?
So with an interest-only loan, you are basically “renting-with-benefits” (the benefits in this case being the tax savings, so more cash at the end of the year). The downsides are you are responsible for all maintenance costs and you are tied to the home (in the context of job-changes, moving etc).
Of course, one should be sure one can afford the payment when the loan resets to avoid future trouble, as well.
Does this capture the issue fairly well?
May 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM #202820patientlywaiting
ParticipantDavelj, you scenario works only if you have a holding period of 10 years or more.
If you need to move, the transaction costs will kill you if your house is down 10% from purchase price.
Also make sure you have solid income so you can take advantage of mortgage interest deduction. If you’re out of a job, even for a few months, and trying to sell, then you’ll get a double whammy — selling costs and loss of tax advantage, which effective hikes you house payments at the worst of times.
Those are the things people used to worry about in the 80s and 90s downturns.
May 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM #202846ParticipantDavelj, you scenario works only if you have a holding period of 10 years or more.
If you need to move, the transaction costs will kill you if your house is down 10% from purchase price.
Also make sure you have solid income so you can take advantage of mortgage interest deduction. If you’re out of a job, even for a few months, and trying to sell, then you’ll get a double whammy — selling costs and loss of tax advantage, which effective hikes you house payments at the worst of times.
Those are the things people used to worry about in the 80s and 90s downturns.
May 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM #202773ParticipantDavelj, you scenario works only if you have a holding period of 10 years or more.
If you need to move, the transaction costs will kill you if your house is down 10% from purchase price.
Also make sure you have solid income so you can take advantage of mortgage interest deduction. If you’re out of a job, even for a few months, and trying to sell, then you’ll get a double whammy — selling costs and loss of tax advantage, which effective hikes you house payments at the worst of times.
Those are the things people used to worry about in the 80s and 90s downturns.
May 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM #202871ParticipantDavelj, you scenario works only if you have a holding period of 10 years or more.
If you need to move, the transaction costs will kill you if your house is down 10% from purchase price.
Also make sure you have solid income so you can take advantage of mortgage interest deduction. If you’re out of a job, even for a few months, and trying to sell, then you’ll get a double whammy — selling costs and loss of tax advantage, which effective hikes you house payments at the worst of times.
Those are the things people used to worry about in the 80s and 90s downturns.
May 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM #202904ParticipantDavelj, you scenario works only if you have a holding period of 10 years or more.
If you need to move, the transaction costs will kill you if your house is down 10% from purchase price.
Also make sure you have solid income so you can take advantage of mortgage interest deduction. If you’re out of a job, even for a few months, and trying to sell, then you’ll get a double whammy — selling costs and loss of tax advantage, which effective hikes you house payments at the worst of times.
Those are the things people used to worry about in the 80s and 90s downturns.
May 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM #202843davelj
ParticipantWTE, I just used an interest-only, zero down payment loan to make an apples-to-apples comparison with rent. Otherwise, you have to take into account paying down principal each month and the opportunity cost of lost interest on the down payment. I just wanted to simplify the math and thought process. But, yeah, the “renting with benefits” captures the same idea.
Patientlywaiting, yeah the break-even holding period expands if you have to sell. No doubt about it. I didn’t include that in the analysis because that’s always the case if you buy, regardless of what you pay. Selling expenses are part of every sale transaction. But, yeah, I’m assuming that the buyers have a long term orientation.
My real objective here was merely to point out that if you think you’re going to live in a place for a long time, then timing the ultimate bottom along with its corresponding trough price is probably not as important financially as merely getting within 10%-15% or so because the advantage to renting declines with each passing year as housing price declines move toward that lower asymptote with a negative second derivative, in calculus terms. That is, as prices decline at a decreasing rate, the marginal benefit to renting declines as well.
Anyone who wants to live long-term in Chula Vista or Murietta, to use two examples, and can buy a house or condo for (a) less than it would cost them to rent the same place, and (b) 50% off peak pricing, probably won’t have many regrets five years down the road, despite the fact that there may be some modest declines still ahead and that prices may not actually turn up for many years.
For most of SD, however, this doesn’t apply (yet). Most SFRs are still too expensive, albeit less so with each passing month. But we already know that.
May 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM #202892ParticipantWTE, I just used an interest-only, zero down payment loan to make an apples-to-apples comparison with rent. Otherwise, you have to take into account paying down principal each month and the opportunity cost of lost interest on the down payment. I just wanted to simplify the math and thought process. But, yeah, the “renting with benefits” captures the same idea.
Patientlywaiting, yeah the break-even holding period expands if you have to sell. No doubt about it. I didn’t include that in the analysis because that’s always the case if you buy, regardless of what you pay. Selling expenses are part of every sale transaction. But, yeah, I’m assuming that the buyers have a long term orientation.
My real objective here was merely to point out that if you think you’re going to live in a place for a long time, then timing the ultimate bottom along with its corresponding trough price is probably not as important financially as merely getting within 10%-15% or so because the advantage to renting declines with each passing year as housing price declines move toward that lower asymptote with a negative second derivative, in calculus terms. That is, as prices decline at a decreasing rate, the marginal benefit to renting declines as well.
Anyone who wants to live long-term in Chula Vista or Murietta, to use two examples, and can buy a house or condo for (a) less than it would cost them to rent the same place, and (b) 50% off peak pricing, probably won’t have many regrets five years down the road, despite the fact that there may be some modest declines still ahead and that prices may not actually turn up for many years.
For most of SD, however, this doesn’t apply (yet). Most SFRs are still too expensive, albeit less so with each passing month. But we already know that.
May 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM #202975ParticipantWTE, I just used an interest-only, zero down payment loan to make an apples-to-apples comparison with rent. Otherwise, you have to take into account paying down principal each month and the opportunity cost of lost interest on the down payment. I just wanted to simplify the math and thought process. But, yeah, the “renting with benefits” captures the same idea.
Patientlywaiting, yeah the break-even holding period expands if you have to sell. No doubt about it. I didn’t include that in the analysis because that’s always the case if you buy, regardless of what you pay. Selling expenses are part of every sale transaction. But, yeah, I’m assuming that the buyers have a long term orientation.
My real objective here was merely to point out that if you think you’re going to live in a place for a long time, then timing the ultimate bottom along with its corresponding trough price is probably not as important financially as merely getting within 10%-15% or so because the advantage to renting declines with each passing year as housing price declines move toward that lower asymptote with a negative second derivative, in calculus terms. That is, as prices decline at a decreasing rate, the marginal benefit to renting declines as well.
Anyone who wants to live long-term in Chula Vista or Murietta, to use two examples, and can buy a house or condo for (a) less than it would cost them to rent the same place, and (b) 50% off peak pricing, probably won’t have many regrets five years down the road, despite the fact that there may be some modest declines still ahead and that prices may not actually turn up for many years.
For most of SD, however, this doesn’t apply (yet). Most SFRs are still too expensive, albeit less so with each passing month. But we already know that.
May 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM #202916ParticipantWTE, I just used an interest-only, zero down payment loan to make an apples-to-apples comparison with rent. Otherwise, you have to take into account paying down principal each month and the opportunity cost of lost interest on the down payment. I just wanted to simplify the math and thought process. But, yeah, the “renting with benefits” captures the same idea.
Patientlywaiting, yeah the break-even holding period expands if you have to sell. No doubt about it. I didn’t include that in the analysis because that’s always the case if you buy, regardless of what you pay. Selling expenses are part of every sale transaction. But, yeah, I’m assuming that the buyers have a long term orientation.
My real objective here was merely to point out that if you think you’re going to live in a place for a long time, then timing the ultimate bottom along with its corresponding trough price is probably not as important financially as merely getting within 10%-15% or so because the advantage to renting declines with each passing year as housing price declines move toward that lower asymptote with a negative second derivative, in calculus terms. That is, as prices decline at a decreasing rate, the marginal benefit to renting declines as well.
Anyone who wants to live long-term in Chula Vista or Murietta, to use two examples, and can buy a house or condo for (a) less than it would cost them to rent the same place, and (b) 50% off peak pricing, probably won’t have many regrets five years down the road, despite the fact that there may be some modest declines still ahead and that prices may not actually turn up for many years.
For most of SD, however, this doesn’t apply (yet). Most SFRs are still too expensive, albeit less so with each passing month. But we already know that.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.