- This topic has 72 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 16, 2007 at 10:35 AM #9900August 16, 2007 at 10:37 AM #76359
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantWhat you are missing is that it is never a normal market in Southern California. It’s either going gangbusters or crapping out.
August 16, 2007 at 10:37 AM #76479ParticipantWhat you are missing is that it is never a normal market in Southern California. It’s either going gangbusters or crapping out.
August 16, 2007 at 10:37 AM #76504ParticipantWhat you are missing is that it is never a normal market in Southern California. It’s either going gangbusters or crapping out.
August 16, 2007 at 10:45 AM #76365JWM in SD
Participant“it’s often said on this board that real estate is traditionally a horrible investment over the long-term.”
I don’t recal a lot people saying that real estate is always a bad investment. It’s all about timing and how much investment is made in the RE if you expect it to cashflow. If you bought between 2003 and 2006 specifically, then the asset price was too high to get an immediate return as an income property. Basically, you would have essentially speculated on the appreciation as opposed to market rents to generate a return. Big difference between and investing and speculating.
August 16, 2007 at 10:45 AM #76485Participant“it’s often said on this board that real estate is traditionally a horrible investment over the long-term.”
I don’t recal a lot people saying that real estate is always a bad investment. It’s all about timing and how much investment is made in the RE if you expect it to cashflow. If you bought between 2003 and 2006 specifically, then the asset price was too high to get an immediate return as an income property. Basically, you would have essentially speculated on the appreciation as opposed to market rents to generate a return. Big difference between and investing and speculating.
August 16, 2007 at 10:45 AM #76510Participant“it’s often said on this board that real estate is traditionally a horrible investment over the long-term.”
I don’t recal a lot people saying that real estate is always a bad investment. It’s all about timing and how much investment is made in the RE if you expect it to cashflow. If you bought between 2003 and 2006 specifically, then the asset price was too high to get an immediate return as an income property. Basically, you would have essentially speculated on the appreciation as opposed to market rents to generate a return. Big difference between and investing and speculating.
August 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM #76383pepsi
ParticipantThe problem is that the $400K house will not rent for $2000 in SD. $1300 maybe, but not $2000, so the differnece between the rent and mortgage, tax and insurance is about $1600 a month. Invest the difference wisely, in the long run, it beats the real estate.
The 15% looks good on the first year, but after paying your mortgage down, the leverage is lower and the percentage will not look so good after 15 years.August 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM #76503ParticipantThe problem is that the $400K house will not rent for $2000 in SD. $1300 maybe, but not $2000, so the differnece between the rent and mortgage, tax and insurance is about $1600 a month. Invest the difference wisely, in the long run, it beats the real estate.
The 15% looks good on the first year, but after paying your mortgage down, the leverage is lower and the percentage will not look so good after 15 years.August 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM #76528ParticipantThe problem is that the $400K house will not rent for $2000 in SD. $1300 maybe, but not $2000, so the differnece between the rent and mortgage, tax and insurance is about $1600 a month. Invest the difference wisely, in the long run, it beats the real estate.
The 15% looks good on the first year, but after paying your mortgage down, the leverage is lower and the percentage will not look so good after 15 years.August 16, 2007 at 10:59 AM #76386kewp
ParticipantYou are missing risks and carrying costs.
You have to pay taxes, upkeep, home owners fee’s, etc. That all adds up.
There is also the very real risk, especially in SoCal, that it will burn down, fall down (temblor), get eaten by termites, whatever.
August 16, 2007 at 10:59 AM #76506ParticipantYou are missing risks and carrying costs.
You have to pay taxes, upkeep, home owners fee’s, etc. That all adds up.
There is also the very real risk, especially in SoCal, that it will burn down, fall down (temblor), get eaten by termites, whatever.
August 16, 2007 at 10:59 AM #76531ParticipantYou are missing risks and carrying costs.
You have to pay taxes, upkeep, home owners fee’s, etc. That all adds up.
There is also the very real risk, especially in SoCal, that it will burn down, fall down (temblor), get eaten by termites, whatever.
August 16, 2007 at 11:15 AM #76398ParticipantI like RE as a long term investment, but you have to buy right. AS JWM point out, it has simply been too expensive relative to rent since about 2003.
August 16, 2007 at 11:15 AM #76518ParticipantI like RE as a long term investment, but you have to buy right. AS JWM point out, it has simply been too expensive relative to rent since about 2003.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
