4s ranch builder price advice

[Eugene]

Here

The bubble started when the light-blue line separated from the brown line.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, do you have money to lose if prices continue to drop? By 2003, houses were way overpriced.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, do you have money to lose if prices continue to drop? By 2003, houses were way overpriced.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, do you have money to lose if prices continue to drop? By 2003, houses were way overpriced.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, do you have money to lose if prices continue to drop? By 2003, houses were way overpriced.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, do you have money to lose if prices continue to drop? By 2003, houses were way overpriced.

[an]

marion, no, I don’t have money to lose. I’m just stating the fundamental. That’s the best I can hope for. Sure, we’ll probably undershoot just like we overshoot. But that’s just icing on the cake. I agree, 2003 price, houses were over priced. I’d reserve the “way” part to 2005, but that’s beside the point. But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. You have to do the calculation for your own specific case, but you also have to consider that renting is losing money as well. If you can buy a house where the mortgage (P+I) = rent, then why wouldn’t you. I hate to sound like a perma-bull but you have to live somewhere. So if the interest you’re paying the bank is less than the rent you’re paying, then what do you have to lose? I’m also using 0% down to do the comparison as well, to keep the calculation as fair as possible.

[an]

marion, no, I don’t have money to lose. I’m just stating the fundamental. That’s the best I can hope for. Sure, we’ll probably undershoot just like we overshoot. But that’s just icing on the cake. I agree, 2003 price, houses were over priced. I’d reserve the “way” part to 2005, but that’s beside the point. But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. You have to do the calculation for your own specific case, but you also have to consider that renting is losing money as well. If you can buy a house where the mortgage (P+I) = rent, then why wouldn’t you. I hate to sound like a perma-bull but you have to live somewhere. So if the interest you’re paying the bank is less than the rent you’re paying, then what do you have to lose? I’m also using 0% down to do the comparison as well, to keep the calculation as fair as possible.

[an]

marion, no, I don’t have money to lose. I’m just stating the fundamental. That’s the best I can hope for. Sure, we’ll probably undershoot just like we overshoot. But that’s just icing on the cake. I agree, 2003 price, houses were over priced. I’d reserve the “way” part to 2005, but that’s beside the point. But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. You have to do the calculation for your own specific case, but you also have to consider that renting is losing money as well. If you can buy a house where the mortgage (P+I) = rent, then why wouldn’t you. I hate to sound like a perma-bull but you have to live somewhere. So if the interest you’re paying the bank is less than the rent you’re paying, then what do you have to lose? I’m also using 0% down to do the comparison as well, to keep the calculation as fair as possible.

[an]

marion, no, I don’t have money to lose. I’m just stating the fundamental. That’s the best I can hope for. Sure, we’ll probably undershoot just like we overshoot. But that’s just icing on the cake. I agree, 2003 price, houses were over priced. I’d reserve the “way” part to 2005, but that’s beside the point. But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. You have to do the calculation for your own specific case, but you also have to consider that renting is losing money as well. If you can buy a house where the mortgage (P+I) = rent, then why wouldn’t you. I hate to sound like a perma-bull but you have to live somewhere. So if the interest you’re paying the bank is less than the rent you’re paying, then what do you have to lose? I’m also using 0% down to do the comparison as well, to keep the calculation as fair as possible.

[an]

marion, no, I don’t have money to lose. I’m just stating the fundamental. That’s the best I can hope for. Sure, we’ll probably undershoot just like we overshoot. But that’s just icing on the cake. I agree, 2003 price, houses were over priced. I’d reserve the “way” part to 2005, but that’s beside the point. But 2003 nominal price + 5 years of inflation, would not be too bad of a deal. When I’m talking about 2003 price, I mean Jan 1st, 2003, not Dec 31st, since 2003 saw a HUGE run up. You have to do the calculation for your own specific case, but you also have to consider that renting is losing money as well. If you can buy a house where the mortgage (P+I) = rent, then why wouldn’t you. I hate to sound like a perma-bull but you have to live somewhere. So if the interest you’re paying the bank is less than the rent you’re paying, then what do you have to lose? I’m also using 0% down to do the comparison as well, to keep the calculation as fair as possible.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, almost anything can be rationalized. If you buy a house at 2003 prices and it drops to 2000-2001 prices, you’re still going to lose money. You’ll be paying more money any way you slice it, with a comparable interest rate. An agent at one of the new developments has been bugging me for weeks, trying to get me to qualify for one of his stupid houses. What he always asks is “can you afford xxx payment?” Well, that’s like your argument, it’s not whether you can afford the payment, it’s the price of the house that’s important. The reason, obviously is whatever that payment is (affordable or not) when the price goes lower, that payment goes lower.

Gullible people buy based on that rationalization. It’s like the sleazy car salesmen: “Can you afford xxx payment?” It’s not the payment. You want to get the best deal and the best deal is the overall price. Sure, individual situations have to be taken into account, I’m talking about those who plan on staying in their home for long term with a fixed rate mortgage.

It’s always best to get the lowest price. Not to mention, you’ll pay less on property taxes.

P.S. I softened that to “gullible”.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, almost anything can be rationalized. If you buy a house at 2003 prices and it drops to 2000-2001 prices, you’re still going to lose money. You’ll be paying more money any way you slice it, with a comparable interest rate. An agent at one of the new developments has been bugging me for weeks, trying to get me to qualify for one of his stupid houses. What he always asks is “can you afford xxx payment?” Well, that’s like your argument, it’s not whether you can afford the payment, it’s the price of the house that’s important. The reason, obviously is whatever that payment is (affordable or not) when the price goes lower, that payment goes lower.

Gullible people buy based on that rationalization. It’s like the sleazy car salesmen: “Can you afford xxx payment?” It’s not the payment. You want to get the best deal and the best deal is the overall price. Sure, individual situations have to be taken into account, I’m talking about those who plan on staying in their home for long term with a fixed rate mortgage.

It’s always best to get the lowest price. Not to mention, you’ll pay less on property taxes.

P.S. I softened that to “gullible”.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, almost anything can be rationalized. If you buy a house at 2003 prices and it drops to 2000-2001 prices, you’re still going to lose money. You’ll be paying more money any way you slice it, with a comparable interest rate. An agent at one of the new developments has been bugging me for weeks, trying to get me to qualify for one of his stupid houses. What he always asks is “can you afford xxx payment?” Well, that’s like your argument, it’s not whether you can afford the payment, it’s the price of the house that’s important. The reason, obviously is whatever that payment is (affordable or not) when the price goes lower, that payment goes lower.

Gullible people buy based on that rationalization. It’s like the sleazy car salesmen: “Can you afford xxx payment?” It’s not the payment. You want to get the best deal and the best deal is the overall price. Sure, individual situations have to be taken into account, I’m talking about those who plan on staying in their home for long term with a fixed rate mortgage.

It’s always best to get the lowest price. Not to mention, you’ll pay less on property taxes.

P.S. I softened that to “gullible”.

[Anonymous]

asianautica, almost anything can be rationalized. If you buy a house at 2003 prices and it drops to 2000-2001 prices, you’re still going to lose money. You’ll be paying more money any way you slice it, with a comparable interest rate. An agent at one of the new developments has been bugging me for weeks, trying to get me to qualify for one of his stupid houses. What he always asks is “can you afford xxx payment?” Well, that’s like your argument, it’s not whether you can afford the payment, it’s the price of the house that’s important. The reason, obviously is whatever that payment is (affordable or not) when the price goes lower, that payment goes lower.

Gullible people buy based on that rationalization. It’s like the sleazy car salesmen: “Can you afford xxx payment?” It’s not the payment. You want to get the best deal and the best deal is the overall price. Sure, individual situations have to be taken into account, I’m talking about those who plan on staying in their home for long term with a fixed rate mortgage.

It’s always best to get the lowest price. Not to mention, you’ll pay less on property taxes.

P.S. I softened that to “gullible”.

[Author]

Posts