Buying a house at the new top of the market?

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]Yes, before I die, if I end up with more than one house which is entirely possible. Also, it would depend on who the kid marries. I do not plan to buy a bitch a house if you know what I mean.[/quote]

haha, I know exactly what you mean.

And you (or was it someone else?) think that I’m disrespectful of women!! 😉

I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]

I would bet you’re wrong about that briansd1, at least counting inheritance. But I imagine a very common scenario is more than one sibling, and the heirs liquidate the asset in order to split it easily.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]

I would bet you’re wrong about that briansd1, at least counting inheritance. But I imagine a very common scenario is more than one sibling, and the heirs liquidate the asset in order to split it easily.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]

I would bet you’re wrong about that briansd1, at least counting inheritance. But I imagine a very common scenario is more than one sibling, and the heirs liquidate the asset in order to split it easily.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]

I would bet you’re wrong about that briansd1, at least counting inheritance. But I imagine a very common scenario is more than one sibling, and the heirs liquidate the asset in order to split it easily.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]

I would bet you’re wrong about that briansd1, at least counting inheritance. But I imagine a very common scenario is more than one sibling, and the heirs liquidate the asset in order to split it easily.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s that common either. If you think about it, even at today’s price, that’s several hundred thousand dollar. If the national savings rate is near 0%, I don’t expect average American to be able to have that kind of money to pass down to their heirs. The rich have been doing it for a very long time. If you can afford to pass down a few hundred grand to your heirs, why wouldn’t you pass down a house instead, especially if you’re in CA. Just the prop 13 alone is enough reason to give your kids house(s) instead of cash.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s that common either. If you think about it, even at today’s price, that’s several hundred thousand dollar. If the national savings rate is near 0%, I don’t expect average American to be able to have that kind of money to pass down to their heirs. The rich have been doing it for a very long time. If you can afford to pass down a few hundred grand to your heirs, why wouldn’t you pass down a house instead, especially if you’re in CA. Just the prop 13 alone is enough reason to give your kids house(s) instead of cash.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s that common either. If you think about it, even at today’s price, that’s several hundred thousand dollar. If the national savings rate is near 0%, I don’t expect average American to be able to have that kind of money to pass down to their heirs. The rich have been doing it for a very long time. If you can afford to pass down a few hundred grand to your heirs, why wouldn’t you pass down a house instead, especially if you’re in CA. Just the prop 13 alone is enough reason to give your kids house(s) instead of cash.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s that common either. If you think about it, even at today’s price, that’s several hundred thousand dollar. If the national savings rate is near 0%, I don’t expect average American to be able to have that kind of money to pass down to their heirs. The rich have been doing it for a very long time. If you can afford to pass down a few hundred grand to your heirs, why wouldn’t you pass down a house instead, especially if you’re in CA. Just the prop 13 alone is enough reason to give your kids house(s) instead of cash.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that many parents give houses to their kids. If that were to become a common trend, house prices would drop in the future because proportionately fewer young adults would need to buy houses.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s that common either. If you think about it, even at today’s price, that’s several hundred thousand dollar. If the national savings rate is near 0%, I don’t expect average American to be able to have that kind of money to pass down to their heirs. The rich have been doing it for a very long time. If you can afford to pass down a few hundred grand to your heirs, why wouldn’t you pass down a house instead, especially if you’re in CA. Just the prop 13 alone is enough reason to give your kids house(s) instead of cash.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
More fundamentally, why did its neighborhood sink to “2000 lows” in the first place??…

A property in a neighborhood that has sunk to “2000 lows” is NOT a “keeper” in the way that sdcellar is referring to. It is a property purchased for rental income or a leg-up for a moderate-income first-time buyer family that needs a stable home for their kids.

Think about it.[/quote]
So, bearishgurl, what do you think about this property: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067? It’s being listed at 4% above its 2000 nominal price. We’ll see what it closes at. Do you think this place is NOT a “keeper”?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
More fundamentally, why did its neighborhood sink to “2000 lows” in the first place??…

A property in a neighborhood that has sunk to “2000 lows” is NOT a “keeper” in the way that sdcellar is referring to. It is a property purchased for rental income or a leg-up for a moderate-income first-time buyer family that needs a stable home for their kids.

Think about it.[/quote]
So, bearishgurl, what do you think about this property: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067? It’s being listed at 4% above its 2000 nominal price. We’ll see what it closes at. Do you think this place is NOT a “keeper”?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
More fundamentally, why did its neighborhood sink to “2000 lows” in the first place??…

A property in a neighborhood that has sunk to “2000 lows” is NOT a “keeper” in the way that sdcellar is referring to. It is a property purchased for rental income or a leg-up for a moderate-income first-time buyer family that needs a stable home for their kids.

Think about it.[/quote]
So, bearishgurl, what do you think about this property: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067? It’s being listed at 4% above its 2000 nominal price. We’ll see what it closes at. Do you think this place is NOT a “keeper”?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
More fundamentally, why did its neighborhood sink to “2000 lows” in the first place??…

A property in a neighborhood that has sunk to “2000 lows” is NOT a “keeper” in the way that sdcellar is referring to. It is a property purchased for rental income or a leg-up for a moderate-income first-time buyer family that needs a stable home for their kids.

Think about it.[/quote]
So, bearishgurl, what do you think about this property: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067? It’s being listed at 4% above its 2000 nominal price. We’ll see what it closes at. Do you think this place is NOT a “keeper”?

[Author]

Posts