- This topic has 185 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
SDEngineer.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 12, 2009 at 3:26 PM #398026May 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM #397358
briansd1
Guest[quote=flu]
I disagree…Because obviously he felt a need to rent after he bought. Unfortunately, he probably overpaid on the first for something he really didn’t want and realized this after seeing another market “bubble”……But he was unable unable to “chase the market down” to sell the first.[/quote]About Spitzer, that’s because you believe that when you “buy” something, that purchase should completely fit your needs in every way.
That’s a modern fairy tale. But that’s not how it works in real life.
Since the beginning of time, people bought for a purpose and rented for another purpose. You might only be able to afford an old small house. But once in a while, you want to rent a swanky hotel room where you can relax.
In the West, there were morganatic laws that essentially required purchase AND over-payment for estate planning purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriageI know that in China, you could rent-to-own in a hybrid sort of way.
May 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM #397608Guest[quote=flu]
I disagree…Because obviously he felt a need to rent after he bought. Unfortunately, he probably overpaid on the first for something he really didn’t want and realized this after seeing another market “bubble”……But he was unable unable to “chase the market down” to sell the first.[/quote]About Spitzer, that’s because you believe that when you “buy” something, that purchase should completely fit your needs in every way.
That’s a modern fairy tale. But that’s not how it works in real life.
Since the beginning of time, people bought for a purpose and rented for another purpose. You might only be able to afford an old small house. But once in a while, you want to rent a swanky hotel room where you can relax.
In the West, there were morganatic laws that essentially required purchase AND over-payment for estate planning purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriageI know that in China, you could rent-to-own in a hybrid sort of way.
May 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM #397831Guest[quote=flu]
I disagree…Because obviously he felt a need to rent after he bought. Unfortunately, he probably overpaid on the first for something he really didn’t want and realized this after seeing another market “bubble”……But he was unable unable to “chase the market down” to sell the first.[/quote]About Spitzer, that’s because you believe that when you “buy” something, that purchase should completely fit your needs in every way.
That’s a modern fairy tale. But that’s not how it works in real life.
Since the beginning of time, people bought for a purpose and rented for another purpose. You might only be able to afford an old small house. But once in a while, you want to rent a swanky hotel room where you can relax.
In the West, there were morganatic laws that essentially required purchase AND over-payment for estate planning purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriageI know that in China, you could rent-to-own in a hybrid sort of way.
May 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM #397888Guest[quote=flu]
I disagree…Because obviously he felt a need to rent after he bought. Unfortunately, he probably overpaid on the first for something he really didn’t want and realized this after seeing another market “bubble”……But he was unable unable to “chase the market down” to sell the first.[/quote]About Spitzer, that’s because you believe that when you “buy” something, that purchase should completely fit your needs in every way.
That’s a modern fairy tale. But that’s not how it works in real life.
Since the beginning of time, people bought for a purpose and rented for another purpose. You might only be able to afford an old small house. But once in a while, you want to rent a swanky hotel room where you can relax.
In the West, there were morganatic laws that essentially required purchase AND over-payment for estate planning purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriageI know that in China, you could rent-to-own in a hybrid sort of way.
May 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM #398031Guest[quote=flu]
I disagree…Because obviously he felt a need to rent after he bought. Unfortunately, he probably overpaid on the first for something he really didn’t want and realized this after seeing another market “bubble”……But he was unable unable to “chase the market down” to sell the first.[/quote]About Spitzer, that’s because you believe that when you “buy” something, that purchase should completely fit your needs in every way.
That’s a modern fairy tale. But that’s not how it works in real life.
Since the beginning of time, people bought for a purpose and rented for another purpose. You might only be able to afford an old small house. But once in a while, you want to rent a swanky hotel room where you can relax.
In the West, there were morganatic laws that essentially required purchase AND over-payment for estate planning purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriageI know that in China, you could rent-to-own in a hybrid sort of way.
May 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM #397393carlsbadworker
Participant[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.
I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.
Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_AdministrationI think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.
[/quote]
I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.
The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.
May 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM #397643Participant[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.
I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.
Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_AdministrationI think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.
[/quote]
I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.
The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.
May 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM #397866Participant[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.
I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.
Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_AdministrationI think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.
[/quote]
I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.
The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.
May 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM #397923Participant[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.
I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.
Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_AdministrationI think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.
[/quote]
I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.
The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.
May 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM #398066Participant[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.
I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.
Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_AdministrationI think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.
[/quote]
I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.
The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.
May 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM #397452eyePod
ParticipantRent vs Buy for housing is a fundamental measurement which oversimplifies the analysis. If rents, housing prices, job security, economic stability, etc were STATIC it would be a GREAT metric. However, if any of the inputs change significantly then the result changes significantly.
May 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM #397700ParticipantRent vs Buy for housing is a fundamental measurement which oversimplifies the analysis. If rents, housing prices, job security, economic stability, etc were STATIC it would be a GREAT metric. However, if any of the inputs change significantly then the result changes significantly.
May 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM #397925ParticipantRent vs Buy for housing is a fundamental measurement which oversimplifies the analysis. If rents, housing prices, job security, economic stability, etc were STATIC it would be a GREAT metric. However, if any of the inputs change significantly then the result changes significantly.
May 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM #397982ParticipantRent vs Buy for housing is a fundamental measurement which oversimplifies the analysis. If rents, housing prices, job security, economic stability, etc were STATIC it would be a GREAT metric. However, if any of the inputs change significantly then the result changes significantly.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.