Make this deal with the devil?

[CharlieG]

Let’s say you could buy a home today at 30% less than market cost. In other words, it would be a reasonable value…but not like winning the lottery, either. (If the 30% bothers you, pick some other adjustment that gives you a value that you think is “fair”)

In return for this value, you agree that your house value–and, in this fictional example, all other properties as well–will track exactly with the consumer price index, or some other benchmark. If it cost you $275K, in 30 years it will work $275K in 2037 dollars. In other words, it would be a place to live, not an investment even relative to a savings account.

Would you make this deal with the devil?

[Doofrat]

If I was planning on staying in San Diego for a long time, I would. I’d be buying at a reasonable price and at the same time taking advantage of historically low interest rates. I wouldn’t be paying outrageous property taxes either. I think your “catch” is really not a catch, it’s what has happened over longer periods of time.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

If it’s truly 30% below today’s market value ?
Absolutely.
In that case I would also borrow 80%, so that when my house tracks CPI my equity grows by 4 or 5 times the CPI in the first few years.

Problem is who is stupid enough to get rid of an asset that is worth say half-a-million bucks for 350K ?

[PerryChase]

Wouldn’t depend what the rental rate for a similarly desirable home is?

[lendingbubblecontinues]

If $350K were all the seller could get for it, then wouldn’t that become “today’s market value?”

Not following the original poster here….at all…

[CharlieG]

The idea, basically, is how many people would be willing to let of go of the concept of a home as an investment? I would, in a heartbeat. I don’t like the idea of a house being a commodity that fluxuates wildly. I don’t want it as a thing to fund my retirement when the mortgage is paid off. I just want a place to live. If I want investments I’d prefer to look elsewhere. Preferable, in view of today, away from the NASDAQ. 🙂

[barnaby33]

The problem is CharlieG, that housing is too expensive. Even if you could get that house for 350k. It still represents such a large chunk of your earnings you are forced into thinking of it as an investment.

Josh

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The problem is CharlieG, that housing is too expensive. Even if you could get that house for 350k. It still represents such a large chunk of your earnings you are forced into thinking of it as an investment.

I didn’t see where CharlieG says how much he makes. 350K may be less than 2x his income for all we know.

[barnaby33]

True, and though we are occassionally graced with the presence of the rich (other than big T), most of us work for a living. I would venture to guess that for the most part people on this board have above average household incomes, but not much above the 100k level. For the vast majority of those hear, as well as in SoCal in general 350k is still alot of money, hence it needs to be invested well.

Josh

[hipmatt]

In this scenario, I would rent, then invest my money where it would out pace the CPI or the Dow if possible.

[Author]

Posts