Home › Forums › Other › People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey
- This topic has 106 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM #759941February 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM #759940
spdrun
Participant.
February 22, 2013 at 8:10 AM #759961no_such_reality
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=no_such_reality]Yes you can, you can move all sorts of places where investors aren’t competing with you for housing.
Below eight mile in Detroit is one. Go have your pick of housing.[/quote]
“Even though the city has more than 3 strikes against it. For some reason people like living in Detroit. Many have moved, but several hundred thousand have stayed behind. The most damming part of investing in Detroit, Mi is too many real estate investors are in Detroit. All investors want a good quality section 8 tenant, but there are only so many vouchers out there. The city now has a ton of nice rehabbed homes, but a smaller pool of high quality tenants to choose from. You really have to know marketing in Detroit if you want to survive. Because if you run out of cash, you run out of luck….”
You need to read better, the first comment is 3 years old on that.
There were investors everywhere. And BP invests in the greater D area. But I’m talking south of 8 mile. They’ll basically give you many homes if you’ll just take it.
February 23, 2013 at 2:53 AM #760017CA renter
ParticipantMy reading comprehension skills are perfectly fine. The point is there are investors in Detroit when you claimed there weren’t. If they’ve not flocked to a particular area, it’s because that area is overpriced. “Free” can still be overpriced; even a negative price (where they pay you to take an asset) can be overpriced.
February 23, 2013 at 6:23 AM #760019Participantah. yes, those evil investors have inflated prices so much that free is out of reach of average people.
Just more of your cake and eat it too.
February 23, 2013 at 11:41 PM #760039ParticipantThat “free” house may well cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring it up to livable standards and maintain it there, and that’s just the house. The neighborhood might not be livable at all. Even after all that work, you still might not be able to “give away” that house. That’s why a house with a -$5,000 (negative) list price can still be overpriced.
February 24, 2013 at 3:42 PM #760052ParticipantOh, so it’s only after investors successfully gentrify the area that they should be banned from buying or owning property there.
February 24, 2013 at 10:26 PM #760053ParticipantSorry, nsr, but you’re clearly not getting my point about “productive” investment vs. “speculative” investment.
February 25, 2013 at 6:25 AM #760055ParticipantA rental property IS a productive investment, if kept in good condition. A property bought with expenses > income with the hope of future appreciation is a speculative investment. That was MY point.
February 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM #760056earlyretirement
Participant[quote=spdrun]A rental property IS a productive investment, if kept in good condition. A property bought with expenses > income with the hope of future appreciation is a speculative investment. That was MY point.[/quote]
Personally I NEVER buy an investment property with the hopes of getting rich off the back end with capital appreciation. I will only buy an investment property if the monthly cash flow makes sense.
IF there is any potential capital appreciation I guess that is icing on the cake but I think too many people go into real estate thinking too much on the possibility of capital appreciation on the back end which is a mistake IMHO.
February 25, 2013 at 8:47 AM #760057Participant^^^
Ding-ding-ding! We have a winnah! Especially in the current US market, where it’s hard NOT to find a cash-flowing property.
February 25, 2013 at 1:41 PM #760088Participant[quote=CA renter]Sorry, nsr, but you’re clearly not getting my point about “productive” investment vs. “speculative” investment.[/quote]
That’s because it is erroneous and capricious.
Growing food or rehabbing a house, productive use of capital to provide basic needs.
Maintaining a house from the cash flow generated by a tenant is no different than maintaining your home use with the cash flow generated by growing food.
You’ve steadily failed to draw a distinction between anybody wanting to be a landlord and have an investment and speculators.
February 25, 2013 at 9:59 PM #760102Participant[quote=spdrun]A rental property IS a productive investment, if kept in good condition. A property bought with expenses > income with the hope of future appreciation is a speculative investment. That was MY point.[/quote]
No, because you are buying an *existing* building. You are not *producing* something that didn’t exist before. If you weren’t competing with organic buyers (owner-occupiers) for existing dwelling units, they would be able to buy their own homes.
Building *new* houses or apartment buildings to rent out is productive because you are expanding the availability housing units, but buying existing assets is NOT productive.
Granted, some rehabbers could be considered productive investors because they add value, but most flippers just do the basic cosmetic stuff while trying to hide the expensive repairs. Also, when these “investors” become such a large part of the market, they move markets to the detriment of those who need these homes to actually live in. That is antithetical to what investing is supposed to do.
February 25, 2013 at 10:24 PM #760104ParticipantYet the renters are willing to pay MORE in rent per month than the landlords pay in expenses. Why is that?
February 25, 2013 at 11:48 PM #760107Participant[quote=spdrun]Yet the renters are willing to pay MORE in rent per month than the landlords pay in expenses. Why is that?[/quote]
Because they don’t usually have large down payments, and this prevents them from being able to compete with cash-rich investors.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.