“INVESTORS” who haven’t learned their lessons?

[temeculaguy]

I guess I have to post links and spell it out, because obviously people don’t like the numbers I’ve thrown around. Let’s look at these apartmentish condos that were designed to be apartments but were sold as condos. Some links may expire as they are pending.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/31217-Taylor-Ln-92592/home/6684589

The first is the largest unit, a 1300 sq ft, 3/2, it also has an unattached one car garage (they cost 7k extra when they were new). Orig owner paid 310k, it listed at 109k. almost 2/3 off. Most of the complex is 2/2 and 1/1 like these

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/31367-David-Ln-92592/home/6680022

right now the 3/2’s are about 110k, the 2/2 90-100k and the 1/1’s are 70’s and 80’s. Some are higher, but deals in the range I’ve quoted can be had.

about 1% tax which is low for the area and $200 hoa (it has a gym, pools, all the regular crap).

current rental listings from a management co is 1295 for a 2/2 with one month free on a year lease (so lets say 1200). Never seen them break below a grand on craigs for a 2/2, 1100 here and there.

Math time: lets say you go with a 2/2 for 100k, just to figure out dollar cost, we will use imaginary 100% financing, P&I is $567 at 5.5%, $100 in taxes, $200 in hoa and $50 in insurance. We’re at $900, you go $1100 for rent, undercutting the management companies a little and you flow $200 during month one. Put that all in reserves and just let it ride. In reality, you will be coming in with money, at least 30% but maybe 100%, so that is what you take out above the reserve each month. At 100% you flow $567 and get to reserve $200 on top of that, so you get 5.67% interest each month and 2.0% backup. You also have a side bet going, a bet that it will one day be worth vs worth less. You are betting rents will stay the same or rise over time, vs. fall. This is where the risk comes in, if you hate risk this isn’t for you. If you like minimal risk, welcome aboard.

What were the other arguments? That they will buy their own and not rent yours at those prices? maybe, but this isn’t the type of housing stock people usualy choose as a long term primary, the transaction costs make it prohibitive for a one or two year thing. Plus, who in their right mind would buy real estate right now? It’s obviously a depreciating asset. It’s gone down to 35 cents on the dollar in the examples I’ve given, then it should go to ten cents on the dollar, right? Those 300k condos that are now 100k condos should be 70k or 50k or 5k, certainly 69k, which is the zip code median household income, because during the depression or whatever theory you are clinging to, housing should be equal to one years pay when unemployment is at 10% because that means nobody has a job, right?

Of course I could be wrong, but I’m kinda riding a winning streak for predictions of late. All my stock picks that I posted in march are on fire and if you read my lakers analogy on page one of this thread, then read the recap of game 5 and 6 of the lakers/nuggets that followed, I think George Karl (nuggets coach) should have read it because it happened exactly as I predicted, especially that part about doubling Kobe and ignoring Ariza, so I feel I am all that and a bag of chips right now. I am Andy Samberg and I’m on a boat, dont you ever forget (I love that video). make sure the kids aren’t around before clicking on it. http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/digital-short-im-on-a-boat-uncensored/1105773/?__cid=thefilter

[scaredyclassic]

wait it’s not 5.67% a month, is it? isn’t it more like 5.67% a year?

assume no apprecaition. it’s kind of a lot of work for 7-8% a year.
the side bet on appreciation, if you think you’re goinna lose, 7.67% a year isnt so hot.

5.67% a month would be different.

if you think gold is going to be worth on avg 7% more a year for the next few years, and housing’s going down, it’s a lot easier to own gold.

[scaredyclassic]

wait it’s not 5.67% a month, is it? isn’t it more like 5.67% a year?

assume no apprecaition. it’s kind of a lot of work for 7-8% a year.
the side bet on appreciation, if you think you’re goinna lose, 7.67% a year isnt so hot.

5.67% a month would be different.

if you think gold is going to be worth on avg 7% more a year for the next few years, and housing’s going down, it’s a lot easier to own gold.

[scaredyclassic]

wait it’s not 5.67% a month, is it? isn’t it more like 5.67% a year?

assume no apprecaition. it’s kind of a lot of work for 7-8% a year.
the side bet on appreciation, if you think you’re goinna lose, 7.67% a year isnt so hot.

5.67% a month would be different.

if you think gold is going to be worth on avg 7% more a year for the next few years, and housing’s going down, it’s a lot easier to own gold.

[scaredyclassic]

wait it’s not 5.67% a month, is it? isn’t it more like 5.67% a year?

assume no apprecaition. it’s kind of a lot of work for 7-8% a year.
the side bet on appreciation, if you think you’re goinna lose, 7.67% a year isnt so hot.

5.67% a month would be different.

if you think gold is going to be worth on avg 7% more a year for the next few years, and housing’s going down, it’s a lot easier to own gold.

[scaredyclassic]

wait it’s not 5.67% a month, is it? isn’t it more like 5.67% a year?

assume no apprecaition. it’s kind of a lot of work for 7-8% a year.
the side bet on appreciation, if you think you’re goinna lose, 7.67% a year isnt so hot.

5.67% a month would be different.

if you think gold is going to be worth on avg 7% more a year for the next few years, and housing’s going down, it’s a lot easier to own gold.

[temeculaguy]

my bad, it’s .567% a month, it works out to about 6% a year, but same difference. And No!! I think I wrote too much and lost you scardey, the 6% a year is the dividend, that ignores future value. If you buy 100k in gold and it goes to 107k in value, nobody actually writes you a check for 7k, you have to sell the asset to see the reward. But YES!! owning gold is much easier. I don’t think gold, stocks or bonds are bad, they are different and you aquire them for different reasons. I actually think a combination of them is the way to go. If you had to decide on just one investment, then a rental probably shouldn’t be your first choice. If you have stocks, bonds and maybe some commodities plus a primary residence, then it’s o.k. to take a little risk, the rental has a unique element, it’s a two pronged bet, the future value and the future rent. As time goes on, the value may go up and the rent may go up, not every year, but over time it usually does. It also has more liklihood to rise in value than decline over the long haul, there are fluxuations, like right now, there are times when it goes up too much, like 2003 to 2006. Let’s say, in my example, the value reaches 200k in ten years (which is still not a return to 2006 levels which was 300k), then you get $567 a month and 100k appreciation over 10 years and that is if rent never rises in those ten years, which it may.

The original point of the thread is that investors haven’t learned their leson from recent losses in R/E and my stance is that they were unwise to invest in rentals between 2003 and 2006 because they were blinded by the appreciation alone, they ignored fundamentals like rent multiplier. Now that the fundamentals are in line in some situations, a different type of investor is surfacing with a different plan, like the plan I outlined. If I can get a rent nuetral rental or a positive cash flow rental then I begin toying with the idea, like I am now, but I will not sell my other investments to do so, I plan on making a part of a healthy breakfast. I also think that if you wait for the perfect storm where you have verifiable proof that R/E is going up in value and rents are rising and economic conditions are improving, then you will not find the same opportunities because everyone else will want to bet on a sure thing too.

[temeculaguy]

my bad, it’s .567% a month, it works out to about 6% a year, but same difference. And No!! I think I wrote too much and lost you scardey, the 6% a year is the dividend, that ignores future value. If you buy 100k in gold and it goes to 107k in value, nobody actually writes you a check for 7k, you have to sell the asset to see the reward. But YES!! owning gold is much easier. I don’t think gold, stocks or bonds are bad, they are different and you aquire them for different reasons. I actually think a combination of them is the way to go. If you had to decide on just one investment, then a rental probably shouldn’t be your first choice. If you have stocks, bonds and maybe some commodities plus a primary residence, then it’s o.k. to take a little risk, the rental has a unique element, it’s a two pronged bet, the future value and the future rent. As time goes on, the value may go up and the rent may go up, not every year, but over time it usually does. It also has more liklihood to rise in value than decline over the long haul, there are fluxuations, like right now, there are times when it goes up too much, like 2003 to 2006. Let’s say, in my example, the value reaches 200k in ten years (which is still not a return to 2006 levels which was 300k), then you get $567 a month and 100k appreciation over 10 years and that is if rent never rises in those ten years, which it may.

The original point of the thread is that investors haven’t learned their leson from recent losses in R/E and my stance is that they were unwise to invest in rentals between 2003 and 2006 because they were blinded by the appreciation alone, they ignored fundamentals like rent multiplier. Now that the fundamentals are in line in some situations, a different type of investor is surfacing with a different plan, like the plan I outlined. If I can get a rent nuetral rental or a positive cash flow rental then I begin toying with the idea, like I am now, but I will not sell my other investments to do so, I plan on making a part of a healthy breakfast. I also think that if you wait for the perfect storm where you have verifiable proof that R/E is going up in value and rents are rising and economic conditions are improving, then you will not find the same opportunities because everyone else will want to bet on a sure thing too.

[temeculaguy]

my bad, it’s .567% a month, it works out to about 6% a year, but same difference. And No!! I think I wrote too much and lost you scardey, the 6% a year is the dividend, that ignores future value. If you buy 100k in gold and it goes to 107k in value, nobody actually writes you a check for 7k, you have to sell the asset to see the reward. But YES!! owning gold is much easier. I don’t think gold, stocks or bonds are bad, they are different and you aquire them for different reasons. I actually think a combination of them is the way to go. If you had to decide on just one investment, then a rental probably shouldn’t be your first choice. If you have stocks, bonds and maybe some commodities plus a primary residence, then it’s o.k. to take a little risk, the rental has a unique element, it’s a two pronged bet, the future value and the future rent. As time goes on, the value may go up and the rent may go up, not every year, but over time it usually does. It also has more liklihood to rise in value than decline over the long haul, there are fluxuations, like right now, there are times when it goes up too much, like 2003 to 2006. Let’s say, in my example, the value reaches 200k in ten years (which is still not a return to 2006 levels which was 300k), then you get $567 a month and 100k appreciation over 10 years and that is if rent never rises in those ten years, which it may.

The original point of the thread is that investors haven’t learned their leson from recent losses in R/E and my stance is that they were unwise to invest in rentals between 2003 and 2006 because they were blinded by the appreciation alone, they ignored fundamentals like rent multiplier. Now that the fundamentals are in line in some situations, a different type of investor is surfacing with a different plan, like the plan I outlined. If I can get a rent nuetral rental or a positive cash flow rental then I begin toying with the idea, like I am now, but I will not sell my other investments to do so, I plan on making a part of a healthy breakfast. I also think that if you wait for the perfect storm where you have verifiable proof that R/E is going up in value and rents are rising and economic conditions are improving, then you will not find the same opportunities because everyone else will want to bet on a sure thing too.

[temeculaguy]

my bad, it’s .567% a month, it works out to about 6% a year, but same difference. And No!! I think I wrote too much and lost you scardey, the 6% a year is the dividend, that ignores future value. If you buy 100k in gold and it goes to 107k in value, nobody actually writes you a check for 7k, you have to sell the asset to see the reward. But YES!! owning gold is much easier. I don’t think gold, stocks or bonds are bad, they are different and you aquire them for different reasons. I actually think a combination of them is the way to go. If you had to decide on just one investment, then a rental probably shouldn’t be your first choice. If you have stocks, bonds and maybe some commodities plus a primary residence, then it’s o.k. to take a little risk, the rental has a unique element, it’s a two pronged bet, the future value and the future rent. As time goes on, the value may go up and the rent may go up, not every year, but over time it usually does. It also has more liklihood to rise in value than decline over the long haul, there are fluxuations, like right now, there are times when it goes up too much, like 2003 to 2006. Let’s say, in my example, the value reaches 200k in ten years (which is still not a return to 2006 levels which was 300k), then you get $567 a month and 100k appreciation over 10 years and that is if rent never rises in those ten years, which it may.

The original point of the thread is that investors haven’t learned their leson from recent losses in R/E and my stance is that they were unwise to invest in rentals between 2003 and 2006 because they were blinded by the appreciation alone, they ignored fundamentals like rent multiplier. Now that the fundamentals are in line in some situations, a different type of investor is surfacing with a different plan, like the plan I outlined. If I can get a rent nuetral rental or a positive cash flow rental then I begin toying with the idea, like I am now, but I will not sell my other investments to do so, I plan on making a part of a healthy breakfast. I also think that if you wait for the perfect storm where you have verifiable proof that R/E is going up in value and rents are rising and economic conditions are improving, then you will not find the same opportunities because everyone else will want to bet on a sure thing too.

[temeculaguy]

my bad, it’s .567% a month, it works out to about 6% a year, but same difference. And No!! I think I wrote too much and lost you scardey, the 6% a year is the dividend, that ignores future value. If you buy 100k in gold and it goes to 107k in value, nobody actually writes you a check for 7k, you have to sell the asset to see the reward. But YES!! owning gold is much easier. I don’t think gold, stocks or bonds are bad, they are different and you aquire them for different reasons. I actually think a combination of them is the way to go. If you had to decide on just one investment, then a rental probably shouldn’t be your first choice. If you have stocks, bonds and maybe some commodities plus a primary residence, then it’s o.k. to take a little risk, the rental has a unique element, it’s a two pronged bet, the future value and the future rent. As time goes on, the value may go up and the rent may go up, not every year, but over time it usually does. It also has more liklihood to rise in value than decline over the long haul, there are fluxuations, like right now, there are times when it goes up too much, like 2003 to 2006. Let’s say, in my example, the value reaches 200k in ten years (which is still not a return to 2006 levels which was 300k), then you get $567 a month and 100k appreciation over 10 years and that is if rent never rises in those ten years, which it may.

The original point of the thread is that investors haven’t learned their leson from recent losses in R/E and my stance is that they were unwise to invest in rentals between 2003 and 2006 because they were blinded by the appreciation alone, they ignored fundamentals like rent multiplier. Now that the fundamentals are in line in some situations, a different type of investor is surfacing with a different plan, like the plan I outlined. If I can get a rent nuetral rental or a positive cash flow rental then I begin toying with the idea, like I am now, but I will not sell my other investments to do so, I plan on making a part of a healthy breakfast. I also think that if you wait for the perfect storm where you have verifiable proof that R/E is going up in value and rents are rising and economic conditions are improving, then you will not find the same opportunities because everyone else will want to bet on a sure thing too.

[peterb]

You can indeed do quite well waiting for all the indicators to be going on the up-trend before buying into RE. And it’s far less risk than trying to time the bottom. Just dont lag too much before taking action.These RE trends tend to run for about 4 or 5 years on average. Plenty of time to make very good money.

If and when things start to rise again, it will be like all the other times….many people will be very discouraged about the RE market improving and will wait 2 or 3 years before getting in, eventhough the majority of indicators have gone positive for over a year. That’s why so many investments have blow-off tops, no matter what the asset class being considered. It’s human psychology.

[peterb]

You can indeed do quite well waiting for all the indicators to be going on the up-trend before buying into RE. And it’s far less risk than trying to time the bottom. Just dont lag too much before taking action.These RE trends tend to run for about 4 or 5 years on average. Plenty of time to make very good money.

If and when things start to rise again, it will be like all the other times….many people will be very discouraged about the RE market improving and will wait 2 or 3 years before getting in, eventhough the majority of indicators have gone positive for over a year. That’s why so many investments have blow-off tops, no matter what the asset class being considered. It’s human psychology.

[peterb]

You can indeed do quite well waiting for all the indicators to be going on the up-trend before buying into RE. And it’s far less risk than trying to time the bottom. Just dont lag too much before taking action.These RE trends tend to run for about 4 or 5 years on average. Plenty of time to make very good money.

If and when things start to rise again, it will be like all the other times….many people will be very discouraged about the RE market improving and will wait 2 or 3 years before getting in, eventhough the majority of indicators have gone positive for over a year. That’s why so many investments have blow-off tops, no matter what the asset class being considered. It’s human psychology.

[peterb]

You can indeed do quite well waiting for all the indicators to be going on the up-trend before buying into RE. And it’s far less risk than trying to time the bottom. Just dont lag too much before taking action.These RE trends tend to run for about 4 or 5 years on average. Plenty of time to make very good money.

If and when things start to rise again, it will be like all the other times….many people will be very discouraged about the RE market improving and will wait 2 or 3 years before getting in, eventhough the majority of indicators have gone positive for over a year. That’s why so many investments have blow-off tops, no matter what the asset class being considered. It’s human psychology.

[Author]

Posts