- This topic has 105 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by La Jolla Renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 4, 2008 at 7:23 AM #311720December 4, 2008 at 8:54 AM #311278peterbParticipant
If what you’re claiming is accurate, you may be one of the only people in CA to have experienced this. Wow. Good luck in the future. You’re gonna need it with investment capabilities like this!!
December 4, 2008 at 8:54 AM #311635peterbParticipantIf what you’re claiming is accurate, you may be one of the only people in CA to have experienced this. Wow. Good luck in the future. You’re gonna need it with investment capabilities like this!!
December 4, 2008 at 8:54 AM #311662peterbParticipantIf what you’re claiming is accurate, you may be one of the only people in CA to have experienced this. Wow. Good luck in the future. You’re gonna need it with investment capabilities like this!!
December 4, 2008 at 8:54 AM #311683peterbParticipantIf what you’re claiming is accurate, you may be one of the only people in CA to have experienced this. Wow. Good luck in the future. You’re gonna need it with investment capabilities like this!!
December 4, 2008 at 8:54 AM #311751peterbParticipantIf what you’re claiming is accurate, you may be one of the only people in CA to have experienced this. Wow. Good luck in the future. You’re gonna need it with investment capabilities like this!!
December 4, 2008 at 9:49 AM #311288AnonymousGuestOK, so you sold your house for $x, then it went up 700k, then it went down 15%. This yields the equation
.85(x + 700k) = x + 300k
Solving for x you end up with $1.3 million.
Assume the buyer of that house (playing along that this is a real-life transaction) put down 20% and got a 6%, 30-year fix. This results in a principal of $1,040,000 and a payment I’ll round to $6200/mo. I’ll assume one can deduct 30% of this, for a net outflow of $4250.
The down payment would have been $260k. The opportunity cost of this at 4% is $850/mo.
So the total monthly net cost of buying the house is more than $5000/mo not including taxes. Those would be another grand per month ($1.3 millon times 1%).
Six thousand dollars times 36 months = $216K. So if you’re not lying to us the difference is more like $85k, less considering maintenance and other costs. And that difference goes down another $3000 ($6000 – 2800) EVERY MONTH, assuming the house won’t get any cheaper, which it will.
December 4, 2008 at 9:49 AM #311645AnonymousGuestOK, so you sold your house for $x, then it went up 700k, then it went down 15%. This yields the equation
.85(x + 700k) = x + 300k
Solving for x you end up with $1.3 million.
Assume the buyer of that house (playing along that this is a real-life transaction) put down 20% and got a 6%, 30-year fix. This results in a principal of $1,040,000 and a payment I’ll round to $6200/mo. I’ll assume one can deduct 30% of this, for a net outflow of $4250.
The down payment would have been $260k. The opportunity cost of this at 4% is $850/mo.
So the total monthly net cost of buying the house is more than $5000/mo not including taxes. Those would be another grand per month ($1.3 millon times 1%).
Six thousand dollars times 36 months = $216K. So if you’re not lying to us the difference is more like $85k, less considering maintenance and other costs. And that difference goes down another $3000 ($6000 – 2800) EVERY MONTH, assuming the house won’t get any cheaper, which it will.
December 4, 2008 at 9:49 AM #311672AnonymousGuestOK, so you sold your house for $x, then it went up 700k, then it went down 15%. This yields the equation
.85(x + 700k) = x + 300k
Solving for x you end up with $1.3 million.
Assume the buyer of that house (playing along that this is a real-life transaction) put down 20% and got a 6%, 30-year fix. This results in a principal of $1,040,000 and a payment I’ll round to $6200/mo. I’ll assume one can deduct 30% of this, for a net outflow of $4250.
The down payment would have been $260k. The opportunity cost of this at 4% is $850/mo.
So the total monthly net cost of buying the house is more than $5000/mo not including taxes. Those would be another grand per month ($1.3 millon times 1%).
Six thousand dollars times 36 months = $216K. So if you’re not lying to us the difference is more like $85k, less considering maintenance and other costs. And that difference goes down another $3000 ($6000 – 2800) EVERY MONTH, assuming the house won’t get any cheaper, which it will.
December 4, 2008 at 9:49 AM #311693AnonymousGuestOK, so you sold your house for $x, then it went up 700k, then it went down 15%. This yields the equation
.85(x + 700k) = x + 300k
Solving for x you end up with $1.3 million.
Assume the buyer of that house (playing along that this is a real-life transaction) put down 20% and got a 6%, 30-year fix. This results in a principal of $1,040,000 and a payment I’ll round to $6200/mo. I’ll assume one can deduct 30% of this, for a net outflow of $4250.
The down payment would have been $260k. The opportunity cost of this at 4% is $850/mo.
So the total monthly net cost of buying the house is more than $5000/mo not including taxes. Those would be another grand per month ($1.3 millon times 1%).
Six thousand dollars times 36 months = $216K. So if you’re not lying to us the difference is more like $85k, less considering maintenance and other costs. And that difference goes down another $3000 ($6000 – 2800) EVERY MONTH, assuming the house won’t get any cheaper, which it will.
December 4, 2008 at 9:49 AM #311761AnonymousGuestOK, so you sold your house for $x, then it went up 700k, then it went down 15%. This yields the equation
.85(x + 700k) = x + 300k
Solving for x you end up with $1.3 million.
Assume the buyer of that house (playing along that this is a real-life transaction) put down 20% and got a 6%, 30-year fix. This results in a principal of $1,040,000 and a payment I’ll round to $6200/mo. I’ll assume one can deduct 30% of this, for a net outflow of $4250.
The down payment would have been $260k. The opportunity cost of this at 4% is $850/mo.
So the total monthly net cost of buying the house is more than $5000/mo not including taxes. Those would be another grand per month ($1.3 millon times 1%).
Six thousand dollars times 36 months = $216K. So if you’re not lying to us the difference is more like $85k, less considering maintenance and other costs. And that difference goes down another $3000 ($6000 – 2800) EVERY MONTH, assuming the house won’t get any cheaper, which it will.
December 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM #311303poorsaverParticipantBubbly, x is a known, it’s $2.0M. In your calcs, you can factor out payments, because I didn’t have any as the house was paid for in cash. Any future house would also be paid in cash. I just don’t like payments of any type. It’s just me, I’m a cash person. And I’m not a woman looking to nest, nor do I feel badly about my investment timing. I never expected to get out at the top. There are several areas that didn’t behave like San Diego and peaked much later: Newport Beach, Coto de Caza, Montecito and even parts of Pasadena to name a few. Many people on this site have observed that the more desirable areas have not declined by that much and will be delayed, not immune, from the decline. I’m just sharing my personal experience and how it pencils out three years later.
December 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM #311660poorsaverParticipantBubbly, x is a known, it’s $2.0M. In your calcs, you can factor out payments, because I didn’t have any as the house was paid for in cash. Any future house would also be paid in cash. I just don’t like payments of any type. It’s just me, I’m a cash person. And I’m not a woman looking to nest, nor do I feel badly about my investment timing. I never expected to get out at the top. There are several areas that didn’t behave like San Diego and peaked much later: Newport Beach, Coto de Caza, Montecito and even parts of Pasadena to name a few. Many people on this site have observed that the more desirable areas have not declined by that much and will be delayed, not immune, from the decline. I’m just sharing my personal experience and how it pencils out three years later.
December 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM #311686poorsaverParticipantBubbly, x is a known, it’s $2.0M. In your calcs, you can factor out payments, because I didn’t have any as the house was paid for in cash. Any future house would also be paid in cash. I just don’t like payments of any type. It’s just me, I’m a cash person. And I’m not a woman looking to nest, nor do I feel badly about my investment timing. I never expected to get out at the top. There are several areas that didn’t behave like San Diego and peaked much later: Newport Beach, Coto de Caza, Montecito and even parts of Pasadena to name a few. Many people on this site have observed that the more desirable areas have not declined by that much and will be delayed, not immune, from the decline. I’m just sharing my personal experience and how it pencils out three years later.
December 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM #311709poorsaverParticipantBubbly, x is a known, it’s $2.0M. In your calcs, you can factor out payments, because I didn’t have any as the house was paid for in cash. Any future house would also be paid in cash. I just don’t like payments of any type. It’s just me, I’m a cash person. And I’m not a woman looking to nest, nor do I feel badly about my investment timing. I never expected to get out at the top. There are several areas that didn’t behave like San Diego and peaked much later: Newport Beach, Coto de Caza, Montecito and even parts of Pasadena to name a few. Many people on this site have observed that the more desirable areas have not declined by that much and will be delayed, not immune, from the decline. I’m just sharing my personal experience and how it pencils out three years later.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.