Three years renting, yearly update

[ocrenter]

$2 million in savings at 3.6% is still $72k per year, or $216k during the last 3 years, of which $101k went for rent, so you are positive $115k over the last 3 years.

you know The Country will be one of the last to fall in value. Due to #1, LA is at least 1-2 years behind SD. and #2, the Asian factor, which does delay the crash some more.

it is safe to assume most of SD have already experienced 30% drop from peak (except isolated coastal pockets). The fact that your target area has already seen 15% drop is quite encouraging for you. you are likely to see another 15% drop in value in your neck of the woods come 2009.

but unfortunately, if you want to fully realize your profits from the “sell and rent” strategy, you can’t buy until 2011. That’s 4 years from the 2007 peak you mentioned previously.

This is the perfect example of how good neighborhoods hold up value and keep peaking and crash late.

[Bugs]

Cashman/poorsaver

We have already gone over this with you before. You were following the SD blogs and using our experiences as your trigger. However, you failed to take into account the fact that “the market” is not really one market but a bunch of interlinking market segments, each of which has it’s own clock.

We often allude to mid-2005 as the high point, but that only applied to the lower end in the SD region. The middle and upper end markets kept on increasing after that. That means that many of the upper end buyers and sellers who hung on after mid-2005 continued to rack up some gains, even while other people were losing their shirts. It was a risky strategy, but for some of them it paid off.

Nobody here ever said otherwise.

You should have been watching the inventory and trends in your own market segment more closely. Had you done that, you could have timed the market a little better. The flip side is that it would have involved a bit more risk on your part.

Let’s be real here. If you were a cash buyer that means two things: 1- you’re more risk averse than the average buyer; and 2 – you had that capital tied up in that property and not otherwise available to invest elsewhere. So there was an opportunity cost to being an all-cash buyer in the first place. In effect, you traded some missed opportunities for security because the security was more important to you at the time. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there is something inherently wrong with trying to have it both ways. That’s why there’s no point in ruminating over what might have been.

Had you been a non-cash buyer and had you timed your market segment better you wouldn’t be talking about “losing” that rent because you would have paid at least that much for your housing whether the market was going up or down. That’s an element you haven’t accounted for in your analysis, and it significantly reduces the amount of your “loss”.

Did you really park the proceeds from your home in a checking account, or did you put it to work for you? If so, how did that work out?

[Bugs]

Cashman/poorsaver

We have already gone over this with you before. You were following the SD blogs and using our experiences as your trigger. However, you failed to take into account the fact that “the market” is not really one market but a bunch of interlinking market segments, each of which has it’s own clock.

We often allude to mid-2005 as the high point, but that only applied to the lower end in the SD region. The middle and upper end markets kept on increasing after that. That means that many of the upper end buyers and sellers who hung on after mid-2005 continued to rack up some gains, even while other people were losing their shirts. It was a risky strategy, but for some of them it paid off.

Nobody here ever said otherwise.

You should have been watching the inventory and trends in your own market segment more closely. Had you done that, you could have timed the market a little better. The flip side is that it would have involved a bit more risk on your part.

Let’s be real here. If you were a cash buyer that means two things: 1- you’re more risk averse than the average buyer; and 2 – you had that capital tied up in that property and not otherwise available to invest elsewhere. So there was an opportunity cost to being an all-cash buyer in the first place. In effect, you traded some missed opportunities for security because the security was more important to you at the time. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there is something inherently wrong with trying to have it both ways. That’s why there’s no point in ruminating over what might have been.

Had you been a non-cash buyer and had you timed your market segment better you wouldn’t be talking about “losing” that rent because you would have paid at least that much for your housing whether the market was going up or down. That’s an element you haven’t accounted for in your analysis, and it significantly reduces the amount of your “loss”.

Did you really park the proceeds from your home in a checking account, or did you put it to work for you? If so, how did that work out?

[Bugs]

Cashman/poorsaver

We have already gone over this with you before. You were following the SD blogs and using our experiences as your trigger. However, you failed to take into account the fact that “the market” is not really one market but a bunch of interlinking market segments, each of which has it’s own clock.

We often allude to mid-2005 as the high point, but that only applied to the lower end in the SD region. The middle and upper end markets kept on increasing after that. That means that many of the upper end buyers and sellers who hung on after mid-2005 continued to rack up some gains, even while other people were losing their shirts. It was a risky strategy, but for some of them it paid off.

Nobody here ever said otherwise.

You should have been watching the inventory and trends in your own market segment more closely. Had you done that, you could have timed the market a little better. The flip side is that it would have involved a bit more risk on your part.

Let’s be real here. If you were a cash buyer that means two things: 1- you’re more risk averse than the average buyer; and 2 – you had that capital tied up in that property and not otherwise available to invest elsewhere. So there was an opportunity cost to being an all-cash buyer in the first place. In effect, you traded some missed opportunities for security because the security was more important to you at the time. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there is something inherently wrong with trying to have it both ways. That’s why there’s no point in ruminating over what might have been.

Had you been a non-cash buyer and had you timed your market segment better you wouldn’t be talking about “losing” that rent because you would have paid at least that much for your housing whether the market was going up or down. That’s an element you haven’t accounted for in your analysis, and it significantly reduces the amount of your “loss”.

Did you really park the proceeds from your home in a checking account, or did you put it to work for you? If so, how did that work out?

[Bugs]

Cashman/poorsaver

We have already gone over this with you before. You were following the SD blogs and using our experiences as your trigger. However, you failed to take into account the fact that “the market” is not really one market but a bunch of interlinking market segments, each of which has it’s own clock.

We often allude to mid-2005 as the high point, but that only applied to the lower end in the SD region. The middle and upper end markets kept on increasing after that. That means that many of the upper end buyers and sellers who hung on after mid-2005 continued to rack up some gains, even while other people were losing their shirts. It was a risky strategy, but for some of them it paid off.

Nobody here ever said otherwise.

You should have been watching the inventory and trends in your own market segment more closely. Had you done that, you could have timed the market a little better. The flip side is that it would have involved a bit more risk on your part.

Let’s be real here. If you were a cash buyer that means two things: 1- you’re more risk averse than the average buyer; and 2 – you had that capital tied up in that property and not otherwise available to invest elsewhere. So there was an opportunity cost to being an all-cash buyer in the first place. In effect, you traded some missed opportunities for security because the security was more important to you at the time. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there is something inherently wrong with trying to have it both ways. That’s why there’s no point in ruminating over what might have been.

Had you been a non-cash buyer and had you timed your market segment better you wouldn’t be talking about “losing” that rent because you would have paid at least that much for your housing whether the market was going up or down. That’s an element you haven’t accounted for in your analysis, and it significantly reduces the amount of your “loss”.

Did you really park the proceeds from your home in a checking account, or did you put it to work for you? If so, how did that work out?

[Bugs]

Cashman/poorsaver

We have already gone over this with you before. You were following the SD blogs and using our experiences as your trigger. However, you failed to take into account the fact that “the market” is not really one market but a bunch of interlinking market segments, each of which has it’s own clock.

We often allude to mid-2005 as the high point, but that only applied to the lower end in the SD region. The middle and upper end markets kept on increasing after that. That means that many of the upper end buyers and sellers who hung on after mid-2005 continued to rack up some gains, even while other people were losing their shirts. It was a risky strategy, but for some of them it paid off.

Nobody here ever said otherwise.

You should have been watching the inventory and trends in your own market segment more closely. Had you done that, you could have timed the market a little better. The flip side is that it would have involved a bit more risk on your part.

Let’s be real here. If you were a cash buyer that means two things: 1- you’re more risk averse than the average buyer; and 2 – you had that capital tied up in that property and not otherwise available to invest elsewhere. So there was an opportunity cost to being an all-cash buyer in the first place. In effect, you traded some missed opportunities for security because the security was more important to you at the time. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there is something inherently wrong with trying to have it both ways. That’s why there’s no point in ruminating over what might have been.

Had you been a non-cash buyer and had you timed your market segment better you wouldn’t be talking about “losing” that rent because you would have paid at least that much for your housing whether the market was going up or down. That’s an element you haven’t accounted for in your analysis, and it significantly reduces the amount of your “loss”.

Did you really park the proceeds from your home in a checking account, or did you put it to work for you? If so, how did that work out?

[poorsaver]

Hey Bugs, good to hear from you. Like me, I don’t see you posting as much here. To answer your question, I have most of it spread out over several accounts to keep within FDIC limits with three beneficiaries. I also have some at a brokerage account in which I’ve been doing some day/swing trading. My average return is about 3-4 percent over the past year. Not great, but better than losing principle.

I know we’ve discussed my situation before in my one year and two year updates, and I just wanted to share mainly how the emotional aspects of renting have taken their toll on me. I’m not focusing on the financial part of it. That’s a done deal. I realize I’m doing OK on the financial part, but it’s just so unsettling to not have a home that you can do as you please. I’ve been used to that lifestyle since I was 26 years old when I bought my first home. I’m now 54 and not getting any younger. I’m just frustrated how after three years of sacrifice, the market here is so stubborn. But I’m a patient person, and I’m going to wait it out! Even if it takes three more years.

[poorsaver]

Hey Bugs, good to hear from you. Like me, I don’t see you posting as much here. To answer your question, I have most of it spread out over several accounts to keep within FDIC limits with three beneficiaries. I also have some at a brokerage account in which I’ve been doing some day/swing trading. My average return is about 3-4 percent over the past year. Not great, but better than losing principle.

I know we’ve discussed my situation before in my one year and two year updates, and I just wanted to share mainly how the emotional aspects of renting have taken their toll on me. I’m not focusing on the financial part of it. That’s a done deal. I realize I’m doing OK on the financial part, but it’s just so unsettling to not have a home that you can do as you please. I’ve been used to that lifestyle since I was 26 years old when I bought my first home. I’m now 54 and not getting any younger. I’m just frustrated how after three years of sacrifice, the market here is so stubborn. But I’m a patient person, and I’m going to wait it out! Even if it takes three more years.

[poorsaver]

Hey Bugs, good to hear from you. Like me, I don’t see you posting as much here. To answer your question, I have most of it spread out over several accounts to keep within FDIC limits with three beneficiaries. I also have some at a brokerage account in which I’ve been doing some day/swing trading. My average return is about 3-4 percent over the past year. Not great, but better than losing principle.

I know we’ve discussed my situation before in my one year and two year updates, and I just wanted to share mainly how the emotional aspects of renting have taken their toll on me. I’m not focusing on the financial part of it. That’s a done deal. I realize I’m doing OK on the financial part, but it’s just so unsettling to not have a home that you can do as you please. I’ve been used to that lifestyle since I was 26 years old when I bought my first home. I’m now 54 and not getting any younger. I’m just frustrated how after three years of sacrifice, the market here is so stubborn. But I’m a patient person, and I’m going to wait it out! Even if it takes three more years.

[poorsaver]

Hey Bugs, good to hear from you. Like me, I don’t see you posting as much here. To answer your question, I have most of it spread out over several accounts to keep within FDIC limits with three beneficiaries. I also have some at a brokerage account in which I’ve been doing some day/swing trading. My average return is about 3-4 percent over the past year. Not great, but better than losing principle.

I know we’ve discussed my situation before in my one year and two year updates, and I just wanted to share mainly how the emotional aspects of renting have taken their toll on me. I’m not focusing on the financial part of it. That’s a done deal. I realize I’m doing OK on the financial part, but it’s just so unsettling to not have a home that you can do as you please. I’ve been used to that lifestyle since I was 26 years old when I bought my first home. I’m now 54 and not getting any younger. I’m just frustrated how after three years of sacrifice, the market here is so stubborn. But I’m a patient person, and I’m going to wait it out! Even if it takes three more years.

[poorsaver]

Hey Bugs, good to hear from you. Like me, I don’t see you posting as much here. To answer your question, I have most of it spread out over several accounts to keep within FDIC limits with three beneficiaries. I also have some at a brokerage account in which I’ve been doing some day/swing trading. My average return is about 3-4 percent over the past year. Not great, but better than losing principle.

I know we’ve discussed my situation before in my one year and two year updates, and I just wanted to share mainly how the emotional aspects of renting have taken their toll on me. I’m not focusing on the financial part of it. That’s a done deal. I realize I’m doing OK on the financial part, but it’s just so unsettling to not have a home that you can do as you please. I’ve been used to that lifestyle since I was 26 years old when I bought my first home. I’m now 54 and not getting any younger. I’m just frustrated how after three years of sacrifice, the market here is so stubborn. But I’m a patient person, and I’m going to wait it out! Even if it takes three more years.

[La Jolla Renter]

poorsaver,

Put up some art. You won’t get dinged over a couple of picture hooks. Just leave them in when you leave. I hear you on the streamlined feeling and not being able to hang the plasma is the biggest drawback. I am in a place I really like for the short term (until kids arrive), 3 more years is about my max.

[La Jolla Renter]

poorsaver,

Put up some art. You won’t get dinged over a couple of picture hooks. Just leave them in when you leave. I hear you on the streamlined feeling and not being able to hang the plasma is the biggest drawback. I am in a place I really like for the short term (until kids arrive), 3 more years is about my max.

[La Jolla Renter]

poorsaver,

Put up some art. You won’t get dinged over a couple of picture hooks. Just leave them in when you leave. I hear you on the streamlined feeling and not being able to hang the plasma is the biggest drawback. I am in a place I really like for the short term (until kids arrive), 3 more years is about my max.

[La Jolla Renter]

poorsaver,

Put up some art. You won’t get dinged over a couple of picture hooks. Just leave them in when you leave. I hear you on the streamlined feeling and not being able to hang the plasma is the biggest drawback. I am in a place I really like for the short term (until kids arrive), 3 more years is about my max.

[Author]

Posts