[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, are these numbers nationwide statistics or for SD County? And what do the numbers in the parentheses mean?

All by themselves, these numbers really mean nothing unless you put the average SFR sold prices for that year next to them. Then list the average size family in that locale during that year. (Remember that the “avg family-size” was larger 40+ yrs ago.) And, just for fun, list the average prevailing (conventional) 30-yr fixed interest rate for that year next to each year.

I maintain that at all times, the AVERAGE price paid for a SFR in a given area was 4-6 times the total gross household income for that area, depending on locale.

And this is still true today in all but the most expensive locales (SD County not being one of them).

It didn’t matter what the prevailing mtg interest rate was or is or whether gas was .34.9 or $3.95.9.

With this census data, are you attempting to infer that life in the US was easier for the “average” parents in the ’60’s thru ’80’s or that the “avg” buyer could buy more house in those eras than you or I could buy today?[/quote]These number are from the census bureau. Go here to do your own data mining: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/. I’m not sure what those number in parenthesis mean. This is the historical data for home price nationally from the Census Bureau as well: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html. Housing went up 53% between 1960-1970 and 266% between 1970-1980 in CA.

What I’m trying to infer is, if history repeats itself, then when we see high inflation, we’ll see higher housing price and higher rent. I don’t know if life was easier or not for average Americans and really, I don’t really care. I don’t care if they can buy more house or not. What I care about is if price will rise like the last time we saw 10%+ mortgage rate and inflation going crazy.

[an]

[quote=The-Shoveler]From what I remember about that time I think people were saying something to the effect that getting a loan on a “as is” foreclosure was somewhat problematic

Also it may have been a lot easier to qualify for a loan and the rates even better had to waited and had a few years retail income verified. but what do I know..[/quote]Wasn’t problematic for me. But then again, all of my income were extremely easy to verified. I’m not talking about no doc loan though and my DTI is well below their limits.

[an]

Yes SD R, I totally agree. Buying with all cash in a low rate high price environment is definitely not for me. However, I think most who did that bought for cash because that allow them to actually buy the property at a good price. There’s no way to know if they refi out after they purchase. I think they would if they decide to hold and rent. For those of us who were not able to drop down several hundred thousands of dollar for investment properties, then yes, 2008-2011 was a great opportunity.

I’m still not sold that price will go down when rate goes up. Just look at what price did in 1970-1980. Rate sky rocketed and so did price. When you get income increasing 10% a year, it’s pretty easy to afford higher monthly payment. Obviously, past performance does not guaranty future performance. However, I don’t buy the logic of lower price when rate increase. Maybe it’ll be different this time, but like you said, if you’re holding it as rental and already are cash flowing positive, who cares. All this mean is you’ll be cash flowing even better every year. Which would make it that much harder to sell, since the cash flow is so good.

Again, I sincerely hope CAR is right and we’ll see sub 2008 price again (hopefully soon). Being able to pick up SFR house in MM in the low to mid $200k would be another golden opportunity that I’m not missing. This is assuming that PITI is lower than 2008’s PITI.

[an]

Here’s the historical data from the census:
1990 14,387
1989 14,056
1988 13,123
1987 (21) 12,391
1986 11,670
1985 (20) 11,013
1984 10,328
1983 (19) 9,494
1982 8,980
1981 8,476
1980 7,787
1979 (18) 7,168
1978 6,455
1977 5,785
1976 (17) 5,271
1975 (16) 4,818
1974 (16)(15) 4,445
1973 4,141
1972 (14) 3,769
1971 (13) 3,417
1970 3,177
1969 3,007
1968 2,731
1967 (12) 2,464

Look at the per capita income in the 70s, it seems like a consistent 10% increase every year. So, what some people said about their salary in the 70s wasn’t the exception. Income went up 145% between 1970-1980. Income went up only 85% between 1980-1990. Income went up only 55% between 1990-2000. Income went up 19% between 2000-2010.

[an]

Wasn’t the last time we get 10%+ in mortgage rate, people were getting raises left and right (I hear people who work back then get 10-15% raise each year easily) AND CDs were in high single digits as well? If that happen, all those who bought a lot in this last crash will be freaking golden. Their monthly payment is fixed but now, then can raise their rent 5-10% each year. Talk about cash flow.

I sincerely hope we’ll we will see below 2008 price again AND someday, we’ll see 10-15% mortgage rate. My dream would be us experiencing the 70s-80s again. Add in the fact that we’re in CA and have prop 13, our property tax will be crazily low relatively (just look at the people who bought their house in the 60s/70s before the 10%+ rate hit.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, I think we’ll see 2008-2011 pricing again, and possibly lower.[/quote]I sincerely hope you’re right. I’m kicking myself for not buying more in 2008. If it happen again, I’ll be fully prepared this time.

[an]

I totally agree. Layout is KEY. My house is a 2 story with only 2000 sq-ft, yet it feels just right. I’ve been to some 2900 sq-ft houses and it actually feel smaller than my 2000 sq-ft house. It makes me wonder where the sq-ft go? Also, the orientation and amount/placement of windows makes a huge difference too. My house feels a lot more brighter than some of those 2900 sq-ft I’ve been in. Due to the amount of lights, it also makes the house feel bigger as well.

So, assuming we’re talking about a good layout floor plan, I would be perfectly happy with a 2000-2500 sq-ft single story on 1/4 acre lot w/ an ocean view. I also prefer a wider lot than a narrower lot. So, preferably, I would like a 100×100 sq-ft lot over a 50×200 sq-ft lot.

[an]

[quote=flu]I’m thinking about it….I’m outta control….

Can i give you my password, and you change it for me, and only allow me to post 1 time in month, at most?

I’m sending you a PM…

FLU (crack addict)….sniff…[/quote]Don’t ask a crack addict to hold your crack :-D.

[an]

[quote=flu]Your mileage may vary…

When I tried to do the same thing, the first thing they wanted to know is what is your total net worth and asset allocation. And rightfully so, they wanted to do a health check on where you are at and where they think that want to take you.

You can lie to them and say you only have $50k, but then you wouldn’t be off to a very good start with someone you’re suppose to trust.

Or you can tell them you only want them to manage $50k and never anything more..At which point, they might tell you to take a hike or they might do it anyway for a trial period with the understanding it must be more in the future…[/quote]I have no problem to let him/her manage more in the future if the net return exceeds the market. If they’re that confident in their performance capability, I don’t see why they wouldn’t start with a low limit to hook in the younger crowd who have high income growth but doesn’t have $100k in cash.

[an]

[quote=flu][quote=SD Realtor]lol…. FLU the market is still outpacing re… you will do fine.

Also no the sequester will not touch san diego re prices at all.[/quote]

My goal is to come up with $1million this year, so the next fricking CarmelV I bid on, i can wipe those smug ass face that other cash buyers have…

Of course, it will be more than that, because of taxes…

Got lotto?

Anyway, I’m considering posting something that politically hijacks a thread so I get my ass self-banned…. Seriously…. coming here is like me being a crack-addict for me…… It’s time I break loose…[/quote]You should just PM Rich to delete your account or change your password :-P.

[an]

[quote=flu]Ok, can you recommend folks a good money manager who’s willing to manage someone starting out…..Say less than $100k? It’s a serious question. Because if so, i take it back and I’ll pass the word on to folks I know who are starting out who don’t want to do it themselves.

I haven’t seen any money managers that are good willing to manage an asset pool less $100k..Some require a minimum of $250k, which is more than what most average joe’s have.[/quote]I’ll second this. I can use a good money manager who have a proven track record of beating the index and have a minimum <$50k. I'm being serious as well. The reason for <$50k is because I want to start small to see if their performance can be trusted before I put in more.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Of course not, Mr. Permabull(s—).[/quote]
haha, permabull? Really? Maybe you should start readin this blog back in 2005.

[an]

[quote=flu]SDR/AN,

Can you please remind me to get the fvck off this blog? It’s not helping me get into a better SFH CV home any faster, and I really need to start focusing now…
I really envy folks that have been able to successfully do this…

Thank you…[/quote]
Sorry dude, but I can’t help you when I can’t help myself get off this blog :-).

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]flu, you are free to sit all day with your quickbooks acct up on your toolbar and the NASDAQ in “real-time” on another popup, managing your life with a fine toothed comb from an internet connection from “8 to 5” and beyond.

I just hope nothing “expensive” ever happens to you throughout life for which you have no control over :=0[/quote]Uh, you mean like having cancer?

[an]

[quote=flu]What?

He’s different.

There’s a difference between getting advice (and paying for it) and being ignorant/risk adverse and turning the kingdom over to someone completely.

And a majority of money managers available to average joe do not have your best interest in mind.

You’re just full of nit picking aren’t you SK? 🙂

You know what. Forget it.. I take back what I say. I’m wrong. Most money managers for average joe are great at what they do. I think everyone should turn there money over to a complete stranger, completely count on them, never try to understand what they are getting themselves into, listen to whatever money manager says as 100% accurate..And in the unlikely scenario that the investment/speculation blows up, call up our government and ask for a bailout…Seems to work for real estate.[/quote]IIRC, Rich requires a minimum of $100k to use his service. We all know most who are financially afraid have $100k in liquid cash to invest.

[Author]

Posts