[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I agree, divorce is the one thing you can’t really plan for. So, I’ll concede on that point. However, death can easily be planned by with a large enough life insurance plan.

WRT health problem, of course if you’re self-employed, you’d have to pay for your own medical insurance. Which is why freelancers make more than W-2er. Why do you have to get HDHP? Why can’t you get a HMO? WRT to $8k/year. I save more than $8k/year ever since I start working.[/quote]

For me (I’m relatively healthy), my 5000/3000 HDHP (PPO) is $318 mo and a Blue Cross/Anthem HMO would be $610 mo and a Kaiser HMO would be about $534 mo.

Why won’t I sign up for an HMO? I have a good (formerly healthy, athletic) friend of 28 years in SD who has an employer-paid “Kaiser” plan and has been admitted to the hospital 11 times in 2012 for the same problem. Kaiser botched her surgery and it had to be redone. Her home-healthcare alloted nurse time is thin for her wound-mgmt. She STILL has to have corrective surgery in March 2013. If it were not for her co-workers collectively donating over 900 sick hours to her, she would have lost her longtime position and coverage. Understandably, she has become depressed over the situation because she has very little mobility.

She’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’ve been to two funerals of coworkers who Kaiser Hospital surgeons and other personnel “killed.” And they have been well-known in the past in this city for performing the “wrong operation” by mistake.

My premium has gone up 12 times since 2004, and, unlike an “employee,” I alone paid the entire cost of the increases.

None of those “rate hikes” were due to my “usage.” The ins co had various and sundry reasons for raising them, from “costs for our insured in your subgroup are rising” to “we now have to (by law) include maternity benefits in your (CA) plan” (LOL) to “procedure costs are rising in your region,” blah, blah.

Who cared whether I had “maternity benefits” when it was my turn to use them??

Which begs the age-old question: Since I qualified medically for the plan long before “Obamacare” was a twinkle in anyone’s eye, why should I have to pay for the sins of others? Why can’t my policy be priced on my own merits as a customer??”

Healthplan pricing is out of my (and everyone’s) control and I am “grandfathered in” and stuck with it. I would be a fool to change policies now.

There are 1000’s of folks in my position.

AN, you likely “save more than $8K a year” because your employer pays the majority of your family’s healthcare premium, your spouse brings in income as well, you do not have a long daily commute, you have relatives nearby to help with childcare and you do not live in a high-cost area (w/high-priced RE and HOA/MR).

You are an anomaly among your Gen Y peers because you have decided to live within your means.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]The author lost her credibility with me with this statement.

[quote=flu]Moreover, people don’t rack up thousands of dollars in credit card bills because they buy too much, she says. Unexpected and costly medical emergencies, divorce or long bouts of unemployment are the main reasons Americans find themselves drowning in debt.[/quote]
These unexpected cost will only hit you hard if you didn’t save up for it to start with or have proper insurance. Although I don’t agree with everything Orman or Bach said, they have the right premise. Spend less than you earn. Especially Bach with the Latte factor. I’ve read his book and make perfect sense. It’s not that hard to save when you live well under your mean. When you do that, along with proper insurance, their unexpected costs will not affect you as much if at all. I like the “Can you afford it” portion of Suze Orman’s show. Her message those those callers and viewers is that, don’t buy junk unless you can truly afford it and already have your savings and retirement set. Her stock tips is as good/bad as anyone else.[/quote]

AN, your “plan” is infinitely easier if your employer covers your entire family with a comprehensive health plan.

Many self-employed people and people too young to qualify for Medicare have individual HDHP’s. The deductibles plus co-insurance in these plans can easily run $8K or more in ONE year for ONE individual if they have a health scare, accident or are diagnosed with a chronic illness.

No one can plan for death or a spouse or divorce … at least not for the “long term.” The reality is that economies of scale allow two or more people to live much cheaper than one (like you are). If you were living separate from your spouse, you would not have the same lifestyle. It would be much lower, unless you used cc’s to “make up the difference.” A lot of recently-divorced people feel they are “entitled” to do so because of the life they became “accustomed to” as part of a two (or more) earner household and that’s what ends up being a “rude awakening” when the bill comes due, their credit is shot and they need to rent, buy another house, or buy a vehicle. I’ve seen this mindset over and over among my clients, kid’s friend’s parents and other acquaintances.

Not everyone can qualify for or afford the premiums on a term life policy over $50K. A LOT of people can’t qualify for ANY life insurance at all or just enough to pay for their funerals. Many also don’t have access to employer-paid term life policies with no questions asked.

Of course, all workers hope their good wage-earning years last a long time and nothing happens to them throughout life which will affect their finances adversely. But they really don’t have control over a lot of it unless they are VERY wealthy and have ironclad legal agreements signed with everyone they come into contact with, including spouse(s).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=carlsbadworker]Yes, Blackstone is not a dummy but there are mom-and-pop investors who think otherwise. I don’t think this is because of they “add the most value with the least cost and downtime and extract the most profit.” Many long-time mom-and-pop investors can do that as well and they know the local market better. But I think this is because Blackstone seems to be buying a segment of rental property market that is not the traditional “rental property” material. Like the other thread on “nightmare renting to people in a low income area”, mom-and-pop investors seem to focus on the traditional aspects of valuing a property, such as cap rate, gross rent multiplier, etc.
From what I read, the hedge funds have slightly different focus to avoid competition. They focus on bigger property (3000sqft rather than 1200 sqft), somewhat nicer property, and perhaps in somewhat nicer neighborhood. They are buying those houses that mom-and-pop investors would say “there is no way I can make the number work” but at the same time, those are also below replacement costs or 50%+ off properties. So clearly, hedge funds are thinking about their exit strategy few years from now when new constructions will start again and housing market again is healthy, while mom-and-pop investors typically don’t. They will be happy to labor hard to earn the yearly rents.
Maybe when everything settled down few years from now and we look back in history, they may be able to teach us something. Of course, mom-and-pop investors probably still lack the ability to analyze the potential appreciation yield, the economics of scale to execute, and have different investment motive.

But then again, there is also the possibility that the hedge funds really lack the experience of buying rental properties so they may be foolish in the end. I don’t bet on it though.[/quote]

I just looked at their site and their short “buy to let” video. They are only buying SFR’s (1-4 units?) and plan on renting them all.

Home

They state they will spend an average of 10% of each SFR’s cost on rehab, using the local tradepeople of the area. That is a lot of money, IMHO, and will employ competent tradespeople who haven’t held steady jobs in years. They claim their main investors will be “pensioners.”

I think their success will lie in VERY professional property mgmt. Due to VERY low MIR’s today, their main audience will undoubtedly be the BK’d, the credit-challenged, recently foreclosed upon and recent short sellers. This could prove to be a hard audience to pander to if they haven’t learned their lessons and altered their spending habits which got them into the situation they are now in. As Blackstone starts working in these distressed markets and starts leasing, I’d like to see the amounts of individual damage and security deposits they take and profiles of actual tenants. And, of course, their PM companies in every jurisdiction need an efficient local UD law firm on retainer.

As a soon-to-be “pensioner,” I’d like to see their initial returns in this endeavor. I agree that what they plan to do will eventually lift all (housing) boats. There are a lot of people like me who believe in the “buy and hold” strategy but carpal tunnel and other joint issues preclude us from working on our own “flipper project” or “rehab for rental” project.

Not sure if they have entered into any CA distressed markets yet or even plan to.

If “Fannie” is the main seller to Blackstone, this thread belongs within my earlier thread (below) but I was apparently asleep at the switch :=]

http://piggington.com/as_predicted_frannie_is_beginning_to_sells_blocks_of_assets_in_b

Thanks for sharing, carlsbadworker!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Squatter]The point I was trying to make was that the original sale was not really an “arm’s-length”, obviously you’ve missed that part (see my check list in the original post). So no, it was not really possible to purchase the house back then and CT Homes did not really pay the market price, since the house was never in the open market. Here is the original listing again including fabulous photos of that flop that went pending the same day it was listed:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/10782-Viacha-Dr-92124/home/5403989/crmls-T12125981

Sold 9 days later.

You can’t win if you don’t get a chance to play.[/quote]

I saw the (dated) listing, SD Squatter.

CT Homes obviously had all cash and paid $20K over asking. Perhaps CT’s agent had a tacit “first dibs” agreement with several local brokers when a “jewel-in-the-rough” listing came in (such as this one). Are you intimating here that CT principals were relatives of the seller or Listing Agent, Mirna Arenas or principals of Listing Broker, Full Realty Svcs, Inc?

Was this property a short sale?

It looked to me as if the listing may have been occupied by a fixed-income senior citizen who had not done anything with the property in many years (very typical).

“Traditional Sale” listings are MUCH easier to sell a little below market if they are owned outright (free and clear of liens).

Note: I haven’t done any research on this property.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paulflorez]That’s exactly what happened here:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3627-36th-St-San-Diego-CA-92104/16960138_zpid/

Selling agent took offers, but told us to bid $250,000 specifically and that the bank was guaranteed to take it. After offer is accepted, zero contact. I eventually was able to contact him by leaving a message saying that I was interested in a property that he listed (he knew my agent but not me) and then telling him the property I was interested in I had already bid on and he wasn’t returning my agents calls. He was reassuring again.

A week or so later, he emails telling us we didn’t get the offer. House sold for $250,000, shows up a week later as a listing again for $320,000 with the same selling agent.

So much for a “free market”.[/quote]

paulflorez, I didn’t research the property but have a couple of questions.

How do you know it “sold” for $250K a week later?

If it DID recently sell, was the listing agent, his broker or a “straw buyer” on behalf of either one the “buyer?”

Did the listing agent or his broker have a financial interest in the property when it was bought in 10/09 for $320K (within the period of time of the local market “trough”).

Did you ever ask why it was listed at $250K when it was bought only three years prior during a period of low MIR’s and low prices? If so, what story did the LA give you?

Hopefully, you may know the answers to any of the above three questions, which would shed a lot of light on your “experience” with the LA.

edit: see bolded portion

paulflorez, could YOUR agent actually have bought the property (under a spouse or relative’s name?) or gotten a straw buyer on his behalf before the short lender to purchase the property for $250K cash in order to effectively eliminate the higher debt on it. Could it be that he had his “bid” considered in lieu of yours in exchange for a another listing to the SS LA upon closing?

Stranger things have happened.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Squatter][quote=SD Squatter]With San Diego inventory at all time lows, I find it disturbing that short-sale flopping is still happening right in the open:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/10782-Viacha-Dr-92124/home/5403989

• 1-minute midnight listing at way-below market price marked pending check!
• Crappy pictures with discouraging description check!
• Agent not answering phone, nor accepting other offers check!
• Listing agent also representing the buyer check!
• The bank not giving a … about it check!

When will it stop?[/quote]

Heh heh, guess what, the story doesn’t end there:

Exquisite remodel by CT Homes from the Hit TV show “Flip This House”.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/10782-Viacha-Dr-92124/home/5403989

Of course we have a 50% ($225,000) flipper premium. Or shall we call this the TV show premium? This is more than funny 🙂 Here is the link to the original flopped “sale”:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/10782-Viacha-Dr-92124/home/5403989/crmls-T12125981%5B/quote%5D

I’ve seen more of these “flipper remodels” here in SD County done by CT Homes. They usually take a horribly outdated home and ready it for market to appeal to the the “masses” … that is, the younger set (mostly Gen Y) that “needs” a turnkey property to move into because they feel they can’t do any work themselves.

There wouldn’t be any profit out there for these “flipper teams” if young buyers who needed family homes would buy fixers … and … instead of moving all their household goods in right away, move in air mattresses and get to work. That’s the way it used to be.

CT Homes seems to do all the “right things” to make a successful profit. Did you think they work for free, SD Squatter? You DO realize that within that $225K, they have to recoup the cost of labor, materials and closing costs on both transactions, right??

It’s a free country, SD Squatter. You either think it’s worth the price they’re asking and make an “acceptable” offer … or you don’t.

Your other option was to buy it last year “as-is” for $450K and pay the closing costs, while you lived somewhere else since then and do what flippers do. Take your pick.

If you knew about the listing when it was “in the rough,” why didn’t you make an offer back then?

******************

If CT Homes purchased this Tierrasanta listing as a “short-sale,” at least they were an “arm’s-length” buyer (unlike the “crooked” SS’s selling to “relatives”). CT paid was it was worth to them at the time and the bank approved the sale. They now have the good fortune of marketing it in rising market but likely did not know at the time of purchase they would be able to ask $675K.

You can’t win if you don’t play.

[bearishgurl]

I wish you all the best, flu. Just be VERY glad they exist.

I’ve had three and will agree that they’re not fun … Actually, it now being 2013 makes it time to schedule exam number four pretty soon, ugh. My ins co will pay for one every three years, due to family history and they’re not cheap in SD ($1000-$1400).

[bearishgurl]

IN SD County, I think you, as a landlord, need to manage your rental propertie(s) yourself to make the numbers work out, unless:

You paid cash for the property, OR

you bought the property more than 15 yrs ago and never removed equity.

For best cash flow (incl inevitable vacancies):

You should have no MR, AND

if you have HOA dues, they are less than $60 mo (SFR) and $160 mo (condo).

I don’t think it matters what area it is located in. “Good” tenants can be found for every area and “lower-quality tenants” likely means you paid much less for the property, so have less at stake if it is trashed or squatted in before you are able to legally evict your tenants. And don’t think for a minute that this can’t happen in a $3000+ mo rental!

Also bear in mind that Section 8 and other gov’t-administered rental-assistance programs pay at least 80% of the montly rent REGULARLY, so it might be prudent to get approved for them. These types of rent programs are not dependent upon the whims of your tenant’s employer and cause tenants to stay much longer than the average tenant.

Bottom line is if buying rental properties in CA TODAY, buy local properties only and manage them yourself.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdduuuude]BG – you misquoted him.

He said “a lot more buildable land”

not

“a lot of buildable land”[/quote]

Regardless, sdduuuude, the SD East County areas within 30 mi of dtn SD (or OB, if you go straight on I-8, instead), are ESTablished. And the areas zoned 3 units to an acre (or less) are full of VERY UNindebted (read: “established”) owners and VERY well-heeled families.

My experience out there has been that most Gen X owners (still raising a family) who are living in SD East County on =<3 units/AC lots are an anomaly, of sorts, in comparison to a "typical" SD County homeowner raising a family. I have come to the conclusion that there are no doubt thousands of East County homeowners who can actually live anywhere they want. They either have relatives they need to be near in East County, a business out there and/or need a property suitable for large animals. These owners are driving pickups to work and paying much lesser mortgages for a custom home with more land and have no MR, unlike the typical North County suburban/exurban tract-dwelling parent who is striving for a particular “lifestyle.”

Contrary to “popular belief,” SD East County is not a “ghetto.” Of course, like nearly ALL other micro areas in CA, it has its “low-income” pockets. But it also has many fabulous areas to live in. Really, if one doesn’t have to commute over 40 mins to work from there, the only drawback I see to living there is the need for A/C part of the year.

I like East County’s communities for the fact its jurisdictions didn’t have the massive land tracts available for Big Development to come in and build “planned communities” with shacks 3′ from one another and charge exorbitant MR to all the *new* owners. This practice caused nothing in recent years but grief, distress and foreclosure which adversely affected ALL adjacent property owners. Southeastern Chula Vista is a prime example of this sad debacle. I was on one of those “shack” streets (circa 2001) in that area last night and an oncoming car had to pull into a driveway (no st pkg avail) in order for my vehicle to pass thru. It was a street of single family homes! In addition, the driver could only pull her Honda Accord partway into the driveway because it was not long enough for her *entire* car :=0

I looked up the street on SDLookup and SDTax this morning and it not only has 8 recorded currently distressed properties and two tax defaults on it, the avg shack on it currently sells for about $250K!

Ask yourselves what positive things communities like the above have done for longtime surrounding homeowners.

Every so often, I read comments on this board that dismiss SD East County is somehow primarily “low-income” or a “lesser” place to live than SD or North County. Absolutely NOTHING could be further from the truth. Many parts of it are positively dripping with money.

And no, I have never resided in East County and have no contracts with any Chambers of Commerces out there.

[end of rant]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Near the coast there is just not a lot of buildable land IMO and what is there is very costly to develop.

Out in east county and SWRC there is a lot more buildable land so I would expect that to keep a lid on prices for a while yet.

Near the coast I would expect things will get more and more ridiculous as far as price. JMHO.

The above might change if something like super storm sandy hit SoCal. I guess we wait and see.[/quote]

Shoveler, there is NOT `a lot of buildable land’ in SD East County. The vast majority of east county areas within 30 miles of dtn SD are very well established, some est as far back as 1930.

Building is not allowed on rocky mountaintops. And there is too much community opposition to increasing density in areas of 1 AC+ lots so that will never happen, IMHO.

If you are referring to rural east county and the mountains, what available parcels with utilities at the ready are far and few between and a construction or take-out lender would still require a VERY costly fire policy to be in place before the commencement of construction. Those parcels without utilities will undoubtedly be VERY costly for today’s specuvester to bring them in. MWD access and utility meter fees, in every jurisdiction, have risen repeatedly since 2000.

The above also applies to semi-rural and rural SD North County.

The reality is that there is VERY little to zero land available in SD County for tract or spec development, period, which is not already owned by developers or a single infill lot with a demolishable structure on it.

And I would not advise “waiting” to see if a tsunami hits the CA coastal areas to buy there.

If the “coast” where you want to move next, I would advise selling your inland property forthwith, lowering your standards re: your dwelling “requirements” and buying a coastal property ASAP. OR, buying a coastal property and renting out your inland property after you close escrow, if you can afford to do so.

It doesn’t get any better than this, folks. The (native San Diegan) horse left its barn several years ago and is “lost” on the trails.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]This year they’re offering a weekday pass to ski ALL of January, starting Mon 1/7, for $249!

http://www.mammothmountain.com/Mountain/Passes/JanuaryMidWeek/

That’s an awesome deal but must buy online by tomorrow midnight….[/quote]

Offer has now been extended thru Mon 1/7 and now inclusive of Feb 1 (Fri). The same link (above) has now changed to “20 (week)days sking/riding for $249.”

Short of buying a heavily-discounted season pass the summer before (future conditions unknown), it doesn’t get any better than this, folks.

This tells me there wasn’t enough bites Friday and Saturday, lol …

[bearishgurl]

[quote=nhamlin]I am a real estate investor in San Diego and have given a great deal of thought to buying a place in the mountains.

If you calculate the annual cost of maintaining a nice home and divide by the number of days of use, you will often find it more expensive than the staying at the Waldorf with hot and coldf running blodes. Ever wonder why resort areas have more real estate offices than service stations?

You can reduce the costs by renting it out but when you go there, you are now staying in a rental.

My attitudes were formed when 40 year old beat up 2 BR 2 BA condos at Mammoth were selling for well over $300K. Things would look a lot better with current pricing. Things would also look better for someone who plans to eventually retire there.

It sounds like you can well afford to take the plunge. I think you might have regrets if you don’t. As for the bad financial new; the time to buy is when blood is running in the streets. I doubt that there is a lot more bad news coming down the road for Mammoth.[/quote]

Sadly, I think you may be right, nhamlin. For those that want to retire into a part-time “ski-bum,” such as myself, the time to act is when hardly anyone is interested in buying.

The TOT tax is currently 13% at Mammoth Lakes and that is 69% of their general fund revenue. All they would have to do is raise their TOT tax to 15% and they could potentially crawl out of this judgment hole in a VERY few years, IMHO.

The masses wouldn’t care. What’s 2% more?? It is a destination ski resort due to its remote location and there is only ONE Mammoth Mtn.

Unlike Colo ski resorts, it is in the VERY high desert with a straight, fun nearly treeless face and there is nowhere else like it in the country and probably the world. It is what it is.

Even though I thought I would prefer Lake Tahoe, I REALLY like skiing at Mammoth Mtn and will investigate Mammoth Lakes RE further. My time frame for “retirement” is 17-23 months. I could potentially substantially improve a property AFTER I decided to occupy it myself.

Thank you for your post.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Shoveler’s 2 cents
1) Get your bucket list over while you’re young enough to
a) Enjoy it,
b) Accomplish it.
You never know what will happen in the future.

2)Never fully retire, get some side biz going, you will get bored and your brain will turn to mush if you sit around watching TV etc… all day. Also a pension is great sure but it can be eaten away by inflation much faster than most think it can.

3)Stay as healthy as you possibly can, Health is the greatest wealth you have.
(No point being a multimillionaire if you’re not able to get out and enjoy it).[/quote]

ALL great advice, Shoveler … esp the health-maintenance part 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=flyer]

One generation hating another for who SOME of them are or aren’t isn’t going to make one bit of difference in the outcome of anyone’s life, whether it’s true or not.

That’s why I think one of the most important things any of us can do, is to try to take care of ourselves and our own to the highest level possible for as long as we possibly can.

That’s my 2 cents.[/quote]

Interesting article, and really liked some of the comments on it.[/quote]

I skimmed the first few pages of comments, as well, CAR. There were several “boomers” on there reminding readers that living and working conditions weren’t so great when we were young and starting out on our own.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority of the millenials (Gen Y) have expectations for every facet of their lives that are thru the roof!

I don’t think Gen Y is lazy. They’re just far more “picky” then we were … about their work “environment,” living “environment” and other items they buy. Compared to what boomers had, they have infinite choices.

I’m attributing this phenomenon partly to the wealth of consumer info on everything available to all 24/7 on the internet.

[bearishgurl]

In my last post, I meant to say, “EXclusive of lift tix,” which are included in the mammoth mtn properties’ pkg deals. And $20 night resort fee, not 20%.

There is no refund on these pkgs, however, unless the resort closes for some reason on the day(s) you book.

Unlike Mammoth Lakes, South Lake Tahoe always has SFR listings of ’50’s and ’60’s era SFRs on tract of 1300 – 1600 sf, right in town and near free bus lines. The vast majority of “condos” there are timeshares on the Nevada side. And there are a handful of timeshare developments at the SLT lakeshore and adjacent to the Heavenly gondola.

I haven’t checked the listings in SLT in about a year. However, at that time, most were asking $175K to $300K.

For “retirement purposes,” El Dorado County is now on the Prop 90 list and has a bigger, more comprehensive hospital than Mammoth (soon-to-be retirees think about these things).

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta06010.pdf

I agree with SDR that vacancies would be intermittently high in a resort area off of “peak” season (Dec-Mar, depending on snowfall) but it would still be worth it to have somewhere of your own to drive to on the spur of the moment almost any time of “off-peak season” to go hiking, fishing or even carry your boat to and leave in the garage!

And property mgmt fees in resort areas are likely 2-8% higher than for a long-term tenant due to labor-intensive day/week/month tenancies, snow removal and even pipe-wrapping (if you choose to keep it vacant during winter months and cannot get up there). Due to these high fees, I would not want to pay HOA dues as well.

I find it SUCH a hassle nearly every year to make apples-to-apples comparisons to successfully book lodging for whatever amt of people/skiers I had at the time and would MUCH prefer to have my own place, furnished with my own stuff and could bring my dog without leaving it crated all day. I wouldn’t have a problem booking my days way in advance until such time as I chose to occupy the property full-time.

I’m just wondering if SFR prices are firming up in South Lake Tahoe. They REALLY cratered a few years ago and were dirt cheap.

IIRC, Mammoth Lakes does not have any tracts. For this reason and the fact that it borders on Nat’l forest land, RE tends to be higher there than SLC. But the skiing is usually more consistent on Mammoth Mtn which typically has more lifts and trails open than SLT at any given time, that is … unless it is simply a banner year all around 🙂

[Author]

Posts