Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 17, 2012 at 1:45 PM in reply to: rental sale pending- need interest bearing ideas for proceeds #752715October 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM in reply to: rental sale pending- need interest bearing ideas for proceeds #752713
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=birmingplumb]Don’t think 1,000 month return is enough on 240k and it’s super high offer for Detroit suburb as I valued it 175k 3 yrs ago. Timing. Motown[/quote]
I would have asked the “what would I do with 200K to make $100K/month” question before selling it. If no answer, then don’t sell. If lots of answers, then sell.[/quote]
The OP was only making $1K month on his rental house.
October 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM in reply to: rental sale pending- need interest bearing ideas for proceeds #752712Participant[quote=flu][quote=birmingplumb]Don’t think 1,000 month return is enough on 240k and it’s super high offer for Detroit suburb as I valued it 175k 3 yrs ago. Timing. Motown[/quote]
Here’s an idea.
You have 200k now. I remember you posting about how your daughter was dealing with a landlord…
… Buy your a condo for your daughter in sandiego with the 200k fully paid off.
Write your daughter a note giving her a market loan rate, 30 year fixed with appropriate points/etc. Make sure it’s legit, fully doced/notarized etc (for IRS purposes). Let her make payments to you.
*You get the 4% income which is more or less safe (assuming your daughter can be trusted).
*Your daughter doesn’t end up throwing money away to a landlord. Heck, your daughter doesn’t even end up throwing money away to a bank.
*Assuming it’s a legit loan, your daughter gets a schedule a tax deduction as normally.
*And check with a trust attorney…But I have a feeling that loan you wrote to her ends up belonging to her/your kid’s estate when you pass away if it’s not paid off by then…Cut out the middlemen (bank).. Check with people in know that really know how to do this.[/quote]
That’s a good idea, flu.
October 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM in reply to: rental sale pending- need interest bearing ideas for proceeds #752709ParticipantStrike that (this is why we have financial advisors, lol). $10,400 annually (.052%) is what JHP would pay in dividends on a $200K investment.
That is $866.67 mo.
:=0
October 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM in reply to: rental sale pending- need interest bearing ideas for proceeds #752707ParticipantAcc to its shareholder fund report, JHP pays $1040 month on a $200,000 investment (.052%). That is $40 more than the OP was making on his rental house (w/no tenant headaches).
I haven’t found the dividend history.
October 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM in reply to: rental sale pending- need interest bearing ideas for proceeds #752706Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=bearishgurl]birmingplumb, I recently received this tip from a fellow “boomer” as a “safer” income investment:
http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-price/?symbol=JHP
I’ve never been good at picking investments. Any more well-versed Piggs care to comment here?[/quote]
Does a “safer” investment drop 80% in ~ 1 year?
I just found this … from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.nuveen.com/CEF/Product/Overview.aspx?FundCode=JHP
Investment Strategy
The fund invests at least 80% of its managed assets in preferred securities, and up to 20% of its net assets in debt securities, including convertible debt securities and convertible preferred securities. The fund invests predominantly in securities that are rated investment grade (BBB/Baa or better by S&P, Moody’s, or Fitch) at the time of investment, and may include up to 10% in securities that are rated investment grade by at least one of S&P, Moody’s, or Fitch, and lower by another. The fund uses leverage.
It appears the month(s) it lost 80% of value correlates with the time frame of the highest amount of foreclosures all over the nation.
Could it be that the fund invested in subprime mortgages and/or residential mortgage-backed securities that were worthless? If so, does it still invest in residential mortgages today?
This merits further research. I don’t know if the “recommender” was invested in the fund in 2009 but is happy with it now.
October 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM in reply to: rental sale pending- need interest bearing ideas for proceeds #752703Participantbirmingplumb, I recently received this tip from a fellow “boomer” as a “safer” income investment:
http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-price/?symbol=JHP
I’ve never been good at picking investments. Any more well-versed Piggs care to comment here?
Participant[quote=flu][quote=dumbrenter]Nothing wrong with spending time to get a degree that does not lead to any employment as long as there is no debt involved.[/quote]
Nothing wrong with getting into debt, as long as one doesn’t blame everyone else for being in debt afterwards.[/quote]
flu, you should see all the sites out there where former students are lobbying Congress heavily for student-loan “debt relief.” It seems most of them feel they are “entitled” to a free or low-cost education “after the fact” on the GOV’s dime while those who couldn’t afford a university education and so didn’t get themselves into debt don’t have a bachelor degree and so can’t compete with all these “debtors” for most of the job openings out there.
Many student-loan debtors, of all ages, it seems, want to have their cake and eat it, too.
Participantflu, if you have the resources to create a trust fund for your kid(s), then I would suggest staggering payments if it will include lump-sum payments. Perhaps some at age 21, some at 25 and some at 30, etc.
The vast majority of “kids” at ALL these ages are too immature to handle large sums of money to make it last and could easily end up broke and even addicted to drugs. And if their sights are set on big ticket items (house/condo, vehicle) they will still need a lot of “direction” so as not to get ripped off (make good decisions). “Socioeconomic level” has nothing to do with this. If anything, the kids who grew up at a higher socioeconomic level will more likely fall prey to societal ills, mooching partners and even swindlers, simply due to having more money at their disposal.
It’s one thing to talk to a 16-year old about how much things cost and quite another for an 18 or 21 year-old to have a $275,000 check in their hand, made out to them :=0
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl]
College degrees which will not lead to employment are worthless, IMHO, unless the student is using them to get into grad school (ex: poly sci). )[/quote]
You never know if you’re going to get into grad school. There are no pre law requirements, so why not major in something like engineering or science just in case the grad plans don’t work? Plus, lawyers with poli sci degrees are a dime a dozen. Have something in your educational resume that is useful (nursing, engineering, accounting, etc.) Another choice is to double major – and one should have a job at the end . . .[/quote]
I agree about having a “plan B” and that no one is guaranteed admission in grad school.
I only know ONE lawyer with an undergraduate degree in finance and ONE lawyer with an undergraduate degree in an engineering specialty. The vast majority that I know had more “generic” undergraduate degrees upon admission to law school. But they ALL went to college (in CA) at a time when public university fees were $300 – $800 per year and obviously didn’t take out student loans. Back then, students coming from all socioeconomic levels could “afford” (at least monetarily) to obtain a “nonessential, luxury degree” in “art history” at a public university, even if they never in their lives worked in their field of major or even worked at all!
With the current fee rate and continuous fee hikes nearly every semester over the last eight years, it is just plain folly to waste 4+++ years (due to inability to get 300-400 level classes when you need them) and tens of thousands of dollars on fees for such a degree today. And it is foolhardy bordering on disastrous to actually “borrow” in order to obtain such a degree, IMO.
Because of exorbitant costs and budget cuts in the UC and CSU systems, CA HS grads of today need to be completely realistic about their work prospects upon graduation before deciding on a major program of study. Unless they will be supported by a “trust fund” during their adult lives, the vast majority of young people today do not have the luxury of majoring in philosophy just because they’re interested in it. They’re young enough to develop a “passion” for a field of study that will lead to viable employment that pays enough to support themselves. Women students should ALSO expect to support themselves throughout their lives, taking paid maternity leaves.
The days of partying and (purposely) flunking out of college (on a parent’s dime) or attending only to work on a “MRS degree” are long gone.
Obtaining admission to college, staying in for the duration AND earning a bachelor degree and paying for all of of it is serious business now.
ParticipantI agree with Rus that multi-generational living is okay for some families (ESP those needing “free” day care for young kids and/or help on a farm).
I am also in agreement with flyer that kids need to major in something in college where they can (hopefully quickly) recoup their tuition, fees and effort expended in the form of a salary or wage. When I finally “retire” and “downsize,” I don’t want any kids staying FT with me and/or dumping their kids on me for me to take care of FT. I don’t mind them visiting, even for a week or two but don’t want to support them. I’ve made sacrifices throughout my life for them and they are more well-traveled than I am and have nicer personal things than I do. Since getting hired to a good FT job seems to be slanted towards the young nowadays, THEY should be and are taking advantage of that and moving jobs (for more pay/benefits) when the oppt’y arises.
I coached them NOT to take out student loans or end up as “single parents” but I didn’t have to coach them on what to major in. They ended up in college in a very expensive city to live in (SF – their choice) and learned “the ropes” very quickly, majored in business-related areas and can now support themselves just fine :=]
In addition, they supported themselves throughout college.
My kid who is still in HS is leaning towards majoring in accounting.
I’m also in favor of ROP and trade schools which take <=2 years to get an AS or Certificate, enabling the HS Grad to commence FT work at the age of 19 or 20. College degrees which will not lead to employment are worthless, IMHO, unless the student is using them to get into grad school (ex: poly sci). And borrowing for (very expensive) grad school will undoubtedly ensure the (perpetual) student will be a debt slave during all the years of their lives when they want buy vehicles, buy a home and a have a family. I don't feel there are or will be nearly enough jobs available for all the existing graduate degree-holders, much less those still in the pipeline. At least not jobs which would pay any more than if the same student had just earned an “employable” bachelor’s degree and then went to work.
Barring any special circumstances (ex: death of grown son or daughter who was a parent and/or presence of a handicapped grandchild), I feel there comes a time when a parent deserves to “retire” from “family duties” to just take care of themselves and, if applicable, their spouses. I don’t expect my kids to bounce back to either my home or their father’s home. They love being independent and are enjoying life to the full 🙂
ParticipantI realize a lot of these Mills Act properties have “sweat equity” in them and in some of them, the sweat equity was all “earned” by the current owner. I’m not saying “sweat equity” has no value to a current buyer. I am mindful of how much work it takes to hand-sand a staircase bannister and built-in cabinetry, for example.
However, most these owners were already paid for a good number of years for their “sweat equity” in the form of drastically reduced property tax bills. And I know one who even got a $25K “grant” from the City (for materials) that they installed themselves. These free materials combined with their “sweat equity” no doubt increased their property value hundreds of thousands of dollars over time. Many of the current owners bought their properties as “gut-rebuilds” for a song and made application to the Mills Act themselves. Therefore, I don’t feel these current owners need to recover every “labor of love” (in the form of an exorbitant sales price) that they did to their properties. If they are truly “preservationists,” they should endeavor to sell to someone who will greatly appreciate having and displaying their property in all its glory and has the will and means to maintain it properly for the life of their ownership. These buyers can be found from SOHO, the various local period-design groups and RE brokers specializing in historical properties.
Participant[quote=Jazzman]Mills Act sounds great, but renewal is not guaranteed I believe. Quite why a home suddenly no longer qualifies as historically significant is a mystery. One woukd assume with the passing if time, the significance is greater. I guess diminishing tax revenues are more significant.[/quote]
The only way I know of that a CA owner’s Mills Act tax treatment would be non-renewed is if he/she made alterations to the street view (or interior) of the property that was not in keeping with its historical significance and their respective city/county found out about it.
Owners with Mills Act tax treatment would be rock-stupid to attempt this, IMHO. The potential for many thousands of dollars loss (in additional annual taxes) is too great, ESP if they had to draw permit(s) to do (the disallowed) renovations.
I would LOVE to own one of these properties! Even if they don’t have garages, an owner is allowed to build one if the setbacks are present on the lot and its design is in keeping with the historical significance of the house. The problem (at least in Chula Vista) is that when one is listed, the owner asks $100 – $300K more than its recent sold comps would indicate it is worth (for a property under $1M) and at least $500K more for a $1.5 to $2M property. It’s as if the current owner is trying to extract future tax savings from the new owner in the form of a much higher sales price. My studies have shown that the majority of “Mills Act” listings seem to be withdrawn from the market unsold for this reason.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN]
So, although stereotypically speaking, higher API score is tied to socioeconomics. I’m sure there are many many exceptions to that stereotype. Another comparison that would challenge this stereo type is, why Point Loma HS and UCHS score below MMHS, yet, they’re both in much more expensive areas.[/quote]
certainly there’s going to be individual differences school to school. but I do think the Asian exception is a pretty set item.
as for Point Loma. in comparison to other areas with similar income level, homeownership rate is lower. which does allow more lower income families into the area, diluting the school API figure. Again, MM doesn’t fit because of the Asian exception.[/quote]
I have another take on Pt Loma HS and its “feeder schools.” I agree that there are a LOT of rentals in (the northern area of) Pt Loma, Navy housing in the southeastern area as well as rentals nearly all over OB. Although “anecdotal,” I believe a good portion of the parents (of school-age children) living in private SFR’s in that attendance area are also low income as they (and their child[ren]) are living with parents. The reason I believe this is because nearly every homeowner (one or both) I know over there (except for one family) is over the age of 55 and several are over the age of 65. A homeowner’s “educational level and income” really has nothing to do with their net worth or anything else over there because most of these seniors didn’t pay more than $45K for their Pt Loma properties and many own them free and clear. The truth is that their “youngish Gen X” and “Gen Y” children have moved back home with their children (the homeowner[s] grandchildren) and are using their parent’s address for their children’s school attendance purposes. Neither the parents or their parents (the homeowner[s]) are necessarily college-educated or employed FT (or at all), thus the parents “boomeranging” back to their parent’s house … with kids. And many young parents living on their own in other parts of town are STILL using their parent’s address in Pt Loma (or other similarly-situated “home-turf” community) for school attendance purposes.
These practices have been very commonplace for many years, especially among young parents who can’t possibly provide for their children in the manner that they themselves were provided for while growing up.
It’s always been psychologically hard for many “native San Diegan parents” to leave a community like Pt Loma after HS and then try to rent and raise their own families in areas they can actually afford such as College area, Normal Heights or Oak Park.
The same could be said for many students in the LJHS attendance area.
The long-established areas of SD are VERY diverse and not “homogenous” as to education and income levels of resident owners. In other words, there are many thousands of homeowners of properties which are worth $1M+ (in coastal CA counties) who don’t even have a HS Diploma or GED. The majority of them are surviving spouses and children of the deceased homeowner who actually qualified to purchase the property at one time.
As a parent today, I wouldn’t get too wrapped up in the “educational levels” of adults within the households of my child’s classmates. Some of them can’t even speak English well or at all, but that doesn’t mean they can’t afford to live where they’re living or aren’t raising their children/grandchildren to be good students.
ParticipantJust checking in … carry on 😀
-
AuthorPosts
