Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Bugs
ParticipantRaybyrnes,
Everything else being equal, if we’re comparing the 2025 positions of the 2005 Buyers with the 2005 Renters I can tell you which group will have the significant advantage.
The people who bought and held in 1989 didn’t break even until 1998 or so. The people who bought in 1996 are practically bulletproof, not to mention the advantages they enjoyed as a result of their lower expense basis from 1990-1996.
The bottom line here is that if we’re talking strictly about the money then the goal isn’t to congratulate ourselves for breaking even. It’s still true that you mostly make your money when you buy.
Cashman’s situation is a little different only because he pulled the plug too early in relation to his market. Los Angeles County wasn’t (and still isn’t) on the same clock as SD County. He wouldn’t be talking about losing the difference between the rents he’s paid vs. the combination of mortgage payments he would have paid + lost equity had he held on a little longer.
ParticipantRaybyrnes,
Everything else being equal, if we’re comparing the 2025 positions of the 2005 Buyers with the 2005 Renters I can tell you which group will have the significant advantage.
The people who bought and held in 1989 didn’t break even until 1998 or so. The people who bought in 1996 are practically bulletproof, not to mention the advantages they enjoyed as a result of their lower expense basis from 1990-1996.
The bottom line here is that if we’re talking strictly about the money then the goal isn’t to congratulate ourselves for breaking even. It’s still true that you mostly make your money when you buy.
Cashman’s situation is a little different only because he pulled the plug too early in relation to his market. Los Angeles County wasn’t (and still isn’t) on the same clock as SD County. He wouldn’t be talking about losing the difference between the rents he’s paid vs. the combination of mortgage payments he would have paid + lost equity had he held on a little longer.
ParticipantRaybyrnes,
Everything else being equal, if we’re comparing the 2025 positions of the 2005 Buyers with the 2005 Renters I can tell you which group will have the significant advantage.
The people who bought and held in 1989 didn’t break even until 1998 or so. The people who bought in 1996 are practically bulletproof, not to mention the advantages they enjoyed as a result of their lower expense basis from 1990-1996.
The bottom line here is that if we’re talking strictly about the money then the goal isn’t to congratulate ourselves for breaking even. It’s still true that you mostly make your money when you buy.
Cashman’s situation is a little different only because he pulled the plug too early in relation to his market. Los Angeles County wasn’t (and still isn’t) on the same clock as SD County. He wouldn’t be talking about losing the difference between the rents he’s paid vs. the combination of mortgage payments he would have paid + lost equity had he held on a little longer.
ParticipantRaybyrnes,
Everything else being equal, if we’re comparing the 2025 positions of the 2005 Buyers with the 2005 Renters I can tell you which group will have the significant advantage.
The people who bought and held in 1989 didn’t break even until 1998 or so. The people who bought in 1996 are practically bulletproof, not to mention the advantages they enjoyed as a result of their lower expense basis from 1990-1996.
The bottom line here is that if we’re talking strictly about the money then the goal isn’t to congratulate ourselves for breaking even. It’s still true that you mostly make your money when you buy.
Cashman’s situation is a little different only because he pulled the plug too early in relation to his market. Los Angeles County wasn’t (and still isn’t) on the same clock as SD County. He wouldn’t be talking about losing the difference between the rents he’s paid vs. the combination of mortgage payments he would have paid + lost equity had he held on a little longer.
January 30, 2008 at 8:46 AM in reply to: 60% off at temecula auction and conclusive evidence that I’m an idiot #145139ParticipantAs far as I’m concerned this story and the others like it that will surely follow over the next year will complete the burial (RIP) of the last of the permabulls’ trifecta of ridiculous claims:
Real estate never loses value and prices always go up.
We’re running out of houses.
Prices can’t drop 50% or more off their peak.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, the pain train hasn’t reached the end of the line yet. It’s barrelling south on I-15 and west on I-8. Before this is all over it will pull into CV and PB. We may not get to -50% in the primo areas, but overall the -50% average for the county looks very possible.
January 30, 2008 at 8:46 AM in reply to: 60% off at temecula auction and conclusive evidence that I’m an idiot #145379ParticipantAs far as I’m concerned this story and the others like it that will surely follow over the next year will complete the burial (RIP) of the last of the permabulls’ trifecta of ridiculous claims:
Real estate never loses value and prices always go up.
We’re running out of houses.
Prices can’t drop 50% or more off their peak.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, the pain train hasn’t reached the end of the line yet. It’s barrelling south on I-15 and west on I-8. Before this is all over it will pull into CV and PB. We may not get to -50% in the primo areas, but overall the -50% average for the county looks very possible.
January 30, 2008 at 8:46 AM in reply to: 60% off at temecula auction and conclusive evidence that I’m an idiot #145407ParticipantAs far as I’m concerned this story and the others like it that will surely follow over the next year will complete the burial (RIP) of the last of the permabulls’ trifecta of ridiculous claims:
Real estate never loses value and prices always go up.
We’re running out of houses.
Prices can’t drop 50% or more off their peak.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, the pain train hasn’t reached the end of the line yet. It’s barrelling south on I-15 and west on I-8. Before this is all over it will pull into CV and PB. We may not get to -50% in the primo areas, but overall the -50% average for the county looks very possible.
January 30, 2008 at 8:46 AM in reply to: 60% off at temecula auction and conclusive evidence that I’m an idiot #145409ParticipantAs far as I’m concerned this story and the others like it that will surely follow over the next year will complete the burial (RIP) of the last of the permabulls’ trifecta of ridiculous claims:
Real estate never loses value and prices always go up.
We’re running out of houses.
Prices can’t drop 50% or more off their peak.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, the pain train hasn’t reached the end of the line yet. It’s barrelling south on I-15 and west on I-8. Before this is all over it will pull into CV and PB. We may not get to -50% in the primo areas, but overall the -50% average for the county looks very possible.
January 30, 2008 at 8:46 AM in reply to: 60% off at temecula auction and conclusive evidence that I’m an idiot #145481ParticipantAs far as I’m concerned this story and the others like it that will surely follow over the next year will complete the burial (RIP) of the last of the permabulls’ trifecta of ridiculous claims:
Real estate never loses value and prices always go up.
We’re running out of houses.
Prices can’t drop 50% or more off their peak.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, the pain train hasn’t reached the end of the line yet. It’s barrelling south on I-15 and west on I-8. Before this is all over it will pull into CV and PB. We may not get to -50% in the primo areas, but overall the -50% average for the county looks very possible.
ParticipantAlex,
Nobody said that renting is always better than buying; it’s just better when the market is as distorted as it has been for the last few years. Who knows? Maybe it’ll never get this distorted again and after this cycle is over it will always be better to own than to rent. But that’s not the case now.
Like Asianautica said, in 2000 it definitely would have been better to be a buyer than a renter; especially if you had the discipline to get out at the peak and pocket the cash.
As for rent, you didn’t get nothing out of it. You paid for and received shelter, probably in a much nicer place than you could ever have afforded to buy. You also got to pocket the difference between your rent and the mortgage. You just didn’t get the right to profit (or lose) from the changes in value.
ParticipantAlex,
Nobody said that renting is always better than buying; it’s just better when the market is as distorted as it has been for the last few years. Who knows? Maybe it’ll never get this distorted again and after this cycle is over it will always be better to own than to rent. But that’s not the case now.
Like Asianautica said, in 2000 it definitely would have been better to be a buyer than a renter; especially if you had the discipline to get out at the peak and pocket the cash.
As for rent, you didn’t get nothing out of it. You paid for and received shelter, probably in a much nicer place than you could ever have afforded to buy. You also got to pocket the difference between your rent and the mortgage. You just didn’t get the right to profit (or lose) from the changes in value.
ParticipantAlex,
Nobody said that renting is always better than buying; it’s just better when the market is as distorted as it has been for the last few years. Who knows? Maybe it’ll never get this distorted again and after this cycle is over it will always be better to own than to rent. But that’s not the case now.
Like Asianautica said, in 2000 it definitely would have been better to be a buyer than a renter; especially if you had the discipline to get out at the peak and pocket the cash.
As for rent, you didn’t get nothing out of it. You paid for and received shelter, probably in a much nicer place than you could ever have afforded to buy. You also got to pocket the difference between your rent and the mortgage. You just didn’t get the right to profit (or lose) from the changes in value.
ParticipantAlex,
Nobody said that renting is always better than buying; it’s just better when the market is as distorted as it has been for the last few years. Who knows? Maybe it’ll never get this distorted again and after this cycle is over it will always be better to own than to rent. But that’s not the case now.
Like Asianautica said, in 2000 it definitely would have been better to be a buyer than a renter; especially if you had the discipline to get out at the peak and pocket the cash.
As for rent, you didn’t get nothing out of it. You paid for and received shelter, probably in a much nicer place than you could ever have afforded to buy. You also got to pocket the difference between your rent and the mortgage. You just didn’t get the right to profit (or lose) from the changes in value.
ParticipantAlex,
Nobody said that renting is always better than buying; it’s just better when the market is as distorted as it has been for the last few years. Who knows? Maybe it’ll never get this distorted again and after this cycle is over it will always be better to own than to rent. But that’s not the case now.
Like Asianautica said, in 2000 it definitely would have been better to be a buyer than a renter; especially if you had the discipline to get out at the peak and pocket the cash.
As for rent, you didn’t get nothing out of it. You paid for and received shelter, probably in a much nicer place than you could ever have afforded to buy. You also got to pocket the difference between your rent and the mortgage. You just didn’t get the right to profit (or lose) from the changes in value.
-
AuthorPosts
