Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CoronitaParticipantI still think the winner of the most creative real estate deal attempted was the guy that tried to rent one of my homes for the only purpose of turning it into an AirBNB rental without telling me, putting all the liability and costs for upkeep on me.
Jackass. Don’t try this shit with me.
If it sounds to complicated for something that should be simple, walk far far away.
CoronitaParticipantPass. Extremely crappy deal for the “investor”
$275k not generating any cash flow, no chance or raising rents until the person dies. God knows when she dies.
Top much risk for the “investor” to take on.
Investor would probably be better off putting $275k as a down payment and take a loan out for $75k loan on 3-3.5% 30 year.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to get involved with something so complicated when loan rates are solow and loans are so cheap right now?
The old lady, if she wants to live in UTC, can rent herself.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=no_such_reality]You can fix that W2 issue.
Every year you wage slave, is a year with your children you don’t get back.[/quote]
My wage slave is pretty relaxed at my new master.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=harvey]Lol, the kitchen sink analysis.[/quote]
I like to consider my options, plus I want to see if I can beat BG to see who can come up with the longest post on this thread. It’s my new goal on Piggington. Did I succeed? Its kind of hard for me to type though on a tiny smartphone where I am.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=harvey]The “semantic” debate comes down to this: loans always have a cost. There are two components to the cost:
– The interest
– The transaction feesThe “no cost loans” that lenders are pitching simply move the cost of the transaction fees to the the interest rate. The lender will always charge a higher rate to compensate for their lost transaction costs. “No cost loans” do not eliminate costs, they simply move them around.
There are situations when that may be advantageous to make that trade. A “no cost loan” is an alternative and can be completely legitimate, despite its misleading name. However for anyone who plans to keep a property for many years, trading upfront costs for a higher rate is probably not going to see as much net benefit from a “no cost” refi as they would with a lower rate, “cost” refi.
In many situations where a “no cost” loan is good, a “cost” loan may be better.[/quote]
Not really. As you have guessed I use to be a serial refinanced roughly every 2-3 years when rates fell more that 0.25%.
It really depends on the interest environment and your situation. When your at the start of 30 year loan almost all of your payments goes into interest so if rates on the new loan were significantly less, refinancing with a no cost loan you still came out ahead with no period to recover the loan. And in some cases, those low cost loans ended up rebating you several thousands of dollars. If you paid points or closing costs to lower your rate, chances are you got screwed because rates for those no cost loans ended up falling below that rate you paid points and closing costs on.So, like I said it really depends ones personal situation whether a no cost loan or a loan with points/closing costs make sense.
In an environment when rates are rising or high, it might make sense to buy down your loan rates. In an environment when rates are low and flat or falling it probably makes more sense to have a no cost loan, since if rates fall even lower you can refi again and buying down a low rate loan probably makes less sense…and if rates don’t fall again, you still got a better loan than before.
Also, if you plan on selling your house way before the loan term is up or end up paying it off early, paying points/closing costs is just wasting money.
Also, in some scenarios, no cost loans simply does not exist. My only loan left is a 30year for one condo. I had to pay closing costs because the loan balance and nature or the loan did not allow for a no cost option, and I shopped around. Then again, that loan I won’t be refinancing because there is a no cost option and since its still way lower than the 8% ROI I get from the rent income. Which is one of the reasons why u haven’t paid it off. It cash flows even with 30year.
Plus to pay off that mortgage, I would need to sell stock. That means I would have to take a capital gains tax hit on my stock. And then I pay off my rental… Which means my net rental income is more…which means I would need to pay even more taxes on my net income from the rental…and the two combined would push me into an even higher tax bracket along with my W2 paycheck that already puts me into bad tax bracket….Uh no thank you. I’ll take anything that drives my rental investment costs up now to lower my rental income now and wait until my W2 is $0 before I want to realize more investment income elsewhere.
Its like 401k, deferring income until later when your paycheck income is less. Only its better than a 401k because there are a lot more variables to play with. The more variables and complicated it is, the better it is for you.
CoronitaParticipantYeah, I don’t quite get what the issue is. If you want to refinance, you can either get a loan with no out of pocket payments with rate X or if you want to pay closing costs and points, you can get rate Y where Y is less than X.
There’s nothing deceptive about this.
CoronitaParticipantMan, people really like to argue of semantics on this blog. Perhpas the better way to call the “no cost loans” is “no out of pocket cost loans”.
And yes, there are benefits to getting one. If your loan rate is .25% or higher than a new “no out of pocket cost loan”, refinancing will save a you a lot over the course of the 30 year loan in interest if you are early on in the loan. In many cases, refinancing to a 30 year also includes a cash back rebate, so in that case there almost isn’t a break even point. You break even almost immediately.
The math can be confusing for most people whixh is why i suspect some will make blanket statements about it one way or the other. If you want the spreadsheets to see this, I can dig up my old Google doc sheets.
Or just ask a loan person to grind through it with you. Real numbers don’t lie. And it depends on your particular situation, particularly how far along are you with your existing loan, and if that makes a difference, how loan you pthink you are going to stay where you are.
But it’s been awhile for me. I paid off my 15year loan on my primary in December 2015 so I don’t have a loan…well not until I buy another place.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=milkspot]I have the same question so I can’t help here.
I’ve been taking advantage of the Ebay’s Ebucks for a few years. I’ve seen plenty of chances to buy gold coins near/below spot but I have not seen the same with platinum.
The lowest cost for platinum I know is the occasional Platypus through Bay Precious Metals’ Ebay store front. It runs about $50 – $60 over spot.[/quote]
I got your tip about eBay bucks and its worked out well for me on gold. I’ve been able to get gold coins some as low as 50-60 below gold spot when eBay has the special 8% or $100 bonus bucks. With platinum I haven’t seen anything lower than 50 above spot, even with eBay the bonus bucks.
CoronitaParticipantSo last week, I’ve made the decision to start purchasing platinum too. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find platinum deals that were at spot prices or below…
So if any of you have any suggestions, I’m all ears.
I’ve been reading that throughout the gold and platinum’s history, there has only been two periods of time when the price of platinum is less than gold, particularly since platinum os much rarer than gold (gold isn’t actually that rare).
So…Either gold is currently overspeculated or platinum prices just haven’t caught up yet…or both…
CoronitaParticipantThe next downturn, buy a house. So you don’t need to deal with this again.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=deadzone]Just an FYI on how inept my property manager (and owner) are, of the current maintenance “to do” list, the recently completed tile work and the as yet to be completed fix to one of drywall leaks were originally reported about 4 years ago. The other open issue, which restarted the discussion of the old issues, was ceiling damage caused from the heavy rains this January.
So I fully understand the concept of a PITA tenant, but no reasonable landlord could categorize my “complaints” as a PITA tenant. In fact the only issues I’ve ever complained about are water damage in the house and broken appliances.[/quote]
FWIW:
I thought that might be the case. In that case, the PM is incompetent and your landlord is a moron for not taking care of water leaks imho (assuming they know there is a leak).
Water leak leading to mold is not a good thing, obviously. Perhaps you might get a small mold test kit and if it shows up, positive, it’s an entirely different ball game.. It sucks that things have to get to this extreme before a landlord/PM actually takes things more seriously.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=PCinSD][quote=flu][quote=PCinSD][quote=HLS][quote=PCinSD]No idea what part of town you’re in. But if you rent in the city of San Diego your landlord can’t simply terminate your lease. They must have very specific reasons like failing to pay rent, breaching terms of agreement, doing something illegal, etc.[/quote]
???
A landlord can’t terminate a lease outside the city either, it’s not limited to ‘the city of San Diego’In this case the OP doesn’t have a lease.
A month to month agreement can be terminated with 60 days notice without any reason.Is there something special going on in San Diego ?[/quote]
Yes. San Diego Municipal Code.
It’s unlikely that a landlord will simply terminate a lease for the sake of terminating a lease. BUT there is nothing stopping the landlord for want to charge more for the rental, especially in this market. If a tenant is on a month to month lease or requests to renew a lease, there’s nothing saying the landlord cannot increase the rent price (bringing it up to market price or more if he/she/they wanted to).
The rules are 30 days notice for rent increases 10% or less and 60 days notice for rent increases more than 10%.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/lt-2.shtml
This is where it becomes a balancing act as a tenant. If your landlord is charging a below market rent price, there’s probably a reason for that: he/she/they doesn’t want to be hassled for every little thing that goes wrong, or everything that makes your property slightly less than say a higher end rental. While a smart landlord would want to know about things that are pretty serious (IE water leaks, etc), they probably don’t want a habitual complainer about every little thing that goes wrong, and that’s probably why there’s a PM in the middle even if that PM is overreacting to everything. (Again, I’m not suggesting the OP was a PITA…)
But there’s probably some correlation to what a landlord’s perceived PITA factor of an existing tenant is to what he/she/they wants to do with the next term’s rent price.This happened to one of coworkers just a few weeks ago. The tenant made a fuss to him about an old dishwasher that was functionally fine, but was just old and looked worn out and was louder than the ones these days. The person pays $300/month less than average rent prices and was on a month to month lease. And he kept complaining about the dishwasher being too loud, and sending email, leaving messages on the phone. My coworker finally got fed up with it and replaced the dishwasher….And then gave him 30 days notice of a $150/month rent price increase, since the tenant was month to month.
So I guess, in a tight rental market, pick your battles wisely. If the tables were reversed, and we had a huge supply of rentals, the opposite would be the case in which a lot of tenants would end up being a pain in the ass and be demanding every concession as well, probably. It’s just how the markets work.[/quote]
I’m aware of a landlords ability to increase rent. I was responding to HLS’s question about a specific law in San Diego, which he was unaware of.[/quote]
Regardless, the OP is on month-month and isn’t on a lease. He probably opted out of renewing it, so it doesn’t seem like the landlord needs to extend a new lease anyway…
98.0730e maybe?
CoronitaParticipant[quote=PCinSD][quote=HLS][quote=PCinSD]No idea what part of town you’re in. But if you rent in the city of San Diego your landlord can’t simply terminate your lease. They must have very specific reasons like failing to pay rent, breaching terms of agreement, doing something illegal, etc.[/quote]
???
A landlord can’t terminate a lease outside the city either, it’s not limited to ‘the city of San Diego’In this case the OP doesn’t have a lease.
A month to month agreement can be terminated with 60 days notice without any reason.Is there something special going on in San Diego ?[/quote]
Yes. San Diego Municipal Code.
It’s unlikely that a landlord will simply terminate a lease for the sake of terminating a lease. BUT there is nothing stopping the landlord for want to charge more for the rental when the lease is up for renewal, especially in this market. And if the tenant opted out of renewing a lease, it reverts to month-month anyway. And then the landlord just needs to give sufficient time to raise rent prices:).
The rules are 30 days notice for rent increases 10% or less and 60 days notice for rent increases more than 10%.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/lt-2.shtml
This is where it becomes a balancing act as a tenant. If your landlord is charging a below market rent price, there’s probably a reason for that: he/she/they doesn’t want to be hassled for every little thing that goes wrong, or everything that makes your property slightly less than say a higher end rental. While a smart landlord would want to know about things that are pretty serious (IE water leaks, etc), they probably don’t want a habitual complainer about every little thing that goes wrong, and that’s probably why there’s a PM in the middle even if that PM is overreacting to everything. (Again, I’m not suggesting the OP was a PITA…)
But there’s probably some correlation to what a landlord’s perceived PITA factor of an existing tenant is to what he/she/they wants to do with the next term’s rent price.This happened to one of coworkers just a few weeks ago. The tenant made a fuss to him about an old dishwasher that was functionally fine, but was just old and looked worn out and was louder than the ones these days. The person pays $300/month less than average rent prices and was on a month to month lease. And he kept complaining about the dishwasher being too loud, and sending email, leaving messages on the phone. My coworker finally got fed up with it and replaced the dishwasher….And then gave him 30 days notice of a $150/month rent price increase, since the tenant was month to month.
So I guess, in a tight rental market, pick your battles wisely.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=Hatfield]
As for “just move out,” why play that card now? Why not politely find out if the landlord is even aware there’s a problem? I find that 95% of the time, treating people respectfully will get you going in the right direction. And if speaking with the landlord doesn’t do any good, yeah, ok, maybe then looking for a new place makes sense, but why run off in a huff before the reasonable options are exhausted?[/quote]
True, assuming the landlord wants to respond and can be found. For some landlords, they really don’t care the plight of the tenant, unless you explain it in terms of costs to them, liability to them, and how it might affect their property.
Not all landlords are like this, but if you happen to run into one that is like this, that’s probably the only way they will understand. And then, you want to weigh how much of a hassle you really want to put up with. And one can put it in these terms without being a jackass about it too, they probably are more likely to address the issue (not saying the OP was… But some tenants end up being a jackass when they report issues too, so it goes both ways).
Not every landlord thinks with a straight head, like you Hatfield. Seriously. You got some really illogical people out there who are itching to jack up rents by $200-300/month, and end up leaving 2-3 months of vacancy because of it. I had tenant prospects contacting me about a rental, because that’s what their landlords did.
-
AuthorPosts
