[eavesdropper]

[quote=poorgradstudent] …….That said, I don’t really care, because Cain is a terrible Presidential candidate anyways. 9-9-9 is a huge tax increase and wealth redistribution plan, stealing from the poor and giving to corporations. Cain has no coherent policy on social issues; he had a rational moderate stance on abortion that he flipped on when he realized it wouldn’t fly with Republican primary voters.[/quote]

I, likewise, give the finger to the whole sexual harassment thing, or at least to the incredible overreaction of the press. What is truly disturbing is that this same press has done nothing toward reporting on and documenting Mr. Cain’s absolute unsuitability for this office in both intellect and experience. Watching him in debates and in interviews is like watching Sarah Palin……except Sarah is smarter.

He’s pulled stuff from his ass so often that I’d swear he’s had a larynx surgically transplanted there. Someone asks what he plans to do about healthcare, and he comes out with this long stream of absolute BS made up of terms that he thinks are appropriate. He refers to his “solutions” that are, in reality, “ideas” that are totally without form or substance. If he comes up with a “plan”, it is so extremely broad-based as to be laughable.

Yet, the press, for the most part, has never questioned these very serious shortcomings, either before or following his rise in the polls. I find it indescribably depressing that we have a national political press corps that cannot identify such eloquently and effectively presented characteristics of ineptitude such as those consistently demonstrated by Mr. Cain. Perhaps it is because the savvy and fearless political reporters of yesterday are today’s paid “guest pundits” on completely-one-sided media outlets, and the current political press corps is made up of youthful and inexperienced bloggers who interpret “keen and insightful political analysis” as agreeing or disagreeing with someone else’s paid blog entry.

However, in Mr. Cain’s defense, not much more credit can be afforded the other Republican candidates. Of the eight, only Paul, Huntsman, and Gingrich are appreciably more intelligent, and at the minimum level required of a President; however Paul and Gingrich have problems that outweigh that superiority. Gary Johnson and Buddy Roehmer are both very bright, and have cogent, detailed plans for addressing the issues, but neither has been able to procure a seat at the table. I look at those who have received the vast majority of media attention, and it’s a surreal experience in the absurd – like watching a DC-based Monty Python episode.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=urbanrealtor]If he settled a harassment complaint (or 2) for about 100k and did not actually get some ass in the process, then I am calling him out as a straight up punk…..[/quote]

This is true. I’m afraid that such a scenario does not speak well of his effectiveness as a innovative businessman or tough negotiator.

It brings to mind the picture of the ineffective career politician so frequently derided by Mr. Cain.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=sdrealtor]eaves
Thats the majority of the financial planning industry as a whole. Most are just selling what they are told. Caveat emptor is and always will be the rule.[/quote]

sdr, it’s not that he’s an unqualified financial planner. I object to the following:

1. That he really seems to make no connection between how he presented himself to others (and continues to do so), and his financial management actions in his private life; he appears to be incapable of seeing the existence and the width of the discrepancy.

2. His pompous attitude that he not only came up with a brilliant solution to his troubles, but that the world needs to hear all about it. Voila! He gives the less fortunate an invaluable gift in the form of a book.

But I won’t blame him entirely. After all, he had to have someone give him a platform.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte]I read this article at lunch today. What struck me is a man who made so many – and there were many – financial mistakes and could not do simple math to project expenses vs income going forward could call themselves a financial planner.

It is astounding, really.[/quote]

Svelte, I could not come up with a more appropriate term than your choice of “astounding”. Described my experience reading this article to a T. I don’t know if Utah requires residents representing themselves as financial planners to be licensed, but, if they do, I hope someone goes after this guy.

I have met many financial “professionals” who were anything but. However, this guy seems to make no genuine connection between his actions and the minimum level of competence that should be expected of a paid financial advisor. He refers to it, almost abstractly, at times, kind of like he suddenly remembers, “Oh, yeah, that’s supposed to be the selling strategy for my book”. But, other than that, it’s just a “Wait…it gets even better!”-type of recitation, citing one act of incompetence after another, after yet another. I admit to being dazzled…..but not in a good way.

Yes, “astounded” sums it up nicely.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think its a very good article. He’s not looking for sympathy, he’s just telling his story. It shows less sophisticated distressed homeowners that they are not alone. That people of all education and income levels fell prey to the same thing. Its a story about risk taking and herd mentalities which are endemic in our society. Its not about fingerpointing anymore. Its about cleaning up the mess and we still have much work ahead of us.[/quote]

I agree with you: He’s not looking for sympathy. He’s actually looking to justify his actions. And he’s looking to sell his book. I’ll buy a copy if he gives ALL of the gross profits to people who have lost their retirement funds due to bad advice from financial “experts” and to homeowners who have lost their rightfully owned properties due to robosigning “errors”.

The entire article was filled with excuses. And incredibly lousy excuses that, in reality, don’t qualify as excuses at all. It is a tale of incompetence, of greed, of immaturity, and of stupidity. He spent 6 years living on nothing more than wishful thinking. But the article talks about “everybody doing it”, and real estate agents who took them to more expensive neighborhoods, and acquaintances who were buying bigger houses and boats and other toys. Even the statement, “We had Chevys and Volkwagens” was self-serving: after all, many of the models made by Chevy and Volkswagen are $40,000 and up, and I’d place money on a bet that the Chevy was a fully-loaded luxury model $50,000+ Tahoe.

But, hey! Lots of people decided that they, too, were in a position to star on “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” during that time, courtesy of the generous lending policies of their friendly bankers and mortgage companies. It’s not that I’m implying that the Richards should be condemned for what they did. What makes me sick is that this guy really hasn’t accepted that he’s done anything wrong, and that, in reality, he *did* have other choices. He offers bullshit excuses for everything they did.

He even tries to make it sound like law schools are now endorsing his actions as the only truly responsible way to handle your legally-contracted financial responsibilities. In truth, his source of inspiration for this delusion is an academic paper written by a University of Arizona Law School associate professor who was examining the motivations for and effects of strategic default. I know: I read that paper, and others by the same professor.

I’m sorry. You can’t purport to be selling a book that you hope will help people learn from your mistakes when you don’t really believe that you made any mistakes. Aside from that, exactly how will reading his miserable little story help anyone? I haven’t heard any advertisements from banks or mortgage companies trying to lure homeowners into debt-consolidation (or toy-buying) refinancing since 2008. Handy tip: Homeowners who are losing their homes (for WHATEVER reason) don’t want to hear all about your underwater mortgage/short sale/foreclosure. Hearing that someone else may have made stupid mistakes won’t make them feel better about their own, and more sad stories will likely just increase their desire to end it all.

So instead of making more money off susceptible, trusting people, Mr. Russell should stick his book where it will do everyone else the most good: down his throat so he won’t be able to peddle his valuable financial advice and bullshit stories to people who are actually trying to survive and move on.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]Here’s another link as to the Richards’ details:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/09/your-money/20111109_CARL.html?ref=business

They appear to be young and all their children are under the age of 12. The wife claims they had a lot of good memories in the house. A b-day party photo is shown (to elicit sympathy?)

The link addresses the fact that they sold $200K short, but does NOT address what they did with the money. The Richards are “philosophical” in the end and state that they don’t blame the “mean banks.”

Why should they? They got $200K of “free money” and the debt “pardoned.”

I feel if he makes $$ off his book explaining how “dumb” they were, he should have had to use it to pay off their “short,” (or in the least, their income taxes stemming from the short).

Alas, our lofty GOV now has it set up where they won’t have to.

This is fundamentally where I have a problem with short sales.[/quote]

Actually what I love about this useless dickless brainless tool is his little swipe at the Occupy Wall Street protesters and sympathizers (heard at the end of the interactive): “We all make mistakes, and we can sit around and whine and complain about the big, bad, mean banks that got us here, or we can sit down and make a plan to get us out of these mistakes and move on to a new life”. Not that I believe in blaming the “big, bad banks” – they were highly complicit in what happened, but not entirely responsible – but this guy has the temerity to claim that he had a plan??! Shit! He didn’t even have a clue. He panicked, dumped his house, and moved his family of six into his parents’ basement. The fact that his house got bought up at the last minute, albeit at far less than he had borrowed on it, was simply another stroke of luck for this guy.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu]I’ve said this many times and I’ll say it again..

Most of these “financial advisors” are really not qualified to have that title…[/quote]

Competely agree, flu. Not sure if this field is even “regulated”…[/quote]

There are far too many individuals that advertise themselves as “financial planners” or “advisors” who aren’t, in any way, remotely qualified to be identifying themselves as such.

I’ve read many variations on this story in the last few years (in fact, I first came to Piggs as a result of the infamous Steve & Lisa Daniels Murietta-luxury-home-with-pizza-oven debacle a few years back). But this is the first time that reading such a story caused me to become physically ill.

Yeah, this guy made mistakes. Lots of people did. It’s not a crime. However, during this entire period, he represented himself as a financial expert, and accepted money for his services as such, and that would appear to be fraud. Definitely criminal.

But there were lots of people doing that, too. And I have to admit that I subscribe to the “caveat emptor” point of view. But what really chaps my hide is that this useless piece of shit is not only trying to justify his actions – he doesn’t truly accept responsibility for any of part of his experience – but he’s feeling real good about the idea of doing it to the tune of $24.95 per hardcover tearstained copy. What a dick!!

He doesn’t appear to grasp the gravity of the situation. Here he was, taking money from people in exchange for “expert” advice on where to invest their hardearned money while he, himself, didn’t perform the tiniest amount of due diligence or planning when buying a home in – of all places – Las Vegas. Then he screwed up over and over and over again. He openly admits that their method of “financial planning” was to look around and see that “everybody else was doing it”, making it reasonable to infer that it was financially stable to follow “everybody else’s” lead.

I have only one question for the “financial planner”: how many of his clients did he put into Madoff?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SellingMyHome]So, more questions about rent vs buy.

See the calculator on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/real-estate/tools-calculators/rent-or-buy-home/process.html#results

What should I put for:

Rent: Annual rate increases (%)

Home:
Annual appreciation rate (%)

Other:
Before tax return on savings (%)
Assumed annual inflation rate (%)

****

Big differences on outcome if I change the rent increase from 1% to 3%.

What are the realistic expectations for the above four rates? Is that a whole topic for another post?

I guess I could model the alternative scenarios and see which ones I like, then use that. Just kidding, that is what happens in government projections….[/quote]

What do you mean, “just kidding”? That’s exactly what you should be doing: modeling a variety of scenarios. Given the fact that (1) you’ve been through a default, strategic or otherwise, and (2) you have two young children, you should be doing your damndest to come up with a worst-case scenario now so that you’re not caught unaware in the future when/if it comes to pass. Unfortunately, if you are entirely comfortable with “strategic default” as a financial management tool, it is not among your capabilities to create a worst-case scenario.

This time around, you need to take “strategic default” out of the solutions set for the house-buying equation. Would you and your wife be as enthused about buying again if your experience had been one of fear and helplessness and public humiliation? And I’m not speaking simply of your emotions or your wife’s, but that of your children. If you asked any of the millions of young parents out there, who have been directly affected by foreclosure, to name the single-worst aspect of the experience, 10 to 1 they’ll talk about their kids. The shame of not being able to keep a roof over their heads, looking at their faces when you can’t answer the question, “Where will we live?” The pain of telling them that they’d have to leave almost all their belongings behind, or that their dog or cat has to go to the pound. How impotent they felt when their own fear left them incapable of easing the fears of their kids. The look in their child’s eyes when they were standing in a front yard filled with their belongings, watching the sheriff change the locks on the door.

Believe me, I’m glad that you and your family didn’t have to go through this experience. But make sure that you include that scenario in any that you model, and be sure to give it priority in your decision-making process, because you’re at significantly increased risk for it to become a real-life situation.

If a difference in rent increase from 1% to 3% gives you pause, I’m strongly advising you to step away from the table. In fact, if your landlord limits rent increases to these amounts, I’d try to sign a 20-year lease with him. IAs for what numbers to plug in the other areas, here’s what I suggest: Figure out what you’re able to comfortably pay for housing on a monthly basis, and add in all your other expenses, plus a $500.00 per month savings contribution (aside from retirement or kids’ college). Figure out first if you can cover all of that comfortably. If you can’t, it’s not time to buy (duh!). However, I’m assuming that you can based on what you’re telling us.

Now start plugging numbers into those categories you mention. As soon as you start cutting into the $500 savings contribution, you’ve reached your limit. $500 in your situation is a very small amount of savings, and well below what you should be contributing regularly based on history. If you cannot even manage that on a regular basis, you need to back away from buying, or reduce your price range.

I noticed that one of the categories on the worksheet is “House appreciation rate”. You, of course, realize that it is entirely possible that whatever home you buy will not increase in value at all, or it could drop quite a bit further in value. And in a case like that, I can guarantee that, when value start to rise again, they will do so at a much slower rate than many people anticipate. Again, the early 2000s were a fluke, and the dramatic upswings in that market are the reason for the dropping values now, and for rising inflation and other fun stuff. I’ll ask a question again that was posed by someone else earlier: If you knew the price of the house would drop by 20% in the first several years of ownership, would you still buy?

I sense that you feel like you and your wife earn very good salaries and that you have layoff-proof jobs. Yes, your income is good, but the costs associated with ownership of a $400,000 to $500,000 house will burn a lot of that quite easily. And here’s something you need to know and accept fully: no one’s job is 100% safe these days. Government employees are not safe from layoffs. At some point, public pressure will cause weak-spined politicians to do the previously-unthinkable: cut funding for government jobs. As for your wife, lot of people are rushing into nursing and healthcare because they think it’s recession-proof. The truth is that those in the healthcare field will be handling more responsibilities and working even longer hours at reduced pay in short-staffed situations. Somebody has to pay for all that health care in a recession. With rapidly rising unemployment, there are far fewer consumers for that healthcare because of loss of job-related health benefits. I sincerely hope that neither of you ever is faced with unemployment, but you cannot assume that it CAN’T happen. The unemployment rolls are filled with people who thought the same thing.

I have to comment that you’ve been a really good correspondent through this whole thing. Despite the potential for inflammatory reactions, you asked your question, and you’ve taken what everyone has had to dish out in response. You’ve remained polite and responsive throughout, and I’m quite impressed. I may not agree with all your opinions and actions, but I believe in giving credit where it’s due. And your mama raised you right!!

Best of luck in whatever course you choose.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=SellingMyHome]
It would be helpful to post a breakdown of your monthly expected expenses….Because people here could probably chime in on if you’re missing something or underestimating something….

1. Mortgage monthly =
2. Property tax/12 =
3. Insurance, Water,Electric, Garbage,Nature Gas monthly =
4. Telephone service monthly=
6. Internet service monthly=
7. Cell phone service monthly=
8. Cable TV service monthly=
9. Car payments monthly=
10 Auto insurance monthly=
11.Medical Insurance premiums/deductibles (annual)/12 =
12.Childcare expenses monthly=
13.Child doodad/spendings monthly=
14.Entertainment expenses monthly=

Add err up…![/quote]

You forgot food.

Or is the rumor true? The one that’s been circulating for years here on the east coast: that, because of exponentially rising housing costs, Californians had to give up eating. Something to do with food being an unaffordable luxury, completely incompatible with home ownership.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]I was just talking to some friends and relatives about that the other day.

I don’t spend much on purchases anymore because I have everything that I need.

If you want to eat cheap, eggs, kidneys and liver are well worth the money.[/quote]
Kidneys and Livers were probably healthier back in the good old days. But I’m not sure I want liver or kidneys from animals grown at factory farms. These are filtering organs – so all toxins get deposited there.[/quote]

That’s why I get all my livers and kidneys from roadkill.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]Do animals ever get liver transplants?[/quote]

Stupid question. Of course they do. What do you think is responsible for out-of-control healthcare costs?

And I’m not even counting all the frivolous malpractice litigation.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1]….My dad was saying that the hippies of before were unconventional. They wanted to travel the world and do good.

Today, beginning at young age people want to consume branded products. So how can you escape corporatism when as a consumer you yearn for and embrace the products of the corporations?[/quote]

Hey, brian, I understand where your dad’s coming from on this, but it’s my view that the vast majority of hippies were, in reality, hangers-on along for the ride. There really weren’t that many, relative to the population at large, and many of the younger ones simply wanted to party, have lots of sex, and take free drugs (I want it firmly established that I am not, in any way, knocking those goals), while feeling justified in being pissed at the parents who were paying for all of it. These were the ones who, by 1975, were signing up for singles disco dancing lessons so that they could finally get married, buy a big oversized house in the suburbs, and have a reason to post one of those obnoxious “Baby On Board” signs on the back windows of their Volvo station wagons.

Where do you think that today’s young people developed a desire to consume branded products? Trust me on this: I’m old enough to have lived through it.

I do believe that that your dad’s description is accurate, but for a relatively small number of individuals. And I believe that most of them haven’t changed that much: still into the common good, and always open to new and interesting experiences. It’s too bad that this is considered “unconventional” in our society, almost as though such behavior and sentiments are to be feared, but it is what it is.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SellingMyHome] We bought in 2003 hoping to own it for about 10 years , and then move up. I was pretty bitter that by the time we had kids and wanted a bigger house in a good school district, we couldn’t sell our house….[/quote]

SMH, I’m not judging you, honestly. I’m not walking in your shoes, and I don’t know what kind of load you’re carrying. But based on what you’ve written here, I’m not sure that home ownership is ever going to bring the rewards you anticipate.

You sound like you’re in your 20s or 30s. If so, you need to know that what happened to real estate in the aughts was a fluke. In fact, the incredibly rapid increase in RE values throughout the US over a several-year period should have been an unmistakeable warning sign that something was amiss, and that the rise would be matched by a similarly spectacular fall at some point.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting your house to maintain its value. But if you purchase your primary shelter with the idea that it should go up 10 or 20 percent a year, you’re going to be disappointed. However, if you do your research, choose your neighborhood carefully, bargain aggressively, avoid buying more house than you can afford, and work hard at keeping your house well-maintained and cared-for, you shouldn’t lose money on it over a 15-year period. But it’s not going to do double-duty as an ATM, or as a source of payment for future additions and upgrades. Nor do you want it to, since this is the kind of credit policy that contributed to the implosion.

[quote=SellingMyHome] …..So, we dumped it onto a bank that was the cause of the mess this country is in now. [/quote]

I’m no fan of the megabanks, but to believe that they are solely responsible for current conditions is naive, self-serving, and dangerous. I am convinced that they carry a very large chunk of responsibility, but they had plenty of cooperation from investment firms desperate for more product they could sell equally-desperate investors, politicians who pushed the “homeowner” fantasy while stuffing their pockets with campaign contributions, to the public-at-large who expected the lenders to parent them, and tell them what they couldn’t afford.

It is true that, after the fact, the average guy on the street is getting hit a lot harder by the circumstances of this debacle. But make no mistake: by strategically defaulting on your home, you are adding to his burden and pain. You hold an extremely narrow-minded opinion of the cause of the financial crisis, and, in keeping with that, you’ve convinced yourself that you are “sticking it to the bankers” and that they are the only ones affected. In reality, they are simply passing the effects of their risk-taking onto their poor and middle-class customers.

There are many reasons why homeowners are defaulting, but, no matter what the reason, the effects are the same: continuing reductions in housing values in neighborhoods everywhere, and resulting instability in the RE markets. Strategic defaulting exacerbates this, which is why I’m strongly advising you to look at whether your reasons for buying, and your expectations from home ownership are appropriate and realistic. If you’re looking at this purchase as a way to invest your income, I urge you to back away. I don’t know what happened the first time, but you’ve made it clear that no one is pressuring you to sign on to another mortgage (aka, an obligation to pay money back to an individual/entity who lent it to you), and that your family has a roof over their heads.

[quote=SellingMyHome] Was I really that dumb when I bought my first house in 2003? I didn’t get an exotic loan, had, still have, good income, etc. How many of you knew the market was going to crash in 5 years? Really? Honestly? Maybe a few of you.

I am now a lot more informed about the market , and won’t forget the bubble. My kids will probably not remember, and their generation will make the same mistakes. To answer your question, from what I’ve seen and read, it looks like the market is about at the bottom, plus or minus 5%.[/quote]

Of course you weren’t “dumb” when you bought the house in 2003. But you did willingly sign on to an obligation to pay a very large debt, and you haven’t mentioned anything that indicates that fraudulent activity on the part of the lender. Again, there may have been mitigating circumstances surrounding your decision that you’ve chosen not to reveal here. But since you are choosing to pursue home ownership again, in what can in no way be described as a stable or visibly recovering market, you need to take that obligation very seriously.

You say that your kids won’t remember, and that they’ll probably make the same mistakes. Kids see, and remember, a lot more than we ever give them credit for. And it’s up to you, as their parents, to ensure that they don’t make the same mistakes by teaching them to be self-sufficient and responsible, and by providing them with an education in the basics of personal finance. You didn’t learn it along the way, so where will they get it from? Use this rotten experience for something that will help the most important people in the world to you and your wife.

As for being a lot more informed about the market (” from what I’ve seen and read, it looks like the market is about at the bottom, plus or minus 5%”), I’d slow down a bit. You weren’t dumb during the boom. There simply wasn’t any contradictory information out there that was readily available. I was very concerned by what was going on (like Scaredy, I, too, had a reputation for being “off my rocker” among friends and neighbors because I kept insisting that the rapidly increasing RE values WEREN’T a good thing), but I would scour the newspapers, magazines, and internet for some evidence that the economists and the financial analysts – the “smart guys” – were seeing what was going on and were doing something about it. I never found them.

It was an education for me. I realized that a good many of the “experts” in all different fields weren’t experts at all. In fact, many of them aren’t even competent in their fields.

You can’t simply read something and believe it. You have to see what the writer is basing his claims on. Is there actual evidence, or is it really just his opinion? Obviously, you can’t know everything. But if you’re going to be jumping into the deep end again, you need to be basing that decision on something solid. Like where is the actual evidence that clearly demonstrates why this is the bottom of the market. Let’s see: huge inventory of homes, backlog of foreclosures, mortgages in default, record numbers of homeowners in upside-down mortgages. Throw in a steadily rising unemployment rate, and increase in offshoring of jobs.

C’mon, SMH, use your common sense here, and your gut instinct. Does this honestly sound like the “bottom” of the market? You’re a smart guy, and because you got caught once (like millions of other homeowners from all educational and economic levels), doesn’t mean you have to again. I’m willing to bet that the first homebuying experience was a very emotional experience. Here’s a handy tip: Keep the emotion out of the process. Take your time, use your brain, and listen to your instincts.

Time is on your side here. The bargains won’t go away; in fact, there’ll be even more of them. You’ll be able to gather more information about neighborhoods and school districts. And you’ll be able to stabilize your financial matters, and put yourself in a more advantageous bargaining position.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]We shouldn’t call each other idiots or scumbargs as most people are just doing the best they can and aren’t idiots and svcumbags. Occasionally you will meet a true idiot, or scumbag, but they will be rare.[/quote]

Scaredy, I can appreciate your attempts at restraint, but you may be treading on some toes here.

I, myself, double-majored in idiocy and scumbaggery, and continue to work very hard to keep up my credentials. I’ve always felt pretty good about my qualifications, but I have to admit that, living in such close proximity to the nation’s capital, it’s a never-ending struggle to stay at the top of the bottom-feeder list. Frankly, I’ve never recovered from the DeLay years.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SellingMyHome]…I bought in 2003 (halfway up the price rises), and thought it was going to be a starter home, one to live in for a few years, and then upgrade when we had kids. Well, the kids came along, but the market crashed. For several reasons, we decided to get rid of the house. It was a strategic move on our part, as there was no way the house was going to sell for a profit in the next 10-15 years.

So, now we are capable of buying again. To me it looks like the market is about near its lowest, maybe another year or so more still. I don’t mind renting a house, actually like not worrying about fixing things. BUT, my wife likes the idea of owning, and in the end, so do I.[/quote]

I won’t comment on whether you should or shouldn’t. I may have an opinion, but I’ll assume that my opinion is irrelevant to your decision.

However, I did notice that you cited your inability to sell the house at a profit in the next 10-15 years was the trigger for your self-described strategic default.

If that is, indeed, the case, I’d say that you probably shouldn’t get back into home ownership until there is clear-cut evidence of a sustainable housing recovery. You stated, “To me it looks like the market is about near its lowest, maybe another year or so more still.” I’m curious to know why it is that you feel that way; have you identified any economic indicators that would influence your thinking in that direction? I’m not being smartass here – I really do want to know.

Also, WHY do you and your wife “like the idea of owning”? I understand the whole “wanting my own roof over my head” thing, but there is a genuine risk involved with a transaction like this. If you are troubled enough by the changes in the housing values that you proactively sell a house to avoid the fallout, it would appear that this is something to consider before jumping back in the pool.

A belief that you would be unable to sell for a profit in a decade is what caused you to take a very risky financial step a couple years back (the short sale decision), and that’s not exactly compatible with the whole American Dream thing. Essentially, what I’m saying is that you have to decide what’s important: home ownership or profit (and, what’s more, how much profit). Otherwise, you may well come up against the same issues in a couple years if the market isn’t showing signs of recovery, or not recovering at a pace with which you feel comfortable.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be prudent in this decision. Of course, investing money wisely is always a good and important thing. But if you are unable to deal with the economic vagaries of the real estate market (i.e., your overwhelming concern about selling for a profit in 10-15 years was what caused you to short-sell, not financial hardship), housing may not be the place for you to sink a very significant portion of your money.

Best of luck in coming to a decision.

[Author]

Posts