[jstoesz]

Speaking in absolutes is always going to yield obviously contrary data. So your beef with dz is valid, but I think he makes a strong point. RE loans were largely driven by speculative loans (option ARMs and the like). Now, did everyone do it in some choice neighborhood, certainly not. But they are not so far insulated as they would like from the hoards of people inland who did.

[quote=sdrealtor]js
I cant disagree that for higher priced RE the rent vs buy looks better. However for many people (not all) renting is a substandard lifestyle. It typically means moving every couple years and sometimes more often than that. It means not having control over the place you live. For many people their home is the core of their existence. I hate moving, I hate answering to anyone other than my children and I love the sense of security our home provides us. There are alot of people like me. This means you can take your calculator and toss wherever you want because all things considered a home is and will remain a good store of value (throwing out the crazy the few year we went through which we all agree was an extreme outlier period) because there will always be someone who wants what we homeowners have around here.

So if you want to live your life under the auspices of calculators you should do so. I on the other hand enjoy the rewards of my hard work be it a nice bottle of wine, a ticket to see Roger Waters play The Wall live in concert that I missed 30 years ago or on my home that makes no sense to own when you compare buy vs rent. I can live with that.[/quote]

sdr, I completely and totally agree! Buying a home has some sort of ethereal awesomeness that I too long for (note: I used the word home not stick framed shelter). Thankfully, I am not in the place in life yet where it really has its teeth in me. I dream of buying a fixer in some sweet neighborhood and making it my own through the sweat of my brow. I grew up in this kind of neighborhood, and I can not fathom making a home in some irvine development. You can not put a price on this (or maybe everyone has a different price for that feeling’s value). I can not argue with you on this front. But my point was simply that from a PURELY numbers basis, in most SD neighborhoods (at least the ones I like) there is much financial risk and little financial reward possibilities, even if you get a smoking deal! Now in regards to the ethereal…I can’t play the numbers with that. I just know it sucks to lose you shirt and the rent vs buy in my preferred hoods point to losing your shirt.

Side note: I do wonder how many landlords would be more than pleased to sign a 10 year lease with a tenant…given some elaborate buy out and remodel provisions of course.

[jstoesz]

Speaking in absolutes is always going to yield obviously contrary data. So your beef with dz is valid, but I think he makes a strong point. RE loans were largely driven by speculative loans (option ARMs and the like). Now, did everyone do it in some choice neighborhood, certainly not. But they are not so far insulated as they would like from the hoards of people inland who did.

[quote=sdrealtor]js
I cant disagree that for higher priced RE the rent vs buy looks better. However for many people (not all) renting is a substandard lifestyle. It typically means moving every couple years and sometimes more often than that. It means not having control over the place you live. For many people their home is the core of their existence. I hate moving, I hate answering to anyone other than my children and I love the sense of security our home provides us. There are alot of people like me. This means you can take your calculator and toss wherever you want because all things considered a home is and will remain a good store of value (throwing out the crazy the few year we went through which we all agree was an extreme outlier period) because there will always be someone who wants what we homeowners have around here.

So if you want to live your life under the auspices of calculators you should do so. I on the other hand enjoy the rewards of my hard work be it a nice bottle of wine, a ticket to see Roger Waters play The Wall live in concert that I missed 30 years ago or on my home that makes no sense to own when you compare buy vs rent. I can live with that.[/quote]

sdr, I completely and totally agree! Buying a home has some sort of ethereal awesomeness that I too long for (note: I used the word home not stick framed shelter). Thankfully, I am not in the place in life yet where it really has its teeth in me. I dream of buying a fixer in some sweet neighborhood and making it my own through the sweat of my brow. I grew up in this kind of neighborhood, and I can not fathom making a home in some irvine development. You can not put a price on this (or maybe everyone has a different price for that feeling’s value). I can not argue with you on this front. But my point was simply that from a PURELY numbers basis, in most SD neighborhoods (at least the ones I like) there is much financial risk and little financial reward possibilities, even if you get a smoking deal! Now in regards to the ethereal…I can’t play the numbers with that. I just know it sucks to lose you shirt and the rent vs buy in my preferred hoods point to losing your shirt.

Side note: I do wonder how many landlords would be more than pleased to sign a 10 year lease with a tenant…given some elaborate buy out and remodel provisions of course.

[jstoesz]

AN I tend to agree.

I think the link is not so much causative as correlative.

Lower stock prices harm the economy, and when the economy is harmed home prices drop.

So stock prices do have a causative effect on the economy, there link is not DIRECTLY causative to home values. Sometimes, some other asset class is waiting in the wings (a la 2001).

One other note regarding rent vs. buy. Even in markets outside of california, a favorable rent vs. buy is not enough to buoy the market.

In MN (probably in NV too, but I have no anecdotal evidence there) homes can easily cash flow. My friends who have bought in the last 2 years are still underwater even though they can cash flow their home. Psychologically it helps them stay current, but it is still interesting to note.

[jstoesz]

AN I tend to agree.

I think the link is not so much causative as correlative.

Lower stock prices harm the economy, and when the economy is harmed home prices drop.

So stock prices do have a causative effect on the economy, there link is not DIRECTLY causative to home values. Sometimes, some other asset class is waiting in the wings (a la 2001).

One other note regarding rent vs. buy. Even in markets outside of california, a favorable rent vs. buy is not enough to buoy the market.

In MN (probably in NV too, but I have no anecdotal evidence there) homes can easily cash flow. My friends who have bought in the last 2 years are still underwater even though they can cash flow their home. Psychologically it helps them stay current, but it is still interesting to note.

[jstoesz]

AN I tend to agree.

I think the link is not so much causative as correlative.

Lower stock prices harm the economy, and when the economy is harmed home prices drop.

So stock prices do have a causative effect on the economy, there link is not DIRECTLY causative to home values. Sometimes, some other asset class is waiting in the wings (a la 2001).

One other note regarding rent vs. buy. Even in markets outside of california, a favorable rent vs. buy is not enough to buoy the market.

In MN (probably in NV too, but I have no anecdotal evidence there) homes can easily cash flow. My friends who have bought in the last 2 years are still underwater even though they can cash flow their home. Psychologically it helps them stay current, but it is still interesting to note.

[jstoesz]

AN I tend to agree.

I think the link is not so much causative as correlative.

Lower stock prices harm the economy, and when the economy is harmed home prices drop.

So stock prices do have a causative effect on the economy, there link is not DIRECTLY causative to home values. Sometimes, some other asset class is waiting in the wings (a la 2001).

One other note regarding rent vs. buy. Even in markets outside of california, a favorable rent vs. buy is not enough to buoy the market.

In MN (probably in NV too, but I have no anecdotal evidence there) homes can easily cash flow. My friends who have bought in the last 2 years are still underwater even though they can cash flow their home. Psychologically it helps them stay current, but it is still interesting to note.

[jstoesz]

AN I tend to agree.

I think the link is not so much causative as correlative.

Lower stock prices harm the economy, and when the economy is harmed home prices drop.

So stock prices do have a causative effect on the economy, there link is not DIRECTLY causative to home values. Sometimes, some other asset class is waiting in the wings (a la 2001).

One other note regarding rent vs. buy. Even in markets outside of california, a favorable rent vs. buy is not enough to buoy the market.

In MN (probably in NV too, but I have no anecdotal evidence there) homes can easily cash flow. My friends who have bought in the last 2 years are still underwater even though they can cash flow their home. Psychologically it helps them stay current, but it is still interesting to note.

[jstoesz]

sdr, I generally agree with your statements when the caveated sweeteners were added…

But to prove my point about the bubble I had studied before leaving. I will break out the research to flush out what I am talking about.

In most markets in SD. Buying is always worse than renting, no matter how long you own the property.

For example. Here is a SFH in Pt. Loma renting for 2200 a month (probably a dump).

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/2105672413.html

I bring up pt. loma because that is one of my favorite neighborhoods. It would probably sell for a smoking deal of 500k. By that math you would have to own for 20 years before it was better financially speaking to buy. That is assuming of course your rent goes up 3% annually and home appreciation goes up 1%. But if you think home prices are going down and going down for a while then it is even worse. I haven’t even mentioned maintenance. In todays market it may make sense to buy in a select few markets especially in a select few markets that have gotten killed. But in an area like pt. loma it makes no sense at all.

Let me say this another way. If it is cheaper to rent the home than rent the money (interest) to buy the home, you will ALWAYS loose by buying. Unless of course you think the boom years are back and homes are zooming up.

Or how about this one…

http://www.postlets.com/rts/4227120

Surely a house like that would go for at least 1.3 mil…But that would put your buy is better period at never even assuming 3% appreciation.

So maybe in temecula (actually probably in temecula) it is better to buy. But in the coastal established neighborhoods, I don’t see how this is possible. Rent is just so cheap compared to home prices. Renting the home is cheaper and without all the terms that renting money to buy a home holds.

One other note. If you have tons of equity there are probably safer better producing asset classes than coastal real estate. In which case it is still cheaper to rent than pay the opportunity cost of tying up that money in a risky non-performing asset. Again this is just my opinion and that is from the perspective of today. Tomorrow is a whole other day.

BTW I would love to see some counter examples from NCC. Especially Pt. Loma to Luecadia (oceanside mine as well be on the moon) if you got em I would love to see em.

note: here is the calculator you have all seen that I used.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html

[jstoesz]

sdr, I generally agree with your statements when the caveated sweeteners were added…

But to prove my point about the bubble I had studied before leaving. I will break out the research to flush out what I am talking about.

In most markets in SD. Buying is always worse than renting, no matter how long you own the property.

For example. Here is a SFH in Pt. Loma renting for 2200 a month (probably a dump).

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/2105672413.html

I bring up pt. loma because that is one of my favorite neighborhoods. It would probably sell for a smoking deal of 500k. By that math you would have to own for 20 years before it was better financially speaking to buy. That is assuming of course your rent goes up 3% annually and home appreciation goes up 1%. But if you think home prices are going down and going down for a while then it is even worse. I haven’t even mentioned maintenance. In todays market it may make sense to buy in a select few markets especially in a select few markets that have gotten killed. But in an area like pt. loma it makes no sense at all.

Let me say this another way. If it is cheaper to rent the home than rent the money (interest) to buy the home, you will ALWAYS loose by buying. Unless of course you think the boom years are back and homes are zooming up.

Or how about this one…

http://www.postlets.com/rts/4227120

Surely a house like that would go for at least 1.3 mil…But that would put your buy is better period at never even assuming 3% appreciation.

So maybe in temecula (actually probably in temecula) it is better to buy. But in the coastal established neighborhoods, I don’t see how this is possible. Rent is just so cheap compared to home prices. Renting the home is cheaper and without all the terms that renting money to buy a home holds.

One other note. If you have tons of equity there are probably safer better producing asset classes than coastal real estate. In which case it is still cheaper to rent than pay the opportunity cost of tying up that money in a risky non-performing asset. Again this is just my opinion and that is from the perspective of today. Tomorrow is a whole other day.

BTW I would love to see some counter examples from NCC. Especially Pt. Loma to Luecadia (oceanside mine as well be on the moon) if you got em I would love to see em.

note: here is the calculator you have all seen that I used.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html

[jstoesz]

sdr, I generally agree with your statements when the caveated sweeteners were added…

But to prove my point about the bubble I had studied before leaving. I will break out the research to flush out what I am talking about.

In most markets in SD. Buying is always worse than renting, no matter how long you own the property.

For example. Here is a SFH in Pt. Loma renting for 2200 a month (probably a dump).

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/2105672413.html

I bring up pt. loma because that is one of my favorite neighborhoods. It would probably sell for a smoking deal of 500k. By that math you would have to own for 20 years before it was better financially speaking to buy. That is assuming of course your rent goes up 3% annually and home appreciation goes up 1%. But if you think home prices are going down and going down for a while then it is even worse. I haven’t even mentioned maintenance. In todays market it may make sense to buy in a select few markets especially in a select few markets that have gotten killed. But in an area like pt. loma it makes no sense at all.

Let me say this another way. If it is cheaper to rent the home than rent the money (interest) to buy the home, you will ALWAYS loose by buying. Unless of course you think the boom years are back and homes are zooming up.

Or how about this one…

http://www.postlets.com/rts/4227120

Surely a house like that would go for at least 1.3 mil…But that would put your buy is better period at never even assuming 3% appreciation.

So maybe in temecula (actually probably in temecula) it is better to buy. But in the coastal established neighborhoods, I don’t see how this is possible. Rent is just so cheap compared to home prices. Renting the home is cheaper and without all the terms that renting money to buy a home holds.

One other note. If you have tons of equity there are probably safer better producing asset classes than coastal real estate. In which case it is still cheaper to rent than pay the opportunity cost of tying up that money in a risky non-performing asset. Again this is just my opinion and that is from the perspective of today. Tomorrow is a whole other day.

BTW I would love to see some counter examples from NCC. Especially Pt. Loma to Luecadia (oceanside mine as well be on the moon) if you got em I would love to see em.

note: here is the calculator you have all seen that I used.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html

[jstoesz]

sdr, I generally agree with your statements when the caveated sweeteners were added…

But to prove my point about the bubble I had studied before leaving. I will break out the research to flush out what I am talking about.

In most markets in SD. Buying is always worse than renting, no matter how long you own the property.

For example. Here is a SFH in Pt. Loma renting for 2200 a month (probably a dump).

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/2105672413.html

I bring up pt. loma because that is one of my favorite neighborhoods. It would probably sell for a smoking deal of 500k. By that math you would have to own for 20 years before it was better financially speaking to buy. That is assuming of course your rent goes up 3% annually and home appreciation goes up 1%. But if you think home prices are going down and going down for a while then it is even worse. I haven’t even mentioned maintenance. In todays market it may make sense to buy in a select few markets especially in a select few markets that have gotten killed. But in an area like pt. loma it makes no sense at all.

Let me say this another way. If it is cheaper to rent the home than rent the money (interest) to buy the home, you will ALWAYS loose by buying. Unless of course you think the boom years are back and homes are zooming up.

Or how about this one…

http://www.postlets.com/rts/4227120

Surely a house like that would go for at least 1.3 mil…But that would put your buy is better period at never even assuming 3% appreciation.

So maybe in temecula (actually probably in temecula) it is better to buy. But in the coastal established neighborhoods, I don’t see how this is possible. Rent is just so cheap compared to home prices. Renting the home is cheaper and without all the terms that renting money to buy a home holds.

One other note. If you have tons of equity there are probably safer better producing asset classes than coastal real estate. In which case it is still cheaper to rent than pay the opportunity cost of tying up that money in a risky non-performing asset. Again this is just my opinion and that is from the perspective of today. Tomorrow is a whole other day.

BTW I would love to see some counter examples from NCC. Especially Pt. Loma to Luecadia (oceanside mine as well be on the moon) if you got em I would love to see em.

note: here is the calculator you have all seen that I used.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html

[jstoesz]

sdr, I generally agree with your statements when the caveated sweeteners were added…

But to prove my point about the bubble I had studied before leaving. I will break out the research to flush out what I am talking about.

In most markets in SD. Buying is always worse than renting, no matter how long you own the property.

For example. Here is a SFH in Pt. Loma renting for 2200 a month (probably a dump).

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/2105672413.html

I bring up pt. loma because that is one of my favorite neighborhoods. It would probably sell for a smoking deal of 500k. By that math you would have to own for 20 years before it was better financially speaking to buy. That is assuming of course your rent goes up 3% annually and home appreciation goes up 1%. But if you think home prices are going down and going down for a while then it is even worse. I haven’t even mentioned maintenance. In todays market it may make sense to buy in a select few markets especially in a select few markets that have gotten killed. But in an area like pt. loma it makes no sense at all.

Let me say this another way. If it is cheaper to rent the home than rent the money (interest) to buy the home, you will ALWAYS loose by buying. Unless of course you think the boom years are back and homes are zooming up.

Or how about this one…

http://www.postlets.com/rts/4227120

Surely a house like that would go for at least 1.3 mil…But that would put your buy is better period at never even assuming 3% appreciation.

So maybe in temecula (actually probably in temecula) it is better to buy. But in the coastal established neighborhoods, I don’t see how this is possible. Rent is just so cheap compared to home prices. Renting the home is cheaper and without all the terms that renting money to buy a home holds.

One other note. If you have tons of equity there are probably safer better producing asset classes than coastal real estate. In which case it is still cheaper to rent than pay the opportunity cost of tying up that money in a risky non-performing asset. Again this is just my opinion and that is from the perspective of today. Tomorrow is a whole other day.

BTW I would love to see some counter examples from NCC. Especially Pt. Loma to Luecadia (oceanside mine as well be on the moon) if you got em I would love to see em.

note: here is the calculator you have all seen that I used.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html

[jstoesz]

Wow really 20k…I am just surprised. I guess your rent was way higher than mine. In the neighborhoods I liked it was WAY cheaper to rent than rent the money.

I was just flushing out the options sdr laid out as to the camps to be in.

I would like to add that you can lose 20k in a hurry in todays market. For most homes that doesn’t even cover sdr’s fees when you sell .

Do you really think it is safer monetarily to buy than rent. Ask yourself that honestly, because if you disagree, there is really no point to this conversation.

[jstoesz]

Wow really 20k…I am just surprised. I guess your rent was way higher than mine. In the neighborhoods I liked it was WAY cheaper to rent than rent the money.

I was just flushing out the options sdr laid out as to the camps to be in.

I would like to add that you can lose 20k in a hurry in todays market. For most homes that doesn’t even cover sdr’s fees when you sell .

Do you really think it is safer monetarily to buy than rent. Ask yourself that honestly, because if you disagree, there is really no point to this conversation.

[jstoesz]

Wow really 20k…I am just surprised. I guess your rent was way higher than mine. In the neighborhoods I liked it was WAY cheaper to rent than rent the money.

I was just flushing out the options sdr laid out as to the camps to be in.

I would like to add that you can lose 20k in a hurry in todays market. For most homes that doesn’t even cover sdr’s fees when you sell .

Do you really think it is safer monetarily to buy than rent. Ask yourself that honestly, because if you disagree, there is really no point to this conversation.

[Author]

Posts