Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
no_such_reality
ParticipantFidoFinder.com lists 8 dogs at or above $1000 within 50 miles of 91230.
June 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM in reply to: Ouch. 1 month later, still no takers on this CV townhome. #63132ParticipantThe mello-roos is an annual number. HOA and Mello-Roos will run about $270/month. Property tax at $350K will be another $300/month. All total, call it $650 in HOA & Taxes per month.
That leaves roughly $1350 after-tax to pay the mortgage. Which at 25% Fed and 9.3% tax will push the mortgage payment to around $1900 before tax break. So roughly $300K with as little as 5% down, or $350K with 20% down.
June 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM in reply to: Ouch. 1 month later, still no takers on this CV townhome. #63183ParticipantThe mello-roos is an annual number. HOA and Mello-Roos will run about $270/month. Property tax at $350K will be another $300/month. All total, call it $650 in HOA & Taxes per month.
That leaves roughly $1350 after-tax to pay the mortgage. Which at 25% Fed and 9.3% tax will push the mortgage payment to around $1900 before tax break. So roughly $300K with as little as 5% down, or $350K with 20% down.
ParticipantTo be frank, less McDonalds and more excersize would do a lot for controlling costs.
The VHA spends about $6000/vet. For 300 million people, that VA spending level equates to $1.8 Trillion dollars. That’s roughly our entire 2001 National budget.
ParticipantTo be frank, less McDonalds and more excersize would do a lot for controlling costs.
The VHA spends about $6000/vet. For 300 million people, that VA spending level equates to $1.8 Trillion dollars. That’s roughly our entire 2001 National budget.
Participantthe part about hmo’s denying treatment,
Isn’t that the crux of any managed care system? It doesn’t matter if it is run by the government or not, someone, somewhere has to make the decision that patient X with disease Y doesn’t have an expected success rate to justify treatment.
It’s a finite pool of money. Coronary Artery Disease is a leading killer. 650,000 die a year. 5% die on the operating table. 20% within the year. 35% within 5 years. How much do we spend to treat CAD? How long will the wait be? The wait increases the death rate. What’s the cut-off for a patient if a panel doctors estimates they won’t make it through the operation? 50/50? 80% chance of death on table?
Or may favorite disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, aka human mad cow. roughly 200 cases a year in the US. 90% die within the year. How much do you allocate for spending? on treatment? on research? We don’t have a cure, will you doom 200 people year for lack of enough research or choose not to treat the heart disease patient above?
Given San Diego’s pension issues, has corrupt and inept as the insurance company’s may be, do you really think the Government is going to do it cheaper and better once the bureaucracy is established?
I don’t want to hear about the money could come from the war and be better spent, that’s non-issue, I’d consider that a given. However, that money barely scratches the surface. My question is, will you step up to the hard decisions or just pretend government healthcare is an endless mana from heaven.
Participantthe part about hmo’s denying treatment,
Isn’t that the crux of any managed care system? It doesn’t matter if it is run by the government or not, someone, somewhere has to make the decision that patient X with disease Y doesn’t have an expected success rate to justify treatment.
It’s a finite pool of money. Coronary Artery Disease is a leading killer. 650,000 die a year. 5% die on the operating table. 20% within the year. 35% within 5 years. How much do we spend to treat CAD? How long will the wait be? The wait increases the death rate. What’s the cut-off for a patient if a panel doctors estimates they won’t make it through the operation? 50/50? 80% chance of death on table?
Or may favorite disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, aka human mad cow. roughly 200 cases a year in the US. 90% die within the year. How much do you allocate for spending? on treatment? on research? We don’t have a cure, will you doom 200 people year for lack of enough research or choose not to treat the heart disease patient above?
Given San Diego’s pension issues, has corrupt and inept as the insurance company’s may be, do you really think the Government is going to do it cheaper and better once the bureaucracy is established?
I don’t want to hear about the money could come from the war and be better spent, that’s non-issue, I’d consider that a given. However, that money barely scratches the surface. My question is, will you step up to the hard decisions or just pretend government healthcare is an endless mana from heaven.
June 29, 2007 at 8:57 AM in reply to: Ouch. 1 month later, still no takers on this CV townhome. #62887ParticipantHow come the house rebate link says original price $749,000?
How much would this rent for? $2000?
I’m guessing to someone trying to save on rent, it’s worth $300-$350K.
To a landlord, maybe $250-$300K.
One of the things I wonder on is if buying will be perceived as being cheaper than renting if it still requires $40,000 to $80,000 down payment to make it so.
I remember the mid-90s and you’d look at townhomes like this and buy them for $150K bringing $15,000 down and $3K for closing costs. Bellying up $20,000 to get away from renting when the number flush in your favor is very different than coming up with $35,000 down and another $5000 in closing costs. That $350,000 purchase would still be a major collapst. If it holds higher, the numbers are just worse.
How many people, in the general population, are holding $40,000 to escape from apartment life?
June 29, 2007 at 8:57 AM in reply to: Ouch. 1 month later, still no takers on this CV townhome. #62935ParticipantHow come the house rebate link says original price $749,000?
How much would this rent for? $2000?
I’m guessing to someone trying to save on rent, it’s worth $300-$350K.
To a landlord, maybe $250-$300K.
One of the things I wonder on is if buying will be perceived as being cheaper than renting if it still requires $40,000 to $80,000 down payment to make it so.
I remember the mid-90s and you’d look at townhomes like this and buy them for $150K bringing $15,000 down and $3K for closing costs. Bellying up $20,000 to get away from renting when the number flush in your favor is very different than coming up with $35,000 down and another $5000 in closing costs. That $350,000 purchase would still be a major collapst. If it holds higher, the numbers are just worse.
How many people, in the general population, are holding $40,000 to escape from apartment life?
ParticipantPR, In general, your idea is sound, when owning is cheaper than renting, own. I don’t follow your math though in your example. What about the mortgage? That’s another $2000/month. Some other assumptions may be a bit high, but
Rents are frustrating, as you point out, a quick check of Craigslist list shows little in Lake Forest most 2 bedrooms are $1450. However, those are 2/2 dual master set up, with a garage and slightly larger. And a check also shows several pushing the reductions. The competition will heat up and a 2/1 without garage will lead prices down.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see these units end up at literally 1/3rd their peak price. Several items point to them losing 60-70% of their peak value.
If you go 100X their rental value you get $140K currently and likely falling. Look at the 1999 sales price and add 5% a year you get $130K. Look at the 1997 bottom price and add 5% a year and you get $105K. With these places actually having sold for $390K in the last year, there’s a lot of loss coming this way.
ParticipantPR, In general, your idea is sound, when owning is cheaper than renting, own. I don’t follow your math though in your example. What about the mortgage? That’s another $2000/month. Some other assumptions may be a bit high, but
Rents are frustrating, as you point out, a quick check of Craigslist list shows little in Lake Forest most 2 bedrooms are $1450. However, those are 2/2 dual master set up, with a garage and slightly larger. And a check also shows several pushing the reductions. The competition will heat up and a 2/1 without garage will lead prices down.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see these units end up at literally 1/3rd their peak price. Several items point to them losing 60-70% of their peak value.
If you go 100X their rental value you get $140K currently and likely falling. Look at the 1999 sales price and add 5% a year you get $130K. Look at the 1997 bottom price and add 5% a year and you get $105K. With these places actually having sold for $390K in the last year, there’s a lot of loss coming this way.
ParticipantCorporate blogging is nothing new, however I wonder how quickly they’ll run aground of SEC rules when their kick-off focus is to pump their own stock.
ParticipantCorporate blogging is nothing new, however I wonder how quickly they’ll run aground of SEC rules when their kick-off focus is to pump their own stock.
ParticipantHang tough, those cruddy 2/1 apartments will probably be $100K when it’s done.
You don’t buy those to live in them, you buy them to cashflow. The condos HOA fees and the new developments mello-roos crash cash flow in a hurry.
As a rental, these old units can’t compete with the new soaring average rent. Rent increases have been driven by new units with larger floorplan, more functional space, greater amenities, garages and updated/upgraded accoutriments.
This is dated, worn, has a carport, lacks amenities and I suspect the floorplan is classic wasted space with hallways common in the late 70s/early 80s.
In other words, these will be tough rents going forward and they will need to compete on price for a price sensitive tenant.
-
AuthorPosts
