Lending and Real Estate Advice

:cool:
Pharaoh said:
Don't stop there playa. I don't want to discourage you guys from sharing the wealth of knowledge you have; especially when you shoot straight from the hip. Please don't mistake me fussin at Real1 earlier this year as me saying real estate is wrong... besides I think after a while there I was just posting shit to play devil's advocate - hope he's not pissed at Pharaoh. I just want to make sure the young cats who look up and say "Wow, how can I be down" understand at 100 over 100 that they've got to apply due dilligence to this thing and it doesn't happen overnight as most expect. If they learn it the right way, then they can get through dips in the market like you, dawg, real1 and the other cats here who have done this thing for years and still moving.

I was just speaking generally and happen to piggy-back off the Deputy's post. Just adding my two cents.

There are a lot of faces of RE... and I may know about 5% well... to me that's a lot, to a novice that's a lifetime, to someone who's been doing this shit for years 24x7, it's just another day at the office.

It's funny, I have to pick up at least 100 acres to build a new facility. I asked our RE firm to locate it for us... they came back with $40K per acre. Ouch. We told them to go to hell and they came back with $12K per. I just saw some in south GA on a site for about $2K, but it was a lot of 600+ acres. Guess I was wrong to pick on the fam about the $1K land, learn something new every day, huh.

Big big risk if you haven't played the game for years now; it's still a big risk if you have experience and relationships only the risk is more manageable.

Peace
:cool:
I feel ya my brother and it all good.
This is not a easy business to be in. However, it one that will bring you tremendous wealth!
Like almost all investments, you have your trends and risk. One thing I don’t hear much of is the new housing that will be needed for people. The number of people in this Country in now getting smaller… Like everywhere else it is increasing and therefore more homes will be needed.
Talk to any City planner and just see what they have to say about the subject. Ask if you can get any information on their five, ten or twenty year plans. You may be surprise what you hear.

Stay up! LICK!
:cool:
 
afroyale said:

Does something about this list jump out at you? Nigga, you be fukked! :lol:

NOPE!

I'll be right back!
-putting the finishing touches on the house (flowers, etc.)

Today is 7/5/06. We'll see which is longer; my wait to sell time or my profit!
:dance:
 
deputy dawg said:
NOPE!

I'll be right back!
-putting the finishing touches on the house (flowers, etc.)

Today is 7/5/06. We'll see which is longer; my wait to sell time or my profit!
:dance:
Work it Dawg... Work it! LICK ! :cool:
 
deputy dawg said:
NOPE!

I'll be right back!
-putting the finishing touches on the house (flowers, etc.)

Today is 7/5/06. We'll see which is longer; my wait to sell time or my profit!
:dance:

O.K!

Just to make it legit, give us the MLS number and listing details so we can monitor it :yes:. Btw, which city is the property located?
 
afroyale said:
O.K!

Just to make it legit, give us the MLS number and listing details so we can monitor it :yes:. Btw, which city is the property located?
Man... I would not do that... First, I would not care what anyone thought or assumed. But that is just me. The State and or City will not be enough information for anyone to do anything.
Your call Dawg… LICK !
:cool:
 
I'll tell you what-
you go on and monitor this...
:D
17.jpg

14.jpg


I came back 'cuz I know 1 won't do & 2 just ain't enuff for you bruh...

2526$7-1-06%20195.jpg

2526$7-1-06%20186.jpg


43.JPG

63.JPG

48.JPG


I'll provide full disclosure of the property sale AFTER the deal closes! :cool:
 
Last edited:
deputy dawg said:
I'll tell you what-
you go on and monitor this...
:D
17.jpg

14.jpg


I came back 'cuz I know 1 won't do & 2 just ain't enuff for you bruh...

2526$7-1-06%20195.jpg

2526$7-1-06%20186.jpg


43.JPG

63.JPG

48.JPG


I'll provide full disclosure of the property sale AFTER the deal closes! :cool:
WOHA!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
All you brothers need to quit! This shit is getting to be too funny!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
LICK ! :cool:
 
Ok...so when did the business board become the main board ???

So here's a new question:

When a real estate agent doesn't take you seriously, what do you do? I know they are looking to sell and make a commission, but come on, before I buy a house that may need major work, I need to see what it looks like on the inside.

*note, this isn't an investment property, this would be my house though I would rent it out rooms while I'm out of town...I have the financial backing to put down 20% and an earnest money deposit.
 
AristotlesOwn said:
Ok...so when did the business board become the main board ???

So here's a new question:

When a real estate agent doesn't take you seriously, what do you do? I know they are looking to sell and make a commission, but come on, before I buy a house that may need major work, I need to see what it looks like on the inside.

*note, this isn't an investment property, this would be my house though I would rent it out rooms while I'm out of town...I have the financial backing to put down 20% and an earnest money deposit.
Plain English… Fire that MOFO! He works for you! If he or she has any signs of intelligence they would see and understand that and take care of business.
If you are in Cali I know some that don’t fuck around!
Stay up!!! LICK !
:cool:
 
Let's make it a little simplier

Here's the simple answer for someone who wants to buy a house. I'm talking from experience as a recent buyer and investor. It's a game. The only way to get a good deal is to deal with the seller only. However, the problem is the (2003-2005) surge of real estate agents and agent wannabes. This means you'll need a team to counteract their greed. In other words, one way or another you're going to pay. Because we're not talking about investing, try to go personal, go small. Small mortgage companies tend to give better service.

Yes, the future will be a buyer's market (meaning more selection and more time to decide before contract is needed). But, the prices aren't going to go down. They are going to level. However, it's going to be harder to get financing so it balances out.

Now, the thing that no one will tell you. There are so many real estate agents making a lot of money on this "boom". They have enough disposible income to buy up ANY good deals in your area. And, they are going to know about it before you do. What's cooling down the market is that interest rates are going up, and the dumbass real estate agents raised the prices so high that even THEY can not afford to buy the well-overpriced deals (which was another driver of the increases) and now, that there is a glot of housing (they have their money tied up in places that won't sell).

SO THE TIME TO BUY IS NOW. In 2007, you will see the cool down. Then, the a small foreclosure surge. When Bush leaves, that's it.

If the interest rates go up, your credit better be really clean. Even then, you're going to pay a lot more in finance charges unless you plan to pay the house off early.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Let's make it a little simplier

YmX said:
SO THE TIME TO BUY IS NOW. In 2007, you will see the cool down. Then, the a small foreclosure surge. When Bush leaves, that's it.


Your reasoning makes no sense. If prices will cool down in 2007, why should anybody buy now? It's like saying, "that ipod is gonna cost less in 2007, so buy it today". Uhm... I think NOT! I'd rather wait for deeper cuts.

The economic laws of supply and demand have never been wrong. Prices will fall! "small surge in foreclosure"? Are you kidding? It's gonna be a blood bath within the next 2 years.

Mods, save this thread and bring it back up in 2008.
 
Re: Let's make it a little simplier

afroyale said:

Your reasoning makes no sense. If prices will cool down in 2007, why should anybody buy now? It's like saying, "that ipod is gonna cost less in 2007, so buy it today". Uhm... I think NOT! I'd rather wait for deeper cuts.

The economic laws of supply and demand have never been wrong. Prices will fall! "small surge in foreclosure"? Are you kidding? It's gonna be a blood bath within the next 2 years.

Mods, save this thread and bring it back up in 2008.
:cool:
Hey Bruh,
I believe the part you are missing here is that he is coming from the point of a non-investor. If you are buying the home to hold for any reason then anytime is a good time to buy. Buy high or low, as long as you are not going to sell then any funds paid in interest will be a write off in taxes. If the same, less or more is paid in rent it is a complete loss! The only thing you received is a roof over your head for that period… Period! Renter’s credit is a fucking joke!
Ownership vs. Renter I will choose the owner side every single time!!!
Stay up!!! LICK !
:cool:
 
Re: Let's make it a little simplier

afroyale said:

Your reasoning makes no sense. If prices will cool down in 2007, why should anybody buy now? It's like saying, "that ipod is gonna cost less in 2007, so buy it today". Uhm... I think NOT! I'd rather wait for deeper cuts.

The economic laws of supply and demand have never been wrong. Prices will fall! "small surge in foreclosure"? Are you kidding? It's gonna be a blood bath within the next 2 years.

Mods, save this thread and bring it back up in 2008.

I think we're on two different pages. I'm talking by a owner-occupant home, not investment. Investment is not only slowing but there are now huge barriers to entry.

It won't be a bloodbath. The people who got into ARMs and didn't get out of them got hit already or are getting hit now and this will trickle over for the next few years. Some people will be silly enough to go for it now, those are the same people who go to seminars about a subject after the boom has hit and left. People with fixed mortgages (solid jobs) won't be affected. Aren't you optimistic?

Now, for your silly Ipod analogy: you have a choice buy the $100,000 ipod today at 7% or wait for the next model which is very similar and there are more in circulation so Apple lowers the price slightly to $95,000, but they can't lower it too low because then the dealers won't carry it. ;) However, the interest rate is now 8.5%

Which one do you buy? Yeah, there's a price cut.

Here's what you don't understand. Ipods aren't necessities. Ergo, your analogy is not only false but ridiculous. Ipods only cost about 300 bucks and only have about a 10% margin. Homes don't and because they are necessities...You'll like this one, Mr. Economics... moderately inelastic (do you honestly think you're paying for land?? Land value $15,000 - Value of house $250,000.... This is why you move to another neighborhood when you make more money... Only a dumbass would make a huge cut in price especially with the people now in office giving them carte blanche. And, furthermore, if there is a huge cut in price, real estate agents will buy it before avg. joe gets to see it. Therefore, raising the price back up. When they can no longer raise the prices, the financial people will increase the rates so they stay PAID.

So, you would buy today to lock in the rate. If you can't flip it fast, even the lower interest rate will mean a smaller monthly rate, which will be a smaller drain on your funds. If funds aren't an issue, a SMALLER RATE which means MORE EQUITY (on an Amortization schedule)? And, before you go about capital gains, let's not forget about capital gains taxes. If your margin in the house you sell is not larger than the tax rate + interest rate, how much money did you make?

Now, Mr. Economics. I won't even go into the part where you misunderstood what I originally said. Bottom line is...you need to fire your financial planner.

Please do save this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Let's make it a little simplier

Lick said:
:cool:
Hey Bruh,
I believe the part you are missing here is that he is coming from the point of a non-investor. If you are buying the home to hold for any reason then anytime is a good time to buy. Buy high or low, as long as you are not going to sell then any funds paid in interest will be a write off in taxes. If the same, less or more is paid in rent it is a complete loss! The only thing you received is a roof over your head for that period… Period! Renter’s credit is a fucking joke!
Ownership vs. Renter I will choose the owner side every single time!!!
Stay up!!! LICK !
:cool:

You're right. But, after thinking about what he said for a while, I began to realize how far off the mark he really is. Anyway, no one can predict the future. So, we'll see. ;)
 
Lick, YmX, your stance on RE sounds like a broken record. The following is from a website that has debunked Buy vs. Rent argument... and more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. "There are great tax advantages to owning."

FALSE. It is now far cheaper to rent a house in the San Francisco Bay Area than it is to own that same house, even with the deductibility of mortgage interest figured in. It is possible to rent a good house for $1800/month. That same house would cost about $700,000. Assume 6% interest we can see that a buyer loses at least $4,936 per month by buying. Renting is a loss of course, but buying is a much bigger loss.

Renting:
Rent: $1,800
----------------------
Monthly Loss: $1,800

Buying:
Property Tax: $486 ($729 per month at 1.25% before deduction, $486 lost after deduction.)
Interest: $2,333 ($3500 per month at 6% before deduction, $2333 lost after deduction.)
Other Costs: $450 (Insurance, maintenance, long commute, etc.)
Principal loss: $1,667 (Modest 3% yearly loss on $700,000. Reality will be much worse.)
----------------------
Monthly Loss: $4,936

This is a very conservative estimate of the loss from owning per month. If you include a realistic decline in house prices, as in this
rent vs. own calculator, you'll see that owning right now is a very poor choice.

Remember that buyers do not deduct interest from income tax; they deduct interest from taxable income. Interest is paid in real pre-tax dollars that buyers suffered to earn. That money is really entirely gone, even if the buyer didn't pay income tax on those dollars before spending them.

Buyers do not get interest back at tax time. If a buyer gets an income tax refund, that's just because he overpaid his taxes, giving the government an interest-free loan. The rest of us are grateful.

Under current conditions, a renter would be able to live in a Bay Area house for 30 years, then buy that $700,000 house outright with the saved principal payments and have avoided $810,846 in interest payments. Rent would be only $648,000 over those 30 years, so the renter comes out at least $162,846 ahead. See an "amortization table" if you don't believe that interest will cost more than the house. This doesn't even count the huge losses the owner will suffer as the value of his house falls year after year for the next decade or more, just as in Japan, nor property taxes, insurance, and maintenance.

Rents will rise eventually, even though they have been falling every year for about five years now. Rising rents should be more than offset by appreciation on the renter's saved principal payments, assuming the renter invests in index funds or any other investment that normally brings in more than a CD.

There is no need to wait 30 years to buy a house. As this crash accelerates, prices will fall to the point where it is cheaper to buy than to rent, though that could take five years or more.

If you don't own a house but want to live in one, your choice now is to rent a house or rent money to buy a house. To rent money is to take out a loan. A mortgage is a money-rental agreement. House renters take no risk at all, but money-renting owners take on the huge risk of falling house prices, as well as all the costs of repairs, insurance, property taxes, etc. It is much cheaper to rent the house than to rent the money.

There are large tax disadvanges to buying in California. Because of Proposition 13, more properly called "screw the newcomer", it is common for new buyers to pay ten times the property tax that their neighbors pay. Tax rates are set at the time of purchase, which means those who bought long ago pay essentially nothing, and the new buyers pay all property tax for everyone else. Upgrading houses makes you a newcomer all over again.

Then there's earthquake insurance. It's really expensive, so most people just skip it and risk everything on the chance that no earthquake will happen.

2. "A rental house provides good income."

FALSE. Rental houses provide very poor income in the Bay Area and certainly cannot cover mortgage payments. A $1,000,000 house can be rented out for at most $25,000 per year after expenses. The return is therefore 2.5% with zero liquidity and a huge risk of loss.

If you actually have a million dollars, you can get better than 5% with no risk, no work, and no state income tax by buying a US Treasury Bond. And your money will be liquid and secure.

3. "OK, owning is a loss in monthly cash flow, but appreciation will make up for it."

FALSE. Appreciation is negative. Prices are going down, which just adds insult to the monthly injury of crushing mortgage payments.

4. "House prices don't fall to zero like stock prices, so it's safer to invest in real estate."

FALSE. It's true that house prices do not fall to zero, but your equity in a house can easily fall to zero, and then way past zero into the red. Even a fall of only 10% completely wipes out everyone who has only 10% equity in their house. This means that house price crashes are actually worse than stock crashes. Most people have most of their money in their house, and that money is highly leveraged.

5. "We know it will be a soft landing, since it says so in the papers."

FALSE. Prices could fall off a cliff. No one knows exactly what will happen, but the risk of a sudden crash in prices is severe. As Yale professor Robert Shiller has pointed out, this housing bubble is the biggest bubble in history, ever. Predictions of a "soft landing" are just more manipulation of buyer emotions, to get them to buy even while prices are falling.

Most newspaper articles on housing are not news at all. They are advertisements that are disguised to look like news. They quote heavily from people like Realtors®, whose income depends on separating you from your money. Their purpose is not to inform, but rather to get you to buy.

6. "If you buy, at least you have a house, but if you rent, you end up with nothing."

FALSE. Renters in the Bay Area end up with much more money, while living in the same quality house as an owner. At the end of 30 years, a renter would have enough principal saved to buy the $700K house mentioned above and would have spent $162,846 less on rent than he would have spent in interest payments. And he would have lived in an equivalent house all that time. Owners frequently end up with nothing because they lose the house to foreclosure.

7. "Prices have been driven by supply and demand."

FALSE. Supply is increasing rapidly as building continues, and demand is falling as the population of the Bay Area decreases and the salaries of those who remain decreases. Prices have been driven by low interest rates and increasingly risky loans. The dramatic drop in rents and widespread rental vacancies prove that demand for housing is actually much lower now than a few years ago.

The www.census.gov site has data for Santa Clara County for the years 2000-2003 which shows that the number of housing units went up at the same time that the population decreased:

year units people
2000 580868 / 1686474 = 0.344 housing units per person
2001 587013 / 1692299 = 0.346
2002 592494 / 1677426 = 0.353
2003 596526 / 1678421 = 0.355

So housing supply in Santa Clara County increased 3% per person during those years. There is an oversupply compared to a few years ago. In a sane market, prices should fall 3% to compensate for the extra supply of housing.

At a national level, there is a similar story in the years 2000 to 2005:

2000 115.9M / 281M = 0.412 housing units per person
2005 124.6M / 295M = 0.422

At a national level, there is 2.4% more housing per person now than in 2000. So national prices should have fallen as well.

Banks caculated that risky loans were offset by rising prices, allowing them to recover their money from bad borrowers through foreclosure. Now that prices are falling, those risky loans cannot be justified. If the borrower does not pay, the sale price of the house will not cover the loan. Banks now have a real incentive to improve lending standards, and that will lower house prices more because fewer people will qualify for loans.

8. "Nobody is making land."

TRUE, but builders are making houses at a record rate, which is increasing supply dramatically at a time when new houses are not needed. We have the highest rental vacancy rates since the 1950's.

9. "There's an under-supply of housing. That's why prices will rise."

FALSE. There is a large oversupply of housing. To repeat: builders are making houses at a record rate, which is increasing supply dramatically at a time when new houses are not needed. The Bay Area has the highest rental vacancy rates since the 1950's.

10. "Population increase will fuel housing price increases."

FALSE. The Bay Area is losing population the fastest of any area in the US right now - worse than Buffalo, worse than Detroit. Immigration won't change this because jobs are emigrating even faster. Rents are falling in part because so many recent immigrants are leaving, with some going back to China because opportunities are so much better there.

Nationally, there is going to be a huge glut of housing as old baby-boomers sell their houses to use the cash for retirement, putting 20% of houses onto the market for that reason alone. An additional 25% of houses are owned by speculators, who will soon sell because they are losing money. Birth rates are declining in all industrialized countries, with the US birth rate barely replacing the citizens who die.

11. "As a renter, you have no opportunity to build equity."

FALSE. Renters are actually in a better position to build equity because:
* Owers are losing every month on a cash flow basis. The tax deduction does not come close to making owning competitive with renting.
* Owers are losing principal in a leveraged way as prices decline. A 20% decline completely wipes out all the equity of "owners" who actually own only 20% of their house.
* Owers must pay taxes simply to own a house. That is not true of stocks, bonds, or any other asset that can build equity. Only houses are such a guaranteed drain on cash.
* Owers must insure a house, but not most other investments.
* Owers must pay to repair a house, but not a stock or a bond.

12. "If you rent you are a buyer. You are just buying it for someone else."

FALSE. It may be true that rent covers mortgage payments in other places, but not in the Bay Area. No one buys with the intention to rent out in the Bay Area because that's not viable. The owner is generously subsidizing the renter, a wonderful thing for renters during this crash.

13. "If you don't own, you'll live in a dump in a bad neighborhood."

FALSE. For the any given monthly payment, you can rent a far better house than you can buy. Renters live better, not worse. All the best neighborhoods have rental vacancies. There are downsides to renting, but since there are thousands of vacant rentals, you can take your pick and be quite happy renting during the crash.

You may worry about being forced to move, but the law says the landlord has to offer you a one year lease at a minimum, and they'll probably be delighted to offer you a two year lease and give you a discount for that. Other people want the mobility that renting affords. Renters can usually get out of a lease and move anywhere they want within one month, with no real estate commission.

It is far easier and cheaper to rent a house in a good school district in the Bay Area than to buy a house in the same place.

The biggest upside is hardly ever mentioned: renters can choose a short commute by living very close to work or to the train line. An extra two hours every day of free time not wasted commuting is the best bonus you can ever get.

14. "Owners can change their houses to suit their tastes."

FALSE. Even single family detached housing is often restricted by CC&Rs and House Owner's Associations (HOAs). Imagine having to get the approval of some picky neighbor on the "Architectural Review Board" every time you want to change the color of your trim. Yet that's how most houses are sold these days.

In California, the HOA can and will foreclose on your house without a judicial hearing. They can fine you $100/day for leaving your garage door open, and then take your house away if you refuse to pay. There's a good HOA blog here.

15. "People buy a house for the long term, so things can't crash quickly."

FALSE. People are now buying houses for the very short term. This is how they justify interest-only adjustable mortgages to themselves. The thinking is, "I will own this just long enough to make a profit, maybe a year or two, so there's no need to get a long term loan at a higher interest rate." The distinction between the long-term owner and the short-term flipper has gone away.

16. "If and when the market goes south, you can walk away."

FALSE. If you have a single loan with just the house as collateral, it may be a "non-recourse" loan, meaning you could indeed walk and not lose anything other than your house and any equity in it (along with your credit record). But if you refinance or take a "home equity loan", the new loan is probably a recourse loan, and the bank can get very aggressive, not to mention what the IRS can do. A reader who lived through the 1989 housing crash in LA pointed out the following nasty situation that can happen:
* Let's say you buy a house for $600,000, with a $500,000 mortgage.
* Then the house drops in value to $400,000, you lose your job, or otherwise must move.
* If you can't make your payments, the bank forecloses on you and nets $350,000 on the sale of your house.
* The bank's $150,000 loss on the mortgage is "forgiveness of debt" in the eyes of the IRS, and effectively becomes $150,000 of reportable income you must pay tax on.

It is true that buyers who put zero down and have nothing invested in the house are much more likely to walk away. The large number of new uninvested buyers increases the risk of a horrifying crash in prices rather than a "soft landing".

17. "The house down the street sold for 25% over asking, and that proves the market is still hot."

FALSE. Realtors® try to create the false impression of a hot market by deliberately "underpricing" a house. Say a seller's agent knows that house will probably go for $500,000. He places ads asking $400,000 instead. (Bait-and-switch is illegal when selling toasters, but apparently not when selling houses.) The goal is to first of all prevent buyers from knowing what a realistic price is, and secondly to get buyers to blindly bid against each other. There are four players in this game and three of them are against the buyer: the seller, the seller's agent, and the buyer's agent. Yes, the buyer's own agent works against the buyer, because there is no commission if there is no sale. There's a saying in Las Vegas: "There's a patsy in every game, and if you don't know who the patsy is, you're it."

If you want to prove your agent is not on your side, ask to see houses "for sale by owner" or houses listed by discount brokers.

18. "I was lucky that my Realtor® told me to increase my bid by $100,000. Otherwise I would have lost, because my Realtor® knew about a secret bid $90,000 above mine."

FALSE. Your agent gets paid nothing if you don't buy the house, and he gets more if you waste more money by bidding too high. Those are two big motives to invent false bids.

19. "The MLS proves things are great."

FALSE. All sorts of funny things happen in the MLS (Multiple Listing Service, a private database controlled by real estate agents). For example, if a house just doesn't sell, Realtors® can remove its record in the MLS so that you cannot see that it failed to sell. Then the house comes back on the market at a lower price, and unsuspecting buyers think it's on the market for the first time. Their Realtor® can "prove" it's a new listing by showing the MLS record to the buyer: "See, here's the listing date, just came on the market. Better hurry and buy it, this one is hot."

There is nobody checking that the MLS shows true transaction prices. The MLS prices are often just wrong.

Furthermore, the MLS will not list any house for sale by owner or for sale through a discount broker, except perhaps those listed by Help u Sell. Those cheaper prices are just not in the system, because if you save money, they lose money.

20. "The Bay Area is a special place that will always be expensive."

TRUE, but it was just as special ten years ago, so that does not account for the current housing bubble. Even at half of current prices, it will still be expensive.

Many people are confused about the difference between high prices and increasing prices. Prices are high, but they are not increasing. They are falling. This makes housing a bad investment.

21. "Rich Chinese (or Koreans, or Arabs, or Ethiopians) are driving up housing prices."

FALSE. The percentage of US houses bought by rich foreigners for investment is tiny. Furthermore, American housing is clearly a bad investment at this point. Rich foreign investors are not dumb enough to buy into a badly overpriced market, but your broker is hoping that you are.

22. "There's always someone predicting a Bay Area real estate crash."

TRUE, yet irrelevant. There are very real crashes every decade or so. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

23. "But housing was high when interest rates were 21%."

FALSE. Inflation was much higher then, so fixed debt was easier to pay off with increasing salaries. Now we have adjustible mortgages and stagnant salaries.

House price increases exactly mirror the increase in mortgage debt. According to the Washington Times: "Consumers have doubled their mortgage debt from $3.5 trillion to $7 trillion since 1996, borrowing and spending profusely on the assumption that house prices will keep rising." So the increase in house prices is not backed by assets. It's backed by debt. The debt in turn is backed by the houses. It's just smoke and mirrors.

24. "My dad made money on his house, and it will work for me too."

FALSE. Your dad bought his house when houses were cheap compared to salaries, maybe 3 or 4 times annual salaries. Go ask him. Things are different now. Here is a chart of median house price vs median income in Palo Alto:

Year Median House Price Median Income Multiple
1980 148900 24743 6.0
1990 457800 55333 8.3
2000 910000 90377 10.0

Most bankers use a multiple of 3 as a "safe" price to income ratio. We are well beyond the danger zone, into the twilight zone. Another rule of thumb is that a fair house price is 125 times the monthly rent. If a house rents for $2000 per month, then a fair price is $250,000.

25. "Look, housing continued to rise after the dot-com crash, so it will always rise."

FALSE, consider the turkey in the farmer's barnyard. He thinks the farmer will always come feed him and not ask for anything. Then Thanksgiving comes. Whack. Past performance is no indication of future results.

26. "Rent can go up, but a 30-year fixed mortgage payment cannot."

TRUE, but irrelevant. House owners lose even with a fixed mortgage, because the price of a house falls as interest rates go up. Most people want to sell within 7 years of moving in, and many have to sell because of job loss, illness, or divorce. No one can afford what the owner paid for it, so the owner has to take a large loss. Renting it out will not come close to covering the mortgage. Bay Area rents have fallen 23% in the last 4 years.

27. "You have to live somewhere."

TRUE, but that doesn't mean you should waste your life savings on a bad investment. You can live in the same kind of house by renting during the crash. A renter could save hundreds of thousands of dollars, not only by paying less every month, but by avoiding the devastating loss of his downpayment. In fact, it's currently cheaper to live in a nice hotel in most parts of the US than it is to make mortgage payments in the Bay Area.

28. "Newspaper articles prove prices are going up."

FALSE. The numbers in the papers are not complete and have murky origins. Those prices are "estimated" from the county transfer tax and making that tax public record is optional. A buyer who does not want you to see how little he paid has only to ask to put the transfer tax on the back of the deed and it will not show up on computer searches of the deed, which show only the front. Others voluntarily pay more tax than they have to, in order to inflate the apparent price to fool the next buyer. At a tax rate of about $1 per thousand of sale price, as in San Mateo county, you have to pay only $100 extra tax to make your purchase price look $100,000 higher. Another common occurrence is for the buyer to get a large cash payment back from the seller. So the house price looks high in the paper, but in reality the buyer got a huge rebate.

Even though you can in theory go to your county building and get sale price information, in reality the county will give it to you in a painfully slow and inconvenient way. For example, in Redwood City's county building there are PC's where you can look at data for any particular house, but you cannot print, you cannot save to a floppy disk, you cannot email data out. All you can do is write things down manually, one at a time. And that's how real estate interests like it. Your elected representatives are serving them, not you. Please vote against County Clerk Warren Slocum in San Mateo County unless he fixes the Redwood City computers to allow you to save data.

29. "My appraisal proves what my house is worth."

FALSE. "An appraisal in its typical residential real estate form is little more than a comparative analysis conducted by someone with no skin in the game offering confirmation that other lemmings are paying too much for their houses as well." -from an article on morningstar.com

Anyway, as transaction volumes decline, the first few low sales will have a large and sudden impact on appraisals.

30. "If one house sells for a million dollars, a million houses are worth a trillion dollars!"

FALSE. If all of those million houses were all on the market they would sell for far less. Less than 5% of all existing houses were sold last year. The other 95% are merely assuming they can get the same prices.

31. "It's not a house, it's a home."

FALSE. It's a house. Wherever one lives is home, be it apartment, condo, or house. Calling a house a "home" is a manipulation of your emotions for profit.

Also, Realtor® is a commercial term, not a real word. Note the "®" symbol.

32. "If you don't buy now, you'll never get another chance."

FALSE. This argument was also popular in 1989 in Los Angeles, just before a huge crash. There are always sellers and there are always buyers. Prices are always corrected when they get beyond what buyers can pay. In fact, they're being corrected right now.

Here is a great quote from June Fletcher, a Wall Street Journal reporter, that says it all: "The real issue isn't whether you will be stuck being a renter all your life, she says. Its whether you'll get so scared about being shut out that you'll buy at the market's peak and be stuck in a property you can't afford or sell."

33. "Property in the Bay Area is a luxury good, and so will be less affected by economic downturns."

FALSE. 82% of last year's Bay Area mortgages were ARMs, and ARM loans are not taken out by the rich. People on the border of bankruptcy take out ARMs because they can't afford fixed rate loans. The rich don't have loans at all.

Many of these ARM loans have exceptionally deadly repayment terms, and so are known as "neutron mortgages". Like the neutron bomb, they destroy people, but leave buildings standing.

34. "Housing will be permanently higher since downpayments are now obsolete."

FALSE. The first big wave of default will cause downpayments to suddenly seem like a good idea again. Lending standards are already improving.

35. "House ownership is at a record high, proving things are affordable."

FALSE. The percentage of their house that most Americans actually own is at a record low, not a high. We do have a record number of people who have title to a house because they have dangerous levels of mortgage debt, but that is no cause to celebrate.

36. "Long term rates are still at historic lows!"

TRUE, but irrelevant. Most new mortgages and refinancings are now short term, and those will definitely be affected by rising short term rates.

37. "The limited land in the Bay Area means prices will always go up."

FALSE. Japan has a very severe land shortage, but that hasn't stopped prices from falling for 14 years straight. Prices there are now at the same level they were 23 years ago. If we really had a housing shortage, rents would be going up, but they're going down instead.

38. "It would take another 911 terrorist attack or a major earthquake that wipes out this area in order for the price to fall by 50%."

FALSE. Even with a 50% decline in prices to $350,000 or so, the median price in the Bay Area will still be roughly double the median price in most of America, and the median Bay Area household income of about $70,000 will still not be sufficient to buy a house. So a 50% decline is well justified by the fundamentals.

39. "Housing is an excellent hedge against inflation, so you should buy now anyway."

FALSE. Interest rates go up with inflation, and higher interest will be the last straw for ARM mortgages in the Bay Area. Their defaults and foreclosures will drive down the cost of housing for everyone else around here. Remember that 82% of recent Bay Area mortgages were adjustable. There is little chance that salaries of ARM owners can keep up with inflation because of two billion people in India and China who would be happy to do their jobs for much less money.

40. "Houses always increase in value in the long run."

FALSE. House values are actually constant. Adjusted for inflation, prices in Holland, for example, rose less than one quarter of one percent annually in the 350 years since their tulip bubble. Warren Buffett and Charles Schwab have both pointed out that houses don't produce anything. They do not increase in intrinsic value. Unless there's a bubble, house prices simply reflect current salaries and interest rates. Consider a 100 year old house. Its value in sheltering you is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. It did not increase in value at all. It did not spontaneously get bigger, or renovate itself. Quite the opposite - it drained cash from its owners for 100 years of maintenance and taxes. Its price went up about as much as salaries went up.

My grandmother always used to complain about the cost of milk. "Why, when I was a girl, a gallon of milk cost a dime! Just look at how much people are overcharging for milk now." I asked her how much people got paid back then. "Oh, about $15 a week", came the reply. Hmmm, sounds very much like the reasoning people use now when they talk about how much their father's house appreciated "in the long run" without considering that salaries rose a similar amount.

41. "Maybe we should just accept that we missed out on a great opportunity to get into the real estate in the past N years."

FALSE. Did we all miss out on a great opportunity to get into the stock of pets.com or other Internet companies with no business model? The real question is what is likely to happen in the next few years according to fundamental economics. The answer is a huge crash. The last guy to buy into the bubble will get hurt the most.

42. "I just want to own my own house."

TRUE, most people do and that's fine. Buyers will get their chance when housing costs half as much and they have saved a fortune by renting. House ownership is great - unless you ruin your life paying for it.

As reader Sean Olender put it: "Many people have forgotten that their number one restriction on future freedom -- to do what they want when they want and to go where they want -- the number one power over them in the future isn't the Iraqis, or Iranians, or North Koreans, it isn't the axis of evil, it's their mortgage lender."


http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html
 
What's next...wiki definitions? Listen to afroroyale at your own risk...here's my opinion.

1. Get the lowest interest rates as you possibly can (for reasons I've mentioned before) Look for flex plans where you can buy your percentage points up front.
2. Interest rates are trending up which means buy as soon as you can
3. Most (99%) of people pay more in interest than the actual cost of the house.

Investors...Once upon a time, there was this thing called the internet and the internet economy was supposed to replace the traditional economy. As soon, as the internet became a household name, the SME dot.coms went bust. Why? Because the companies weren't growing, they were losing money, but they were creating infrastructure.

This is all fact.

Is there any question whether the infrastructure for the housing industry is in place? So what will you see? You won't see a bust; you'll see a slow leak driven by the interest rates and a scaling down of loan ability. Prices will level out, not go down. Or, if they go down, the disparity between cost savings and interest paidout will be large.

Please don't just take my word. I've found the best source for home sales process is the mortgage broker. This person's job is to make money from your sell so the easier it is for you...the easier it is for him or her.

And finally, as an aside, be careful who you listen to on any messageboard. There are certain people who come to these boards to give disinformation. Generally, it's always easy to pick them out of a crowd. They tend to use circular logic, poor references, and can never give a straight answer to your questions.

With that said, Afroroyale, what makes you think that there will be a second surge of investment home sales, feel free to use any areas (like the bay area (SF and Oakland)), show us demographics (specifically income) that suggest that people who haven't bought in the low interest rates, easy acquisition times are now going to buy in the high interest rates, difficult acquisition times? Or, that the people aren't becoming more price sensitive in the rental arena? Try to use more credible sources. ;)

As this is my last post in this tread, you'll be free of interruptions from me. ;)

Thx...YMX

Oh yeah, before I forget, do you think renter monthly prices which are traditionally higher than mortgage prices will go up or down? And, now that the immigration reform is not going through, do you believe these people are now going to be more or less sensitive to price? :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AristotlesOwn said:
I'm looking for (free) money to rehab a foreclosure. Any suggestions? What's the real deal with government grants?
:cool: I hope someone else on the board will give us all more information on this subject.
This is what I know/ experience; in the passed, I have paid for seminars that net me very little for the paper that was spent on it. I have met people that are grants writers for Non-profits and you have to know the criteria of the grant provider ie font, date and the amount they will accept the request for funds.
This is not my game so this is about all I can offer… Best of luck to you Dawg!
Stay up!!! LICK !
:cool:
 
DESTROSIS said:
Originally Posted by afroyale
Lick, YmX, your stance on RE sounds like a broken record. The following is from a website that has debunked Buy vs. Rent argument... and more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. "There are great tax advantages to owning."

FALSE. It is now far cheaper to rent a house in the San Francisco Bay Area than it is to own that same house, even with the deductibility of mortgage interest figured in. It is possible to rent a good house for $1800/month. That same house would cost about $700,000. Assume 6% interest we can see that a buyer loses at least $4,936 per month by buying. Renting is a loss of course, but buying is a much bigger loss.
:lol:
:cool:
Man... This is sad... I don't care how you see this. The fact is at the end of the day, the renter only benefit is a place to stay as long as the rent is paid. No equity in any way.
The owner receives the tax write off from the interest paid on the loan, improvements and all equity. The owner made money from a (OPM) debt.
If the owner were to experience any dreadful financial times, the picture will always be better for the owner vs. the renter.
We all know that Americans save less than all other groups in the world. We spend! The US is one of the largest consumers of damn near everything on this Earth. Our priorities for the most part is “ass backwards” at best! We will finance a auto and pay rent with no place to park that financed auto. And when we step out of the rented place and sit in our financed auto we will have on some of the newest, best threads (Often purchased with credit/bad debt) and not one thing will be a tax write off.
We will be a slave to the rat race and struggle just to continue that life…
This ain’t living my brother. For the last six years I take my entire family (4) on a 30 day vacation. This year it will be 45 or 50 days due to we will leave this Country twice to Africa, in December & April and I have been blessed to do these things because I am a owner. When I was a renter, I watched Jerry Springer each night just to go sleep feeling better (I don’t or never will have Jerry Springer issues) about life.
Don’t get me wrong… An owner can mismanage and blow it as well as a renter.
Anywho… I wish you well Dawg!
Stay up!!! LICK !

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Lick said:
:cool:
Man... This is sad... I don't care how you see this. The fact is at the end of the day, the renter only benefit is a place to stay as long as the rent is paid. No equity in any way.
The owner receives the tax write off from the interest paid on the loan, improvements and all equity. The owner made money from a (OPM) debt.
If the owner were to experience any dreadful financial times, the picture will always be better for the owner vs. the renter.


Had you read all of the 42 points above, then you'd have come across a few that flatly lays your argument to rest.

The basic fact is, those who own properties before 2001 (probably like yourself) *may* be in positive cashflow territory. Purchases made after 2002 and which have not been already sold are pretty much dead horses.

A home equity loan is just borrowed money based on what some schmuck sold theirs for X month's ago (a.k.a "appraisal" ... and a LOT of fake appraisals has been made during the past 5 years). Real profits on investments are not realised until the property is finally sold. So yeah, go ahead and take vacations with borrowed money, thinking you are Donald Trump. :lol:

The motto for the US economy is "DEBT = WEALTH". I tell ya, it's really fucked up. Go ahead, pretend you are rich because of your huge lines of credit.... aka LOANS... aka DEBT.
 
Last edited:
afroyale said:


Had you read all of the 42 points above, then you'd have come across a few that flatly lays your argument to rest.

The basic fact is, those who own properties before 2001 (probably like yourself) *may* be in positive cashflow territory. Purchases made after 2002 and which have not been already sold are pretty much dead horses.

A home equity loan is just borrowed money based on what some schmuck sold theirs for X month's ago (a.k.a "appraisal" ... and a LOT of fake appraisals has been made during the past 5 years). Real profits on investments are not realised until the property is finally sold. So yeah, go ahead and take vacations with borrowed money, thinking you are Donald Trump. :lol:

The motto for the US economy is "DEBT = WEALTH". I tell ya, it's really fucked up. Go ahead, pretend you are rich because of your huge lines of credit.... aka LOANS... aka DEBT.
:cool:
Hey Bruh… I know you don’t get it but I’m doing this for the ones that is seeking knowledge.
Yes. I did buy before 2001 and have been buying every year since. I don’t borrow to go on my trips because I don’t have to. I will not state what I earn here. That is not the issue. However, I have said this in the past and I will say it again… I buy and hold. Almost all of what I buy is rented to people like you. People who for whatever the reasons pay rent to people like me. They pay my debt on the home they live in. Yet I receive all of the tax write offs, the appreciated value, the liberties… Everything but living in it. I’m cool with that. Because if they stop paying the rent I evict them. I’m cool with that as well.
We need people like you… If we did not have them… We would have to make our wealth in another way.
It is like pussy and I still wish you well Dawg because there is enough for us all… Brother! :cool:
Stay up!!! LICK ! :cool:
 
DESTROSIS said:
Hey man i agree. You have no problems from me.
Hey Dawg... We cool... The truth is no one is a problem to anyone on this board... This is only the internet... It all good my brother... Like I said... It's like pussy... There is enough for everyone to get their fill!
Stay up my brother!!! LICK ! :cool:
 
[frame]http://www.forbes.com/home/personalfinance/2006/07/19/real-estate-scams_cx_tvr_0719ripoffs.html[/frame]
 
what an entertaining thread this has been!

time for an update!

deputy dawg, it's now almost 3 weeks since you've reported about your distressed property. has it sold? if yes, can you provide the MLS number so we can look at the completed sale?

deputy dawg, lick, ymx and afroyale: would you kindly report what cities you are in? your location(s) might speak to your experience with r/e and make it clear as to why you've adopted the position(s) that you have.

i have no sincere interest in entering the r/e profession, but i have learned quite a bit from a real estate principles course i enrolled in last month. i've enjoyed the learning so much, in fact, that i will be taking the real estate practices and real estate legal aspects class this fall.
 
cranrab said:
what an entertaining thread this has been!

time for an update!

deputy dawg, it's now almost 3 weeks since you've reported about your distressed property. has it sold? if yes, can you provide the MLS number so we can look at the completed sale?

deputy dawg, lick, ymx and afroyale: would you kindly report what cities you are in? your location(s) might speak to your experience with r/e and make it clear as to why you've adopted the position(s) that you have.

i have no sincere interest in entering the r/e profession, but i have learned quite a bit from a real estate principles course i enrolled in last month. i've enjoyed the learning so much, in fact, that i will be taking the real estate practices and real estate legal aspects class this fall.
Yeah brother…. This has been one hell of a ride huh! All good however… I am in California! South, Los Angeles, California… SouthCentral L.A. has been very, very good to me and my family. Nevertheless, Real Estate is only one of the things I do.
Stay up everyone!!! “ LICK “
:cool:
 
cranrab said:
what an entertaining thread this has been!

time for an update!

deputy dawg, it's now almost 3 weeks since you've reported about your distressed property. has it sold? if yes, can you provide the MLS number so we can look at the completed sale?

I'm finishing the landscaping this week. This is the LAST property I will be doing the work myself. The joy of getting in there and getting my hands dirty wore off long ago. And, though it may cost more, pay the folks who do on a daily basis the things you need done. I do everything but electrical & plumbing. That means laying laminate/tile/carpet, drywall, paint, door/window installation, demo-repair and landscaping.

Again. I wil provide MLS # and details after the sale. I'm leaning towards FSBO and just telling my 10 favorite Realtors to bring their pre-approved buyers through as well as connecting directly with 1st time buyer programs.

I'm BIG on marketing & promotion, and I'm trying to stage the house with some furnishings from local/national reatilers. I'm also working on a video profile of the rehab project for a local news segment; kinda like "Flip That House". I have a RE bootcamp coming up next month so it's been hectic!!

cranrab said:
in fact, that i will be taking the real estate practices and real estate legal aspects class this fall.

Good move!
 
deputy dawg said:
I'm finishing the landscaping this week. This is the LAST property I will be doing the work myself. The joy of getting in there and getting my hands dirty wore off long ago. And, though it may cost more, pay the folks who do on a daily basis the things you need done. I do everything but electrical & plumbing. That means laying laminate/tile/carpet, drywall, paint, door/window installation, demo-repair and landscaping.

Again. I wil provide MLS # and details after the sale. I'm leaning towards FSBO and just telling my 10 favorite Realtors to bring their pre-approved buyers through as well as connecting directly with 1st time buyer programs.

I'm BIG on marketing & promotion, and I'm trying to stage the house with some furnishings from local/national reatilers. I'm also working on a video profile of the rehab project for a local news segment; kinda like "Flip That House". I have a RE bootcamp coming up next month so it's been hectic!!



Good move!
I wish you your continued success my brother!
“ LICK “
:cool:
 
Lick said:
I am in California! South, Los Angeles, California… SouthCentral L.A. has been very, very good to me and my family.

me too. the first home i owned was a 2 story in west adams district. directly across the street from ray charles' recording studio on washington.

the woman i bought the place from also owned a 3 story just down the street from first ame just south of washington.

i don't regret moving, but sometimes i sure miss it!
 
deputy dawg said:
I'm finishing the landscaping this week. This is the LAST property I will be doing the work myself. The joy of getting in there and getting my hands dirty wore off long ago. And, though it may cost more, pay the folks who do on a daily basis the things you need done. I do everything but electrical & plumbing. That means laying laminate/tile/carpet, drywall, paint, door/window installation, demo-repair and landscaping.

Again. I wil provide MLS # and details after the sale. I'm leaning towards FSBO and just telling my 10 favorite Realtors to bring their pre-approved buyers through as well as connecting directly with 1st time buyer programs.

best of luck and good luck on the project. with the time and labor invested, i hope you can turn MORE than $45K out of the deal.

keep us posted on the results and let us know what area you are in.
 
cranrab said:
me too. the first home i owned was a 2 story in west adams district. directly across the street from ray charles' recording studio on washington.

the woman i bought the place from also owned a 3 story just down the street from first ame just south of washington.

i don't regret moving, but sometimes i sure miss it!
I know the area very well Dawg! There are Mansions in that area… Many people don’t know that less than one block is a Mansion on a ¼ acre.

Stay up! “ LICK ”
:cool:
 
afroyale said:
{{bump}}

Let's keep this thread on the radar.


S'up LICK, has that pussy started to stink? :lol:
LOL! No... I'll say it again, I don't flip or sell. I buy and hold... I receive rents! Someone like you that pays rent is paying my mortgage. I am busy on a land deal right now. Do you have anything bad to say about buying land?
" LICK ":cool:
 
Back
Top