comments by SFace

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 9:23am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 1

If your employer does not offer a low cost index fund like the Vanguard, you should tell HR it is unacceptable.

For retirement funds, it is dangerous to buy/trade individual stocks. Most will just need one choice, a low cost index fund and a small mix of medium term bonds.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Tue, 26 Apr 2016, 11:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

jazz music says

From 2012-2015, there has been more inventory than at any point in time from 1999-2005. Low sales growth is due to demand, not supply. Demand is low because buyers have insufficient incomes and assets – and this is due to demographics, debt and the Great Recession.

Prices ran up what 60-100% from 2012-2015. If that is your reason, renters will be driven to the ground. (If you claim low demand and prices are bat shit crazy) It's quite obvious that high housing price is due to shortage of real homes ()in desirable areas) and especially homes for sale (in desirable areas).

zzyzzx says

No, it isn't.

It's a good problem to have. Lets put it this way, do you want to be Palo Alto or Vallejo mayor? housing is a social science and its very predictable how people (profile) choose where to live.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Mon, 25 Apr 2016, 7:11pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 3

The only way to bring affordable housing is new supply, like gigantic amount.

That will never happen because high housing cost is a desirable problem. Don't be silly, cities like Palo Alto love high home prices and there is no way in this green earth they will change that.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 9:59pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 4


SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 9:59pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

You are hopeless Iman. is down the tubes.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 9:14pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 6

Revenue's take super majority in CA. (Thank goodness for Howard Jarvis)

Every tax increase in this country will pass if the threshold is 50%. I would think it makes sense to play the tax increase card during recessions. The money should come out of general funds which are healthy. If education is important, scrap something that is not important. You can't tell me everything needs to be fully funded.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 8:58pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 7

Sorry, I don't but for a second a family like Bernie Sanders age 74 making 65K will pay 14.7% in federal income tax. (ETR for federal income tax only which excludes SS and medicare)

It's a prime example of facts need checking.

Second, the rate difference of 1%, there is no point and quite a useless argument anyway. Notwitstanding, I don't buy for a second a 74 year old married filer will pay 14.7% anyway

We all know why is rate is low. He's old, he's supports his spouse and he has very basic deductions everyone has. 27K in federal income tax (52K in federal/state/county) is a shitload of money taken from a 74 year old whom paid taxes for 55 years. The man paid enough.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 8:35pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

FortWayne says

If he pays as bank asks over 30 years he'll end up paying $299,988.78 in interest to a bank. That's real significant money, cutting that interest even in half is probably financially wise.

horrible advice

It's not smart to count the interest expense and not consider interest/gains earned.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 8:32pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 9

Ironman says

On a depreciating asset, why would someone tie up their liquid funds and lose value, when they can get get a better return using OPM?

You are bringing up something this is irrelevant, quite impressive. Depreciating/Appreciating, you make up all the rules.

In the end, the decision is whether to pay off the mortgage to avoid the 3% cash net of tax, or deploy that cash somewhere for a return better than 3% net of tax. The person will own the home and ride with it regardless.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 7:14pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

If you get a 30 years mortgage and plan to pay it early, you are basically pissing money away.

If you plan to accelerate the payment, then do a 15 year or 5 year. Instead of 4.125% APR, it goes down to 3.375% APR or 2.25% net of tax.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 7:03pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

payment #1 and payment #360 is the same. Saying the bank owns you is quite a stretch. You basically ate them alive. Would you sign a 30 year lease with no rent escalation, hell fking no.

Freedom comes from financial independence, which is a function of wealth, which is asset less debts. All the rich ass mofo have huge debt and ALL the assets.

It's just my preference that I let the bank takes 80% of the house and me the other 20. Every asset in this world is own by some bank that takes the first 60%. With insurance, you would know that you are on the hook for the first 20% anyway. I can do that letting the bank take 80% all the same.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 6:34pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

There is no dilemma here, there are plenty of choices than pay off a long term mortgage that costs less than 3%, net of tax.

If you think it is such a good deal, would you lend me 400K at 3% interest rate, fixed over 30 years? You have recourse and monthly payment, that's it. Hell fking no. So the debt is an asset like no other

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 6:31pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

FortWayne says

Most people are better off paying their mortgage off and saving all that interest over X years. There is no better feeling than not owing anyone a penny, a free man!

I respectfully disagree. There is no worst feeling than owning the property 100%. If there is a flood/earthquake or other SHTF, you own it all. If the bank owns 80% of it, it is their problem. They have the house, you have all the money.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 1:12pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

Based on Bernie Sanders long ass political career, his pension is worth at least $2M. He has more money than what he can do with. Bernie Sanders have no debt problem, he has a problem with too much money and not enough time.

Obviously I respect that he is running for president and quite not rich. Money/debt problems, hardly.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 11:44am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

Ironman says

What about having the bulk of your mortgage paid off at the age of 74 so you don't have $500K of debt hanging over your head when you die in a few years?

What a concept

I'm sure BS, his spouse, heirs and the banks are not sweating over it (his homes are at least 700K). You drink too much debt is bad Kool-Aid.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Wed, 20 Apr 2016, 11:27am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

"With a family income of roughly $205,000 in 2014, Sanders and his wife Jane, who file their taxes jointly, are in the 28% tax bracket. But they claim deductions that lower their tax rate as a percentage of their adjusted gross income to 13.5%. The average filer, with an income of $65,021, pays an effective rate of 14.7%, according to the IRS."

The average filer is a single filer. At least compare family to family.

14.7% and 13.5% is hardly earth shattering. B Sanders paid more than 3x more tax in absolute than the normal Joe. Something is not comparing. A family with 65K in income sure as heck aint paying 14.5% in fed tax, more like 10%.

"The couple deducted $9,666 in state and local income taxes and another $14,843 in real-estate taxes, presumably on their residence in Burlington, Vt. "

That pretty much double their tax burden another 12% to 26%. So I'm sure that is well above avg.

(He's paying over $22,000 a year in mortgage INTEREST at age 74, what is he, NUTS!!!!) And he still HAS a mortgage at his age??? Really??

he's making 205K. the interest is productive as he has shelter and avoid something even more nuts in old age "RENT" If you are 74 and renting, that's a scary thought.


SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Fri, 4 Mar 2016, 3:03pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 17

B.A.C.A.H. says

Where people go wrong is assuming that human behavior can be predicted on a spread sheet.

I don't think the elites are stampeding their ill gotten gains and college age kids out of Communist China because of a Spread Sheet Calculation.

Housing is more social science, not calculators. Been saying that since 2009.

Mostly, most don't understand location, location, location is in 2016 will be location X5 in 2026. The calculators have a basic flaw that don't understand people pay $$ for value and they sure will be a lot more.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Fri, 4 Mar 2016, 3:01pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

yaletownman says

Hi everyone. I'm Buster's spouse and we bought the house in 2011 for $935,000. Not only has living here been amazing it's also turned out to be the smartest decision we ever made. We have people knocking on the door asking us if we are interested in selling and according to the what's happened with homes of similar quality realtors say we could get between 1.9 and 2.1. (One house in the hood in dated condition went for over $1,300.00 a square foot and after the sellers purchased it they found out it needed major foundation work not caught by the home inspector.). Basically we've doubled our money of course you've gotta get out of the area or move way down to see it as cash in your pocket. Who knew that Bay Area real estate prices would soar through the roof but they did.

Thanks for pointing/proving out Patrick's calculator's are complete junk.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Fri, 4 Mar 2016, 9:30am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 19

Patrick says

you all should just use the ny times rent vs buy calculator. they have the whole thing pretty well nailed in terms of numbers.

where people tend to go wrong is over-estimating appreciation.

The calculator is just formulas. The two most important factors future cost, future rent, future X is unknown. It's basically useless tool. A fourth grader can compute.

"where people tend to go wrong is over-estimating appreciation"

In 2009 and throughout, your calculator defaulted to negative rent over the long term, How did that work out? Driven to the GROUND.

SFace   befriend (1)   ignore (2)   Thu, 3 Mar 2016, 1:46pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 20

justme says

The mistake we made was to underestimate the amount of financial depravity AND crony capitalism that Congress and the Federal Reserve would be willing to engage in to re-inflate asset prices.

This is the fed. I learned long ago (college econ/greenspan days) the country will choose inflation over deflation 100 out of 100 times. This will never change.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   free bumper sticker  

please recommend to your friends