37 Bogus Arguments About Housing
« prev   3   next »

6
0

37 Bogus Arguments About Housing

By someone else following x   2015 Jul 11, 1:24pm 118,243 views   113 comments   watch   quote     share  


  1. Houses always increase in value in the long run.
    FALSE. Price is what you pay and value is what you get. The value of a house is constant. It just sits there. You get shelter, but you have to pay property tax and maintenance and the loss of alternative uses of capital. A house is a dead asset. The price of a house rises with salary inflation, but house prices cannot increase more than incomes in the long run. This is obvious if you think about it. If house prices go up more than people can afford to pay, buying stops, like it has stopped now.

    For example, prices in the Netherlands are about the same as they were 350 years ago, in terms of how many years of work it takes to buy a house. Warren Buffett and Charles Schwab have both pointed out that houses don't increase in intrinsic value. Unless there's a bubble or a crash, 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 - the house drained cash from its owners for 100 years of maintenance, taxes, and insurance - costs that never go away. The price of the house went up about as much as salaries went up, which is about the same as the number of dollars printed by the Federal Reserve 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 inflation and salaries rose a proportional amount as the Fed debased our currency.

    I don't see any salary inflation in our future for years to come, and that's the only kind of inflation that boosts house prices. Inflation in everything else (food, energy, medical) just takes away from the money people have to spend on housing.




  2. As a renter, you have no opportunity to build equity.
    FALSE. Equity is just money. Renters are actually in a better position to build equity through investing in anything but housing. Renters can get rich much faster than owners, just by saving the money that owners are wasting on mortgages, taxes, and maintenance. Renters are getting paid to wait, both by the monthly savings and by watching the value of their savings increase relative to housing.

    • Owers are losing every month by paying much more in interest than they would pay in rent. The income deduction does not come close to making owing competitive with renting.

    • Owers are losing principal in a leveraged way as prices decline. A 14% decline completely wipes out all the equity of "owners" who actually own only 20% of their house. Remember that the agents will take 6% if they possibly can.

    • 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.
  3. Renting is just throwing money away.
    FALSE, renting is now much cheaper per month than owning the same thing. If you don't rent, you either:

    • Have a mortgage, in which case you are throwing away money on interest, tax, insurance, and maintenance.

    • Own outright, in which case you are throwing away the extra income you could get by converting your house to cash, investing in bonds, and renting a similar place to live for much less money. This extra income could be 50% to 200% beyond rent costs forever, and for many is enough to retire right now.

    Either way, owners lose much more money every month than renters. Currently, yearly rents in the San Francisco Bay Area are about 3% of the cost of buying an equivalent house. This means a house is returning about 3% rent minus taxes and maintenance, bringing the landlord's return down to 0%.

    Landlords are loaning a house to their tenants at a 3% interest rate, called rent. This is a fantastic deal for renters. When it is possible to borrow a million dollar house for 3% yearly rent at the same time a loan of a million dollars in cash costs 6.5% interest, plus 1.3% property tax, plus 1% maintenance, something is clearly broken. Renters are enjoying an extreme discount at the owner's expense.

    If someone tells you that you are throwing money away, you can reply "The landlord is giving me a huge gift. He's subsidizing me to live in his rental. I'll take free money any day."

    If someone tells you that you are "Not building equity", you can reply you are not LOSING equity, which happened to millions of people, and is still going on right now.

    To add insult to "owners", their property is declining in value. Renters are completely protected from the massive losses owners are experiencing. Here's a great quote from NPR:

    Underwater owner: "We would do it [pay the mortgage] if the equity was there, but in a case where we're already so behind... Imagine that for five years, say, we're gonna pay four grand a month and then we're just gonna be back up at what we bought the house for. We feel like we're throwing away money."

  4. There are great tax advantages to owning.
    PARTIALLY TRUE. It's true for high-income couples with expensive houses and big mortgages, but not for modest-income couples in modest houses, especially if there is no mortgage.

    Every married couple filing jointly automatically gets to subtract an $11,400 deduction ($5,700 for singles) from their adjusted gross income to arrive at their taxable income. Alternately, you may add up modest deductions in seven categories: Medical, Taxes, Interest, Charity, Casualty and Theft, Job Expenses, and Other Misc. If the total of your expenses in these categories exceeds the standard deduction, you can itemize them on Schedule A of your tax return to reduce your taxable income.

    Let's assume that your only deductible expenses fall into the Taxes and Interest categories. Taxes mainly include the income tax you pay to the state (or its sales tax) and the property taxes on your home or other non-investment real estate. In a high-tax state like New Jersey, you might easily pay $7,200 in property taxes and $200 in income taxes, for a total of $7,400. So the first $4,000 of interest expenses just brings your deductions up to the standard $11,400, without reducing your taxable income.

    For a high-income couple, let's assume they can itemize their state income tax of $3,400, contributions of $1,000, and medical expenses of $1,000. These deductions use up $5,400 of the $11,400 standard deduction. So the first $6,000 of property taxes and interest save them nothing. After that, their savings depend on their tax bracket, which could be as high as 35 percent.

    For couples with modest incomes and mortgages, the first $11,400 of taxes and interest save them nothing.

    Evaluate your situation before making a buy-rent decision based on potential income-tax savings. Be sure to consider the deduction limit imposed by the AMT, too. Interest is paid in real 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 on mortgage interest. You don't get rich spending a dollar to save 30 cents!

    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.

    If you don't own a house but want to live in one, your choice 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.

    Even if you pay outright, you're still renting the house to yourself, losing alternative uses of that money, and taking the risk of falling house prices.

    Compare the cost of owning to renting.

  5. All real estate is local, so you cannot say anything about the national market.
    FALSE. Lending is global. All loans are harder to get. This will push prices down everywhere.
  6. 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.
  7. As soon as prices drop a little, the number of buyers on the sidelines willing to jump back in increases.
    FALSE. There are very few buyers left, and those who do want to buy will be limited by increasing difficulty of borrowing.

    No one has to buy, but there will be more and more people who have no choice but to sell as their payments rise. That will keep driving prices downward for a long time.

  8. 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 (except in Detroit), but your equity in a house can easily fall to zero, and then way past zero into the red. Even a fall of only 4% completely wipes out everyone who has only 10% equity in their house because agents will take 6% if they can trap the seller with a contract. 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.
  9. The bubble prices were driven by supply and demand.
    FALSE. Prices were driven by low interest rates and risky loans. Supply is up, and the average family income fell 2.3% from 2001 to 2004, so prices are violating the most basic assumptions about supply and demand.

    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 before, when prices were lower.

    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.

    A for-sale sign in a yard instantly increases the supply of houses on the market. There is no need to wait for builders.

    The truth is that prices can rise or fall without any change in supply or demand. The bubble was a mania of cheap and easy credit. Now the mania is over.

  10. They aren't making any more land.
    TRUE, but sales volume has fallen 40% in the last year alone. It seems they aren't making any more buyers, either.

    Japan has a severe land shortage, but that hasn't stopped prices from falling for 15 years straight. Prices in Japan are now at the same level they were 23 years ago. If we really had a housing shortage, there would not be so many vacant houses.

  11. Your calculator says the house I'm interested in is worth far less than the asking price. That's not very helpful in coming up with an offer. FALSE. It's very helpful to be able to document that you could be paying much less to live in the same location and same quality house, just by renting. It's a great negotating point.
  12. It is hard to find a rental that is the equivalent of this home. PARTIALLY TRUE. Sometimes there just is no equivalent rental available in the same area. Placing an ad saying you're looking for a rental in that area in a certain rent range is often enough to bring new rentals out of the woodwork though.
  13. Attractive areas will not follow strict economic laws of their worth. If I keep bidding what a home is strictly worth, I will always lose to someone who simply wants to live there, even if their money could be better invested elsewhere. FALSE. You can't lose by winning. Renting the same quality house in the same area for much less money every month than an owner pays is winning. Maybe others get the intangible feeling of ownership, but you get the cash that they are losing.
  14. 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 much better house than you can buy. Renters live better, not worse. There are downsides to renting, such as being told to move at the end of your lease, or having your rent raised, but since there are thousands of vacant rentals, you can take your pick and be quite happy renting during the crash. There are similar but worse problems for owners anyway, such as being fired and losing your house, or having your interest rate and property taxes adjust upward. Remember, property taxes are forever.

    Some 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. On the other side, if you can get a long-term lease, you will probably find it worthwhile to repair the place to your taste. The average time of owning a house is only seven years anyway.

    It is cheaper to rent a house in a good school district than to buy a house in the same place. In fact, children benefit in several significant ways from living in a rental. Aside from having a choice of school district, kids in a rental benefit from better parks in nicer neighborhoods, more living space, and less stress in their parents' voice -- all because it is still so much cheaper to rent than to own in bubble areas.

    A fun trick to rent a good house cheap: go to an open house, take the agent aside, and ask if the owner is interested in renting the place out. Often, desperate sellers will be happy to get a little rental cash coming in and give you a great deal. Sometimes they will rent to you for free ($0) as long as you keep the place up and pay the utilities.

    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.

  15. 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.

  16. The house down the street sold for 25% over asking, and that proves the market is still hot.
    FALSE.
    agents have been known to create the false impression of a hot market by deliberately "underpricing" a house, especially in California. I personally have seen this happen repeatedly. Say a seller's agent knows that house will probably go for $400,000. He places ads asking $300,000 instead, a price lower than the buyer would accept. (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. If the agent cannot make a commission, you will not be told about the house.

    There is a way around the conflict of interest inherent in being a buyer's agent:
    let the seller's agent be your agent too, just for that one house he's trying to sell. Then the seller's agent has a big motive to lower the price, because he will get double the commission if you buy it rather than some buyer with his own agent.

    Note that you are free to bid far lower than the asking price. You might be pleasantly surprised to find out how desperate the sellers are. Another good reason to start low: you can easily raise your offer, but it's awkward to lower it. A suggestion from a reader: have all your friends bid extremely low for the house before you, then your own low bid will seem more reasonable.

    Another suggestion for dealing with underpricing:

    Get over it, and just beat them at their own game: Beat out all other bidders by bidding unrealistically high, and just be sure to have your offer contingent upon financing & house inspection. Since the bank won't finance you above the appraised value, you're then in a very strong position to re-negotiate the price far lower during escrow. The other bidders will be long gone.

  17. I was lucky that my agent told me to increase my bid by $50,000. Otherwise I would have lost, because my agent knew about a secret bid $40,000 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. It is unwise to take at face value "secret" information that costs you money.
  18. The MLS proves things are great.
    FALSE.
    The MLS (Multiple Listing Service, a private network of databases controlled by real estate agents) is a used-house sales tool designed to restrict access to critical market information to prevent the free market from working efficiently.

    All sorts of funny things happen in the MLS. For example, if a house just doesn't sell, that agents 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 agent 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 no government agency checking that the MLS shows true transaction prices.

    Furthermore, the MLS will not list any house for sale by owner, and will resist listing property for sale through a discount broker, or bank-owned property, or extreme discounts from builders, or many other cases where you could save huge amounts of money. Those cheaper prices are often not in the system, because if you save money, they lose money. Even if some cheaper properties are listed, your agent is not likely to tell you about them if they require more work on his part, or get him a smaller commission.

  19. I'll just amortize the commissions and other transaction costs over 30 years and they'll be OK.
    FALSE. The average length of ownership is seven years, not thirty. That means the 7% or so that you'll pay in commission and closing fees comes out to about 1% per year, and that's actually a lot of money. You may think you're different and will actually stay put for 30 years, but statistically you're not, and you won't.

  20. Rich Chinese (or Europeans, or Arabs) are driving up housing prices.
    FALSE. The percentage of US houses bought by rich foreigners is tiny. Furthermore, American housing is clearly a bad investment at this point. Foreigners can just wait and watch American housing continue to fall, and then buy for much less in a few years. Rich foreign investors are not dumb enough to buy into a badly overpriced market, but your agent is hoping that you are.

    Patrick.net reader John H. points out that when the Chinese property bubble implodes, there will probably be sales of property in California and British Columbia to cover their losses at home.

  21. Local incomes justify the high prices.
    FALSE. Most bankers use a multiple of 3 as the maximum "safe" price-to-income ratio. We are well beyond the danger zone, into the twilight zone. The price to income ratio is still around 10 in the SF Bay Area.
  22. Prices were always way beyond equivalent rent in San Francisco (or whatever expensive town)
    FALSE. Price to rent ratios were normal in San Francisco and other the other expensive towns in 2000. That ratio more than doubled by 2005. See page 34 of John Talbott's excellent book called "Sell Now!"
  23. Higher-income people can afford to spend a larger portion of their income on a mortgage, so your 6% rule of thumb does not apply to them.
    FALSE. Even if you can spend more than 6% of the purchase price each year on a mortgage and other costs to own a house, that does not mean you should. In fact, gross rents are almost always less than 6% in richer neighborhoods, making it an even worse deal for the buyer in these places. The renter living in the same quality house next door loses far less money per month.
  24. 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 a better house for much less money 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.
  25. Newspaper articles prove prices are not falling in my neighborhood.
    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.

    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.

    Supposedly impartial sources like Dataquick are paid for entirely by people with a large financial interest in "proving" that prices are not falling. This makes it unwise to take their numbers at face value.

    For the obviously biased sources like real estate agents, you should assume that their sales price numbers do not include the effective price reductions from "incentives" like upgrades, vacations, cars, assumed mortgages and backroom cash rebates to buyers.

  26. 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

    Amazingly, government house price r=1">measures do not include houses with jumbo mortgages. This excludes well over half of all houses in California. So the government can report a slight price rise, but fail to mention that prices actually fell for the other 60% of houses in California.

  27. Foreclosures destroy neighborhoods, so we should stop foreclosures.
    FALSE. Empty houses destroy neighborhoods. Houses remain empty only because the prices are too high. "Anti-foreclosure" programs just keep prices too high, and keep houses empty. In areas where there are jobs, if prices were allowed to fall enough so that salaries can easily cover the cost of owning, people would move in and take care of the houses. In areas without jobs, the first priority should be jobs.
  28. 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. Don't let them push your buttons.

    A house is a wooden box that sits out in the rain and slowly rots. No one would buy in this market if they really thought about how much pain it's going to cause them in the long run. That's why they sell you a home, not a house.

  29. If you don't own, you're a failure.
    FALSE. Maximizing your savings and escaping the slavery of debt is success. Most people have a hard time understanding this, but they do understand cash. You could show them your bank statements to prove you're way ahead of the game as a renter, but then they would probably just ask you for a loan!

    The use of the status card is another well-known button that agents push to trick people into making foolish purchases. Don't let them do it.

  30. Property in the San Francisco Bay Area is a luxury good, and so will be less affected by economic downturns.
    FALSE. Most San Francisco Bay Area mortgages are 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. They are also known as "suicide loans".

  31. 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.
  32. Rents could shoot up, making it a better deal to buy.
    FALSE. Rents are limited by the money people actually earn, not by how much they can borrow. Try walking into a bank and asking for a loan to pay your rent. For rents to shoot up, salaries would have to shoot up first. Salaries are not likely to rise at all given the current unemployment rate.
  33. You failed to factor in emotion. More houses are sold on emotion than will ever be sold based on perceived value. They buy all they can afford plus.
    FALSE. Buyer emotion doesn't matter at all to the lenders, not on the way up or on the way down. Most people will borrow as much as the possibly can. The limiting factor is lending, not emotion.
  34. It's unpatriotic to talk about mispriced houses. It might drive down prices.
    FALSE. Lower prices are better for America, especially for new families. Aren't lower food and energy prices better for America? Housing prices are the same: lower is better. Most Americans directly benefit by a decrease in house prices. Only the banks benefit from increased mortgage debt.

    If you own a house, lower prices have very little effect. If you want to sell and buy another house, higher prices mean you'll just have to pay more for the next house, while lower prices mean you will get a discount when you buy. If you want to buy a bigger house, you come out ahead with lower prices.

  35. My wife will divorce me if I don't buy a house.
    FALSE. She will divorce you if you do buy a house and go bankrupt trying to pay the mortgage. She won't divorce you if you rent a much nicer place than you can buy, and then take her to Paris for a month each spring, which you can do just by avoiding that suicidal mortgage.

    If she's religious, you could also point out Proverbs 22:7: "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender."

  36. My new baby needs a house.
    FALSE. If you're pregnant and desperately want to buy a house for your new child, that's a perfectly normal feeling called "nesting". It is also the leading avoidable cause of financial fatalities! You most definitely do not need a house for a baby. A baby is utterly unaware of whether it lives in a rental or not. Babies also don't need much space.

    Your baby will do better if you're not stressed out about a mortgage. You have five years before school quality becomes an issue, and at that point you can more easily move into the best school district as a renter than as an owner. Avoid debt and save your money so your child has a better start in life.

  37. I just want to own my own house.
    TRUE, most people do. There's nothing wrong with that. 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. If you can save even just 10% on the price of a house, you can retire several years earlier than you would otherwise. If you can save 50%, then you can easily take a ten year vacation and still come out ahead. Great quote from http://healdsburgbubble.blogspot.com/: "People want to buy a house, they want to have someone tell them it is the smartest decision they are making in their lives, and they don't want to hear about any downside risk."

    Housing is the biggest expense in nearly everyone's life, far more expensive than food, gas, energy, even more expensive than education or medicine. To reduce the time you spend working to pay for housing is to increase the time you have for everything else.

    Cheap housing is good for us all! High housing costs take away from families' ability to save for retirement, fund their children's education, travel and lead a quality life.

    How can we make lower house prices our official government policy? How can we completely eliminate the mortgage interest deduction which drives up housing costs and discriminates against renters? How can we wipe out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, and other agencies whose job it is to enslave Americans to mortgage debt?

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

What should you do?

First of all, both sides should avoid using agents, especially Realtors(R), who are corrupting our laws in Washington with lobbyists. Agents suck money out of the deal and monopolize the critical information of exactly how many bids there are and at what prices. Your own agent or the seller's agent may be bribed by another buyer to prevent your better offer from being presented to the seller, for example. Just find a property or buyer on your own, have the property inspected, and get a real estate lawyer to draw up or review the offer. If you make an offer, mail the offer to the seller yourself so that your agent or the seller's agent can't block it. If you are accepting or rejecting an offer, mail that information to the bidder yourself so that your agent or the bidder's agent can't -94112">block it. Agents have been known to block offers that don't give their own agency both sides of the commission.

Never sign any contract with any agent!
Agents try to trap you with a contract so that you cannot know for sure what is going on or make independent decisions. If you don't want to sell a house yourself or negotate a purchase, hire a lawyer or someone else by the hour to do the work for you. You're likely to save many thousands of dollars by avoiding commission fees.

Do not let any agent know your maximum price, or how much you are pre-approved for. Pre-approval is used by the agent to see how much more they can extract
from you.

To find out the lowest price an owner might accept, you could "happen" to wander by when the owner is outside and say: "I'd can't come near that price so I'm not interested, but just curious, what's your lowest price?"

If you own an expensive house, sell now so you can actually keep some of that funny money that appeared out of thin air. Otherwise, it will be painful to watch it vaporize back into thin air. Investors in mortgage-backed bonds subsidized the increase in the price of your house. Now they want their money back, and your challenge is to prevent them from getting it. The only way is to sell before your neighbors do. Time is not on your side.

If you can't sell without a loss, it's probably best to just walk away and free yourself from mortgage slavery. It depends on whether your loan was "recourse" or "non-recourse". In the latter case, the deal is simply that you can stop paying the loan and give back the house at any time. It's perfectly legal and moral according to the terms of the mortgage. Now that the government has temporarily stopped taxing forgiven debt, you can do it without owing anything! But talk to a lawyer and accountant first. If you refinanced, you may have given up your non-recourse status.

A long-term rental with a multiple-year lease is a good way to get stability with the economic benefits of renting. Many landlords are desperate, and you'll probably find them quite willing to negotiate a long term lease. Make sure they can't raise the rent much during the lease term, and make sure there is only a small penalty for ending the lease early. Even if you sign a normal 1-year lease, most landlords are happy to keep good tenants as long as possible.

If you want to buy, look around and see that house prices are falling. Why hurry to buy into a falling market? Time is on your side. Save your cash and buy for much less in the future. All your savings on the price of a house are tax-free earnings! For Californians: buy after the earthquake, not before.

Good advice from reader Stephen G. Bishop:

Signing a 30-year commitment is absurd. Can you guarantee your income will be uninterrupted for 30 years? It worked in the previous generation, when Dad worked at the same factory for 40 years and retired. Those days are gone. 80% of all mortgages are never kept to maturity. Triple the price of the property when you add interest for 30 years in. It's only worth it if the property doubles in value every ten years. Those days are gone.

Do not buy anything that wasn't built properly, no matter how cheap it gets. Many foreclosures are houses that weren't built properly, and these houses tend to be foreclosed over and over again. Lots of houses are ugly, but an ugly but well built house is often the best deal.

The way to win the game is to have cash on hand when others cannot get a loan. You do not want to be bidding your hard-earned savings against people who are bankrupting themselves with debt. It will be time to buy when lenders once again demand a 20% downpayment from everyone and get serious about checking ability to repay. You'll know prices are reasonable when it's cheaper to own than to rent the same thing. We're not there yet, not even close. Find a nice cheap rental, invest your savings every month, and enjoy the show till then.

Please tell friends about patrick.net, because people need to know the arguments against buying a house.


And a little comic relief (illustration courtesy of Rick LaForce, RickL@ci.union-city.ca.us)

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery.
--Charles Dickens, David Copperfield, 1849

To waste money is to waste that part of your life you spent earning that money, and wasting life is the worst thing you can do. --Dan8267

Saying it is "good" for housing prices to rise is saying that it is good for housing to take an increasing share of salaries each year, forever. There's a limit, and it is somewhat shy of 100%. --Bryce Nesbitt

If you need a mortgage, you can't afford it. --Stephen G. Bishop

From anonymous: The Mexican Dream is to escape from debt peonage. The American Dream is to get into debt peonage.

Lowering interest rates will help the housing and stock market for about as long as peeing your pants will help when you have to go. It will give a warm feeling for a minute.

Everybody hates house-agents because they have everybody at a disadvantage. All other callings have a certain amount of give and take; the house agent simply takes. -- H. G. Wells

Nick Naylor, in Thank You For Smoking: "99% of everything done in the world, good or bad, is done to pay a mortgage. Perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone rented."

From The Politics of Life by Craig Crawford: "Beware the boss who encourages you to buy a house or new car. Mortgages and car payments enslave you to the paycheck that your boss controls."

From Benjamin Graham, in The Intelligent Investor: "The outright ownership of real estate has long been considered as a sound long-term investment, carrying with it a goodly amount of protection against inflation. Unfortunately, real estate values are also subject to large fluctuations; serious errors can be made in location, price paid, etc.; there are pitfalls in salesmens' wiles."

Why do the buy side idiots ALWAYS fall for the FALSE CHOICE FALLACY????
Choice 1: Buy today, right now, this second.
Choice 2: Rent until you die.
Um, I will take door #3: let prices fall another couple hundred $K on a home like this, and buy it in a year or two. What did I win?
--Roberto Aribas

What the public believes, or can be induced to believe, no matter how wrong, is reality to politicians.

Subsidies simply increase prices by increasing demand. Subsidies benefit the first few recipients, but the sellers quickly catch on to the new source of revenue and increase prices to negate that benefit for all subsequent recipients. Ultimately, all subsidies flow directly to businesses as excess profit at public expense. This is true especially for housing and health care subsidies, and the businesses that benefit from these subsidies spend lavishly on lobbying and campaign contributions to make sure the subsidies continue, in the name of the "public good" even though subsidies are obviously a public harm. The true solution to shortages is to increase supply of houses, doctors, or whatever. But increased supply harms profits, so business interests squash all public talk of increasing supply.

Just as an unobserved tree falling in the forest makes no noise, a big beautiful home out in the lonely woods does little to increase status. The key to appreciating status is to have an audience -- and there is no bigger audience than that of our major cities and the playgrounds of their wealthiest residents. -- John Talbott

They hang the man and flog the woman Who steals the goose from off the Common;
But let the greater criminal loose Who steals the Common from under the goose

Interest never sleeps nor sickens nor dies it never goes to the hospital; it works on Sundays and holidays; it never takes a vacation; it never visits nor travels; it takes no pleasure; it is never laid off work nor discharged from employment; it never works on reduced hours. Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you. -- J. Reuben Clark

It is better to get a poor interest rate than own a depreciating asset. -- Michael Surkan

I'll repeat that the best approach [to buying a car] is to use the Internet, have the car delivered and avoid going to dealerships altogether. -- Edmunds.com

Everyone in Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand has a single-payer system. If they get sick, they can devote all their energies to getting well. If Americans get sick, they have to battle two things at once, the illness and the fear of financial ruin. ... And don't believe for a second that rot about America having the world's best medical care or the shortest waiting lists: I've been to hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Singapore, and Thailand, and every one was better than the "good" hospital I used to go to back home. The waits were shorter, the facilities more comfortable, and the doctors just as good. --Lance Freeman at escapefromamerica.com

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

From Our Lot by Alyssa Katz: "The secret, he was learning, was to trigger buyers' emotions, specifically women's emotions."

50 Ways To Leave Your Mortgage

You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You dont need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You dont need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free

But, ah, think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty. If you cannot pay at the time, you will be ashamed to see your creditor; you will be in fear when you speak to him, you will make poor pitiful sneaking excuses, and by degrees come to lose your veracity, and sink into base downright lying; for, as Poor Richard says, the second vice is lying, the first is running in debt. -- Benjamin Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac

I don't think I'll get married again. I'll just find a woman I don't like and give her a house. -- Lewis Grizzard

16 other offers? How can I know for sure that there is really even one other offer? So you're telling me that I should base the biggest financial decision of my life on the honesty and integrity of realtors?

Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.

The End




The Housing Trap


You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.

115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available

Discuss the book

#housing

Comments 1 - 40 of 113     Next »     Last »

1 bg1   ignore (0)   2015 Jul 17, 2:16am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

So glad to see this here.

2 bob2356   ignore (1)   2015 Jul 17, 4:09am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

@patrick why are you so fixated on this idea that buying a house is always bad? It makes no rational sense. A lot of this stuff is out of date anyway. What applied in 2008 doesn't necessarily apply in 2015. Many if not most housing markets (except CA) have returned to historical norms. I'm not advocating buying houses. Each person should look at what is best for them where they live not listen to some naysayer looking to sell his book that says everything about buying is bad.

3 Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2015 Jul 17, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

The truth in your thesis targets a certain class only.
That would be people trying to buy more house than they can really afford.
Most of that reason is out of Prejudice, Elitism, Pride, and misguided self esteem.
I mean 90% of those bellyaching about RE affordability. Wouldn't be caught dead in a house they actually could afford.
We've lost our can do, make do spirit as Nation. Housing market or any market for that matter will never turn around as long as we continue this path of high roller lifestyle birth rights. I moved into a house "I" could afford, and not the house the RE said I could afford. 1/3 or even 30% on housing is too damn much. Most renters out there are even paying more. I don't agree with that. I was taught in School by a sweet old lady who was a cracker jack at household accounting, that you should never pay more than 25% of your income on housing.

I bought what I could afford. Eventually not if but when prices come down. And then if I think my neighborhood has become bellow my pay grade. Then I'll move up into a better house. Possibly cheaper than what I paid for this one. Keep this one and rent it out.

Your thesis is a sound argument for those willing to enslave them selves so they can live in an area that gets more expensive by the day.
But for anyone buying within their budget and a budget they are convinced they can maintain for 15 to 30 years, through up and down economic times, and that includes tax and insurance escrow. Then buying is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 X's better than renting any day.

Especially in this day and age. I can guarantee you that every renter of a house in South Florida in the last 5 years, has had to put up with Realtors and potential buyers, parading through their homes all hours of the day. And broken crap that the landlord refuses to fix because he's selling the place. But that hasn't stopped him from raising the rent to keep up with other lemming landlords. Because the NAR keep releasing "Data" saying that rents are going up because of the housing shortage. Yes the same shortage we are experiencing right now where 2 out of 10 SF homes are boarded up because they have been foreclosed for over 7 years.

4 SFace   ignore (0)   2015 Jul 17, 1:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

These advice killed a lot of people financially recently.

5 PockyClipsNow   ignore (0)   2015 Jul 17, 1:59pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Yes this book came out right at the start of the BEST BUYING OPPORTUNITY for RE in our lifetimes.
Especially in bay area where patrick is mostly concerned with.
09,10,11 was a rare, never to be repeated period where houses cost far far less than today. And the banks with thier short sales did not care what price they got (if you could land one of those deals, there were lots of them)

I know in LA area 2 bedroom apartment style condos couuld be had for 130 to 200k and the same units are now 300 to 500k and rent for 2300+ per month.
Anyway no one knows the future but patrick is a perma bear - you gotta buy the dips people.

Patrick should have released this book in 2005, then another book in 2009 saying 'now is the time to buy re' then another book NOW saying 'now is time to sell re'.
That would have awsome.

These fuking bubbles are makeing me crazy. They are really all scams and frauds we actively participate in, so I guess i respect patrick for not knowingly investing in a ponzi fraud scheme, but we cant all rent, that society cant exist.

6 inflection point   ignore (0)   2015 Jul 18, 6:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick is providing his free opinion. Like any opinion we as individuals are responsible to make our own decisions. Obviously he sees a home as place to live not an investment vehicle. That is because he is not a speculator so do not expect him to tell you how to gamble on the housing market. Once housing begins its next downturn, he will be proven correct. Then people will blame him for not telling them to sell.

7 PhiloB   ignore (0)   2015 Aug 27, 2:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

These figures are not accurate. I own a property in the Bay Area...it's not in the greatest area (Concord) but not too bad either. I currently rent it out. The rent is below market at $1200 per month and Zillow estimates the current value at $182K, which seems about right. That would equal 7.9% annual rental rate vs. cost to buy (($1200 x 12 mos.)/$182K). Am I missing something? Also...rates are not 6.5%...not even for super jumbo loans. And please show me a $1M house that you can rent for $2500.

8 someone else   ignore (0)   2015 Aug 28, 5:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

PhiloB says

.it's not in the greatest area (Concord) but not too bad either. I currently rent it out. The rent is below market at $1200 per month and Zillow estimates the current value at $182K

There's something near the Bay Area for $182K? Sounds unlikely.

Got an address, or comparable properties?

9 APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE   ignore (5)   2015 Aug 28, 5:52pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

If you're paying a note, you're sucking bankster cock and participating in a criminal enterprise.

If you're paying a note, you're no better than the bankster-cock-sucking fucking Clintons.

STOP paying your note and tell the bankster to suck your cock! Every day! Loudly. If you're female tell them to eat your tweetee! Loudly! Every day!

10 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2015 Aug 28, 6:10pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

All of Pat's reasons are great. The Stock Market is a better place to make money, as is personally lending at usury rates small sums of money.

11 John Bailo   ignore (2)   2015 Aug 29, 12:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        


They aren't making any more land.

Well in some sense they are...residential land, or land devoted to housing, constantly increases.

It increases when new housing is built on virgin land...like in new suburbs or as rural areas get connected up with roads and communications.

It also happens when in-fill or higher density occurs. For example, I look at a super expensive city like Seattle, and even if you were to take the cooridors like the major non-interstate highways that run through the city, and convert those from SFHs and open strip malls to low rise apartments and retail, you could easily put hundreds of thousands of people into housing they would like and enjoy and create more local retail shops for them to enjoy and work at. You could do this without cramming them into tiny apodments either.

Relative to the US market, it happens when productivity and life becomes better in other countries, reducing immigration.

It also happens as birth rates level or drop and fewer people in total need homes. At worst across the entire globe, we might see another 2 billion people added. But, at the same time, more of them will find opportunities where they live. And 2 billion is only a 28% increase...and of course not all of them individually will need SFHs. Now compare that to the last 30 or so years when population doubled and the US was still the only robust economy taking in loads of people.

12 Hwnsylke   ignore (0)   2015 Oct 23, 7:50am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Are your views still the same for those homeowners using a VA loan?

14 Logan Mohtashami   ignore (0)   2015 Oct 23, 8:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Let me chime in here

One item I have noticed over my 20 years doing this.

1. Renters mostly rent because can't buy

2. Owners own a home because they have the capacity to own

Housing bubble of course, allowed non capacity debt into the system, which was horrid, hence why I always fight to ease lending standards

However, this cycle doesn't have this

Even in this cycle, those who could did and those who couldn't didn't

I don't believe anything has changed on that front but the real test will comes years 2020-2024 when demographic economic send more supply of college educated dual income Americans into the housing supply and when they have kids ... then you will if people reject housing debt in any meaningful fashion

It shouldn't have been shock to many that mortgage demand curve was weak in this cycle, you had so many variable factors going against it

15 someone else   ignore (0)   2015 Oct 24, 11:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Hwnsylke says

Are your views still the same for those homeowners using a VA loan?

Yes, still calculate whether it's cheaper to own or rent over the likely holding period of 6 or 7 years, and then do the right thing.

16 FortWayne   ignore (0)   2015 Oct 26, 7:56pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

One damn good list.

17 JayHolden   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 11:51am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

"5. All real estate is local, so you cannot say anything about the national market.
FALSE. Lending is global. All loans are harder to get. This will push prices down everywhere."

In the Dallas area I was paying $995/mo to rent a one-bedroom apartment with no garage and now I'm paying $985/mo for principal + interest + taxes on a 4-2-1 house. I choose when to sell based on the home's price.

It's appreciated $15k since I bought it a year ago. I could sell it within 60 days and come up positive (as opposed to spending nearly $12k in rent).

If home prices go down I'll get to buy another house and keep this a while longer. Maybe I'll rent it for $1400/month like the smaller house across the street.

How am I losing exactly?

18 FortWayne   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 12:33pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

JayHolden says

How am I losing exactly?

Jay you do realize this might not apply to everyone? If you can own for less than rent go by all means, but if your rent is 900 and mortgage is 3000 for the same damn thing in Bay Area you got choices to think over.

19 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2015 Nov 6, 12:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

JayHolden says

In the Dallas area I was paying $995/mo to rent a one-bedroom apartment with no garage and now I'm paying $985/mo for principal + interest + taxes on a 4-2-1 house. I choose when to sell based on the home's price.

Does that include internal and external maintenance: Mowing (inc. your leisure time lost if you DIY), Fixing Faucets/Toilets, Painting, etc.?

The Dallas-Ft. Worth area has had substantial booms and busts. It makes sense for you to buy, great. I personally am waiting for another S FL R/E Crash which happens every 7-10 years like clockwork.

20 JayHolden   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 1:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

FortWayne says

Jay you do realize this might not apply to everyone?

Correct me if I'm wrong: reason 5 that I quoted, and therefore a big portion of these reasons, is based on the numbers being accurate for most areas most of the time. It's useful information for the Bay Area or select other areas where the cost of housing is high, but specifically stating the math works out globally is misleading.

FortWayne says

If you can own for less than rent go by all means, but if your rent is 900 and mortgage is 3000 for the same damn thing in Bay Area you got choices to think over.

Around here those numbers sound completely insane. I touched on this in my original comment: with 5% down and PMI, a typical home in my middle-class neighborhood will cost $1k/mo with a 30-year mortgage. That same home will bring in $1350-$1500/mo rent. I've met investors who buy fixer-uppers in the bad part of town for $70k, repair them for $20k and rent them for $900/mo. I struggle to see how the owner is subsidizing the renter in that scenario.

thunderlips11 says

Does that include internal and external maintenance: Mowing (inc. your leisure time lost if you DIY), Fixing Faucets/Toilets, Painting, etc.?

My home's been pretty worry-free, but if I factored in those things and paid myself $20/hr I'd still be nowhere close to negative twelve thousand dollars: $2k in foundation repair, rustic accent wall ($340), lawn maintenance ($560), couple of other projects ($500).

thunderlips11 says

I personally am waiting for another S FL R/E Crash which happens every 7-10 years like clockwork.

Yep. If houses are on sale, buy em.

Not trying to sling poo here, just pointing out a gap for an area like mine.

21 FortWayne   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 7, 8:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

JayHolden says

Around here those numbers sound completely insane. I touched on this in my original comment: with 5% down and PMI, a typical home in my middle-class neighborhood will cost $1k/mo with a 30-year mortgage. That same home will bring in $1350-$1500/mo rent. I've met investors who buy fixer-uppers in the bad part of town for $70k, repair them for $20k and rent them for $900/mo. I struggle to see how the owner is subsidizing the renter in that scenario.

Oh yeah, you are in a totally different place. Bay Area from what I hear is insane.

22 Strategist   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 7, 8:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

FortWayne says

JayHolden says

How am I losing exactly?

Jay you do realize this might not apply to everyone? If you can own for less than rent go by all means, but if your rent is 900 and mortgage is 3000 for the same damn thing in Bay Area you got choices to think over.

If you take into account appreciation the whole thing becomes a no brainer.

23 ken11   ignore (0)   2016 Jan 28, 6:23pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Awesome article.. from a purely financial perspective this makes a ton of sense.

There are other considerations though outside of financial:

- By buying you can make the place completely bespoke to you, how you'd like it. With renting the options are a lot more limited.
- There can be a big cost to re-furnishing, re-decorating etc a new place, so if you have to move every year or every couple of years (in the renting use case), have to consider the cost of that.

Also re: financial considerations:

- I live in San Francisco and the demand to live here keeps going up and up. There's a big shift going on where people are moving more to cities, especially the younger generation. So while the net combining every place to live in the US appears to give a real return of 0%, if you can find an area where demand keeps rising relative to supply you can get positive real returns. Also there's an international impact too where people overseas are mostly buying in big coastal cities like SF, LA, NYC, etc.
- re: oppt cost with stocks, one thing I keep hearing again and again is that in today's market with interest rates at record lows (98% percentile compared to all of history), we cannot just expect the same 6-7% real return from stocks going forward, and that is will be a lot lower than that.

24 B.A.C.A.H.   ignore (0)   2016 Jan 29, 10:45am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick,
Thank you for creating and maintaining this website to share ideas and information.
Your Middle Western Sensibilities don't completely apply in the Bay Area all the time. I wish this were not the case but that does not change the Reality.
Like all the others of us, (as you point out), my partner and I overborrowed/overpaid for our San Jose crapshack decades ago.
Now our "owner equivalent rent" is WAY below market rent and we are the landlords of deciding when the tenants (us) must move out.
Our kids were able to attend the same neighborhood K-12 without disruption.
These things would not be so if we applied your Middle Western Sensibility to Bay Area residency. But we were locally raised kids, had already seen "all the cycles", and even though we've always wished it weren't true, knew that "It's Different Here".

25 Fort William   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 3, 7:22pm   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I love this post, lotta good stuff here

#20 seems like a category error though. Rich Chinese (Russians,Arabs, etc...) are not buying property here as an investment they expect to grow. They buy here because they have even less confidence in the stability of their country/currency than they do in the admittedly pretty damn volatile American housing market. Or, as is more likely, they buy through shell companies as a way to hide gains through corruption, or legitimate gains that can get taken away on a whim by a country without the rule of law. Through a quirk of American law, it is much easier to buy property through shell corps, than better options like securities, bonds, etc...

26 someone else   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 3, 8:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

good point, fort william. foreigners care less about return on capital than return of capital.

27 mell   ignore (1)   2016 Apr 3, 10:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Foreigners also don't have a lot of attachment (unless they move their big family over) and will sell indiscriminately if they need to pull their money out. They definitely provide some stability, but the rapid rise is more linked to the tech bubble V2.0. When it bursts we will have a major correction if not a crash. Nobody needs 40 different companies to bring cold fries to your doorstep and not making a profit. It could begin soon, possibly in the 2nd half of 2016 or early 2017. There is already an uptick in vacant commercial space and some VC capital tightening, it remains to be seen if this continues.

28 Levi   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 5:06am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

There is very little evidence provided by the author. There are claims like "sales volume decreased 40%". What is the source of all this data? Citations is a good way to gain credibility. Some of the author's evidence is over a decade old. Seems like a controversial article created to draw traffic.

29 ja   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 9:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

ken11 says

I live in San Francisco and the demand to live here keeps going up and up. There's a big shift going on where people are moving more to cities, especially the younger generation. So while the net combining every place to live in the US appears to give a real return of 0%, if you can find an area where demand keeps rising relative to supply you can get positive real returns.

I wonder if there is a REIT-value vs REIT-growth fund/ETF. This way we would be able to measure this hypothesis

30 NuttBoxer   ignore (1)   2016 Aug 9, 11:54am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I can personally verify many of Patrick's points. We rented a 3/1 in Chula Vista for $300-500 under rental market value for 4+ years. During that time we paid off all debts, invested in our health, and in other side business investments we never could have with a mortgage. We had a move, but again found a place about $100 under market, and my wife quit her job to stay home with our daughters. My wife NEVER could have done that with a mortgage hanging over our heads.

31 someone else   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 12:14pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Yes, my wife also stayed home with our kids much more than she could have if we had needed to pay a huge mortgage. Our kids benefitted a lot by the fact that we rented.

32 The Original Bankster   ignore (2)   2016 Aug 9, 1:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says

You get shelter, but you have to pay property tax

that's going to be a HUGE problem in states like CA and NY. Property will be a LIABILITY.

33 The Original Bankster   ignore (2)   2016 Aug 9, 1:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says

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.

also heavily customized houses are hard to sell.

34 The Original Bankster   ignore (2)   2016 Aug 9, 1:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says

FALSE. She will

divorce you if you do buy a house and go bankrupt trying to pay the

mortgage. She won't divorce you if you rent a much nicer place than you can

buy, and then take her to Paris for a month each spring, which you can do just

by avoiding that suicidal mortgage.

the simple fact is women demand a mortgage because that is typically the primary asset they get in the case of a divorce. It literally forces the husband to work hard to make those monthly payments, all which go into equity which she then gets in the divorce 10 years later. that is the common structure of a divorce for middle class whites. It's practically routine these days.

a woman who demands you get a huge house with a mortgage likely already has a divorce planned.

35 BayArea   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 1:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

@Patrick, I'm curious how many copies of your book have you sold up to now, if you don't mind sharing?

I thoroughly enjoyed it and always recommend it to my first time home buyer friends so they can see both sides...

36 Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 1:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

NuttBoxer says

I can personally verify many of Patrick's points. We rented a 3/1 in Chula Vista for $300-500 under rental market value for 4+ years. During that time we paid off all debts, invested in our health, and in other side business investments we never could have with a mortgage. We had a move, but again found a place about $100 under market, and my wife quit her job to stay home with our daughters. My wife NEVER could have done that with a mortgage hanging over our heads.

bullshit. you posted on here, years ago, about a home nicer than you were renting, that would have had a mortgage the same as your (lower than now) rent. IWOG literally begged you to buy it for your own good.

Paying the same thing each month would not have broken you, and the 50% increase in home values in your area since then would have utterly destroyed whatever little saving the difference has been. Now your rent is higher. 10 years from now??

37 someone else   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 2:08pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

BayArea says

I'm curious how many copies of your book have you sold up to now, if you don't mind sharing?

708 copies, for a total royalty payment of $3,671.88.

That's $5.19 royalty per copy.

38 BayArea   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 2:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Here is the thing...

Patrick's book is excellent at showing the less glamorous side of real estate... a side that a real estate agent, a friend, or co-worker probably won't know or tell you. With all the pressures to buy, it's good that someone wrote the only book I know of its kind that levels the playing field a bit.

Now if I recall, our author lives in Menlo Park? and wrote the book sometime in 2012. If he bought during that time, he would have been writing a very different book today in 2016.

39 BayArea   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 2:19pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says

708 copies, for a total royalty payment of $3,671.88.

That's $5.19 royalty per copy.

Thanks for sharing Patrick. And I'll continue to recommend the book to people and hopefully help boost that 708.

40 someone else   ignore (0)   2016 Aug 9, 2:33pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

The Original Bankster says

the simple fact is women demand a mortgage because that is typically the primary asset they get in the case of a divorce. It literally forces the husband to work hard to make those monthly payments, all which go into equity which she then gets in the divorce 10 years later. that is the common structure of a divorce for middle class whites. It's practically routine these days.

a woman who demands you get a huge house with a mortgage likely already has a divorce planned.

I don't think most women are actually consciously calculating that. I do think that women have some "nesting" set of neurons that men don't have, and this compels them to hunt for a safe comfortable house to raise their children. Unfortunately, women do now have a huge financial incentive for divorce and men routinely get screwed whether they own a house or not. She will get the assets whether they are in real estate, stock, or whatever, and she has zero obligations: no obligation to work, no obligation to have sex or have children, no obligation to remain faithful, definitely no obligation to remain married. If she cheats and has a child that is not his, he is also obligated to support that child of another man. Why would a man accept such a deal where he is legally obligated to give up more than half of his earnings in exchange for no legal obligation at all on her part? This is why marriage rates are falling.

the abolition of fault, not only as a prerequisite for divorce but
also as a consideration in determining divorce awards, ushered
in a revolution in divorce jurisprudence. Divorce awards under
the old system served as a selective form of specific performance
dependent on the inviolability of marital obligations. Modem
awards, justified by need or lost career opportunities, deny the
existence of an obligation to remain married.

http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1466&context=law_faculty_scholarship

I'd say that even more important than women wanting a safe comfortable place to raise children is the motive of employers to keep their employees in debt. A person in debt is a person who cannot easily quit his job and must instead obey orders.

And the goal of all employers is to create and maintain obedient workers.

Comments 1 - 40 of 113     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_0b6c5 or log in at top of page: