patrick.net

 
register or log in

#housing #investing #politics
10,817 registered users, 1 online now: curious2
public post private group chat

Ten Reasons It's A Terrible Time To Buy An Expensive House

By Patrick   2015 Jul 11, 12:58pm   ↑ like (17)   ↓ dislike (2)   2,179 links   583,684 views   327 comments   watch (32)   share   quote  

  1. Because house prices in expensive areas still dangerously high compared
    to incomes and rents. Banks say a safe mortgage is a maximum of 3 times
    the buyer's annual income with a 20% downpayment. Landlords say a safe price is
    set by the rental market; annual rent should be at least 9% of the purchase
    price, or else the price is just too high. Yet in affluent areas, both
    those safety rules are still being violated. Buyers are still borrowing 6 times
    their income with tiny downpayments, and gross rents are still only 3% of
    purchase price. Renting is a cash business
    that proves what people can really pay based on their salary, not how much they
    can borrow. Salaries and rents prove that affluent neighborhoods are still in a
    huge housing bubble, and that bubble seems to be getting more dangerous by the day.
  2. On the other hand, in some poor neighborhoods, prices are now so low that gross
    rents may exceed 10% of price. Housing is a bargain for buyers there. Prices there
    could still fall yet more if unemployment rises or interest rates go up, but
    those neighborhoods have no bubble anymore.

  3. Because it's usually still much cheaper to rent than to own the same size
    and quality house, in the same school district. In rich neighborhoods, annual rents are
    typically only 3% of purchase price while mortgage rates are 4% with fees, so it costs more
    to borrow the money as it does to borrow the house
    . Renters win and
    owners lose! Worse, total owner costs including taxes, maintenance, and
    insurance come to about 8% of purchase price, which is more than twice the cost of
    renting and wipes out any income tax benefit.

    The only true sign of a bottom is a price low enough so that you could rent out
    the house and make a profit. Then you'll know it's pretty safe to buy for
    yourself because then rent could cover the mortgage and ownership expenses if
    necessary, eliminating most of your risk. The basic buying safety rule is to
    divide annual rent by the purchase price for the house:

    annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high

    annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline

    annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable

    So for example, it's borderline to pay $200,000 for a house that would cost you
    $1,000 per month to rent. That's $12,000 per year in rent. If you buy it with a
    6% mortgage, that's $12,000 per year in interest instead, so it works out about
    the same. Owners can pay interest with pre-tax money, but that benefit gets
    wiped out by the eternal debts of repairs and property tax, equalizing things.
    It is foolish to pay $400,000 for that same house, because renting it would
    cost only half as much per year, and renters are completely safe from falling
    housing prices. Subtract HOA from rent before doing the calculation for condos.

    Although there is no way to be sure that rents won't fall, comparing the local
    employment rate (demand) to the current local supply of available homes for
    rent or sale (supply) should help you figure out whether a big fall in rents
    could happen. Checking these factors minimizizes your risk.

  4. Because it's a terrible time to buy when interest rates are low, like now.
    House prices rose as interest rates fell, and house prices will fall if interest rates rise
    without a strong increase in jobs, because a fixed monthly payment covers a
    smaller mortgage at a higher interest rate. Since interest rates have nowhere to
    go but up, prices have nowhere to go but down. When housing falls, you lose your
    equity, but not your debt.

    The way to win the game is to
    have cash on hand to buy outright at a low price when others cannot
    borrow very much because of high interest rates. Then you get a low price, and
    you get capital appreciation caused by future interest rate declines. To buy an
    expensive house at a time of low interest rates and high prices like now is a mistake.

    It is far better to pay a low price with a high interest rate than a
    high price with a low interest rate, even if the mortgage payment is the same
    either way.

    • A low price lets you pay it all off instead of being a debt-slave for the rest of your life.
    • As interest rates fall, real estate prices generally rise.
    • Your property taxes will be lower with a low purchase price.
    • Paying a high price now may trap you "under water", meaning you'll have a
      mortgage debt larger than the value of the house. Then you will not be able to
      refinance because then you'll have no equity, and will not be able to sell without
      a loss. Even if you get a long-term fixed rate mortgage, when rates
      inevitably go up the value of your property will go down. Paying a low
      price minimizes your damage.
    • You can refinance when you buy at a higher interest rate and rates
      fall, but current buyers will never be able to refinance for a lower interest rate
      in the future. Rates are already as low as they can go.
  5. Because buyers already borrowed too much money and cannot pay it back. They
    spent it on houses that are now worth less than the loans. This means most banks
    are still actually bankrupt. But since the banks have friends in Washington, they get
    special treatment that you do not. The Federal Reserve prints up bales of new
    money to buy worthless mortgages from irresponsible banks, slowing
    down the buyer-friendly deflation in housing prices and socializing bank losses.

    The Fed exists to protect big banks from the free market, at your expense.
    Banks get to keep any profits they make, but bank losses just get passed on to
    you as extra cost added on to the price of a house, when the Fed prints up money
    and buys their bad mortgages. If the Fed did not prevent the free market from
    working, you would be able to buy a house much more cheaply.

    As if that were not enough corruption, Congress authorized vast amounts of TARP
    bailout cash taken from taxpayers to be loaned directly to the worst-run
    banks, those that already gambled on mortgages and lost. The Fed and Congress
    are letting the banks "extend and pretend" that their mortgage loans will get
    paid back.

    And of course the banks can simply sell millions of bad loans
    to Fannie and Freddie at full price, putting taxpayers on the hook for
    the banks' gambling losses. Heads they win, tails you lose.

    It is necessary that YOU be forced deeply into debt, and therefore forced into
    slavery, for the banks to make a profit. If you pay a low price for a house and
    manage to avoid debt, the banks lose control over you. Unacceptable to them.
    It's all a filthy battle for control over your labor.

    This is why you will
    never hear the president or anyone else in power say that we need lower house
    prices
    . They always talk about "affordability" but what they always mean is
    debt-slavery.

  6. Because buyers used too much leverage. Leverage means using debt to amplify
    gain. Most people forget that debt amplifies losses as well. If a buyer puts 10%
    down and the house goes down 10%, he has lost 100% of his money on paper. If he
    has to sell due to job loss or a mortgage rate adjustment, he lost 100% in the
    real world.

    The simple fact is that the renter - if willing and able to save his money -
    can buy a house outright in half the time that a conventional buyer can
    pay off a mortgage. Interest generally accounts for more than half of the cost
    of a house. The saver/renter not only pays no interest, he also gets interest
    on his savings, even if just a little. Leveraged housing appreciation, usually
    presented as the "secret" to wealth, cannot be counted on, and can just as
    easily work against the buyer. In fact, that leverage is the danger that got
    current buyers into trouble.

    The higher-end housing market is now set up for a huge crash in prices, since there
    is no more fake paper equity from the sale of a previously overvalued property
    and because the market for securitized jumbo loans is dead. Without that fake
    equity, most people don't have the money needed for a down payment on an
    expensive house. It takes a very long time indeed to save up for a 20%
    downpayment when you're still making mortgage payments on an underwater house.

    It's worse than that. House prices do not even have to fall to cause
    big losses. The cost of selling a house is kept unfairly high because of the Realtor® lobby's
    corruption of US legislators.
    On a $300,000 house, 6% is $18,000 lost even if housing
    prices just stay flat. So a 4% decline in housing prices bankrupts all those
    with 10% equity or less.

  7. Because the housing bubble was not driven by supply and demand. There
    is huge supply because of overbuilding, and there is less demand now that the
    baby boomers are retiring and selling. Prices in the housing market, even now, are
    entirely a function of how much the banks are willing and able to lend. Most
    people will borrow as much as they possibly can, amounts that are completely
    disconnected from their salaries or from the rental value of the property. Banks
    have been willing to accomodate crazy borrowers because banker
    control of the US government
    means that banks do not yet have to acknowledge
    their losses, or can push losses onto taxpayers through government housing
    agencies like the FHA.
  8. Because there is still a massive backlog of latent foreclosures.
    Millions of owners stopped paying their mortgages, and the banks
    are still not forclosing on all of them, letting the owner live in the house for free. If a
    bank forecloses and takes possession of a house, that means the bank is
    responsible for property taxes and maintenance. Banks don't like those costs. If
    a bank then sells the foreclosure at current prices, the bank has to admit a
    loss on the loan. Banks like that cost even less. So there is a tsunami of
    foreclosures on the way that the banks are ignoring, for now. To prevent a
    justified foreclosure is also to prevent a deserving family from buying that
    house at a low price. Right now, those foreclosures will wash over the landscape,
    decimating prices, and benefitting millions of families which will be able to
    buy a house without a suicidal level of debt, and maybe without any debt at
    all!
  9. Because first-time buyers have all been ruthlessly exploited and the
    supply of new victims is very low.
    From The Herald:
    "We were all corrupted by the housing boom, to some extent.
    People talked endlessly about how their houses were earning more than they did,
    never asking where all this free money was coming from. Well the truth is that
    it was being stolen from the next generation. Houses price increases don't
    produce wealth, they merely transfer it from the young to the old - from
    the coming generation of families who have to burden themselves with colossal
    debts if they want to own, to the baby boomers who are about to retire
    and live on the cash they make when they downsize."

    House price inflation has been very unfair to new families, especially those with
    children. It is foolish for them to buy at current high prices, yet government
    leaders never talk about how lower house prices are good for American
    families, instead preferring to sacrifice the young and poor to benefit the old
    and rich
    , and to make sure bankers have plenty of debt to earn interest on.
    Your debt is their wealth. Every "affordability" program drives prices
    higher by pushing buyers deeper into debt. Increased debt is not affordability,
    it's just pushing the reckoning into the future. To really help Americans,
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the FHA should be completely eliminated. Even
    more important is eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction, which costs the
    government $400 billion per year in tax revenue. The mortgage interest
    deduction directly harms all buyers
    by keeping prices higher than they
    would otherwise be, costing buyers more in extra purchase cost than they save
    on taxes. The $8,000 buyer tax credit cost each buyer in Massachusetts an extra
    $39,000
    in purchase price. Subsidies just make the subsidized item more
    expensive. Buyers should be
    rioting in the streets, demanding an end to all mortgage subsidies. Canada and Australia
    have no mortgage-interest deduction for owner-occupied housing. It can be done.

    The government pretends to be interested in affordable housing, but now that
    housing is becoming truly affordable via falling prices, they want to stop it?
    Their actions speak louder than their words.

  10. Because boomers are retiring. There are 70 million Americans born between
    1945-1960. One-third have zero retirement savings. The oldest are 66. The
    only money they have is equity in a house, so they must sell. This will add yet
    another flood of houses to the market, driving prices down even more.
  11. Because there is a huge glut of empty new houses. Builders are being forced
    to drop prices even faster than owners, because builders must sell to keep
    their business going. They need the money now. Builders have huge excess
    inventory that they cannot sell at current prices, and more houses are
    completed each day, making the housing slump worse.

Next Page: Eight groups who lie about the housing market ┬╗




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

« First     « Previous     Comments 288-327 of 327     Last »

288   mell   40/40 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 11:35am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

So, you believe that if there was another Wall St. caused bubble and bust, that the government would bail out the banks and Wall St. again?

Nobody knows, but the slow rise in rates points to somewhere in between. People are unsure where the economy will go and what the rate of Fed / government bailouts will be going forward. I think the rates are testing the waters right now. If we have a 2008 type dislocation again I would set the chances of another major bailout to at least 50%, Trump being president or not. So far the declining American empire has taken the easy way out each and every time, aiding the slow and constant decline instead of ripping the band-aid off and allowing for a truly organic recovery. I agree there was tail risk until the recession hit and the bailouts were enacted and there is more tail risk now, but it's still relatively low, Wall Street will not cede control that easily.

289   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 11:37am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"Nobody knows, but the slow rise in rates points to somewhere in between"

Fair enough-but I would argue the slow rise in rates is more due to the graph I posted earlier showing rising incomes.

290   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 12:51pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Inflation can be caused by factors other than increased economic activity which leads to wage growth. The causality relation is wage growth => inflation. Not the other way around.

291   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 1:09pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"The causality relation is wage growth => inflation. Not the other way around."

OK--that's what I've asked you several times. What would cause inflation without wage growth AND cause rates to rise? Inflation without wage growth would have to be caused by goods with very inelastic demand curves such as oil and food. But a spike in oil prices would likely bring wage growth at this point with all the oil and natural gas potential in the US. And even if all oil were imported, a spike in prices would push then push the US into recession causing rates to fall, not rise.

I just don't see how you can have inflation with no wage growth. Where is this extra demand coming from if there is no wage growth?

292   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 1:30pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

"The causality relation is wage growth => inflation. Not the other way around."

OK--that's what I've asked you several times. What would cause inflation without wage growth AND cause rates to rise?

Once you acknowledge that my original statement:

"If (1) the market is not cheap, and (2) wages do not keep with rates, then rising interest rates will put downside pressure on housing prices."

is accurate and your historical reference does not disprove it, we can move on to discuss the relationship between wages, inflation, and rates.

293   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 1:37pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"Once you acknowledge that my original statement:

"If (1) the market is not cheap, and (2) wages do not keep with rates, then rising interest rates will put downside pressure on housing prices."
is accurate and your historical reference does not disprove it, we can move on to discuss the relationship between wages, inflation, and rates."

OK--I'm not going to play games with you. If you actually want to have a discussion, I'm willing.

Unfortunately, you seem unwilling to do so.

You might as well say--if aliens land on Earth, and destroy all single family housing stock, it will put upside pressure on housing prices.

294   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 2:06pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Ignoratio elenchi

295   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:04pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

My comment is actually spot on point. Let's review the discussion. Patrick writes that house prices will fall when interest rates rise, and Mark (and I) replied that historically there is almost no correlation between interest rates and house prices, and the little correlation that does exist is slightly positive (prices rise when rates rise, housing falls when rates fall). You replied with a hypothetical which I then said was basically impossible, and therefore shouldn't be considered when evaluating the future of the housing market.

296   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:09pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

You replied with a hypothetical which I then said was basically impossible,

No, this is not what you said initially. Only later you tried to change the subject.

297   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:13pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

My comment was on topic, because it is important to understand that there are several factors that influence house prices. You cannot take just one (in this case interest rates) and consider it in isolation.

298   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:17pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

My comment was on topic, because it is important to understand that there are several factors that influence house prices. You cannot take just one (in this case interest rates) and consider it in isolation

Well, we agree on something then!

299   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:18pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"I'm just saying that it's amazing that common sense has never prevailed for the last 100 years of housing data history. You'd think if something was true, 100 years of data would be enough to show it."

This was my initial comment. Point being that it hasn't happened in 100 years, it's obviously not a very likely scenario.

300   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:21pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

When you admit that my original statement is correct (whether you believe that the hypothetical is possible or not is irrelevant), I'll explain to you how rates can rise faster than wages.

301   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:28pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

OK--like I said, I'm not playing games with you.

302   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:37pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

Well, we agree on something then!

But you are doing exactly the opposite with your historical reference!

303   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 4:44pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

OK--like I said, I'm not playing games with you.

Not playing games. It's just that we need to go slowly with you, one step at a time.

First we define the problem, clearly and precisely. Then we address it.

304   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 7:10pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"But you are doing exactly the opposite with your historical reference!"

Actually what I said was the effect of interest rates are outweighed by the effect of rising incomes. That the reason prices don't fall as rates rise is because rates don't rise in isolation. So, no, I posted pretty much the same ting

305   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 5, 7:17pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"First we define the problem, clearly and precisely. Then we address it."

What problem? There's a problem?

306   RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks   133/133 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 5, 8:54pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

here are a couple of charts with a different opinion. i don't really see a relationship between the two. i agree with joeyjunior, interest rate is only a small factor. income, inflation, housing policy and foreign investments combined is a bigger force.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2012/12/18/when-mortgage-rates-rise-will-home-prices-fall/#6c75eef77a97
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mortgages/rising-rates-lower-house-prices.aspx

307   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 6, 7:42am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

"First we define the problem, clearly and precisely. Then we address it."

What problem? There's a problem?

I know it's confusing for you. That's why, as I said, we'll go slowly. For now focus on my first statement - is it correct, yes or no?
Then we move on to step 2.

308   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   2016 Dec 6, 7:48am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"I know it's confusing for you. That's why, as I said, we'll go slowly. For now focus on my first statement - is it correct, yes or no?
Then we move on to step 2."

The only confusing thing is your behavior. If you have a point, make it. The more you bob and weave, the more ridiculous you look.

I frankly don't care if you ever share your incorrect theories. I've demonstrated my point with data and supported it with the reason why. You've come up with a ridiculous hypothetical that you can't support. So forgive if I'm not waiting with bated breath for step 2.

309   FP   115/115 = 100% civil   2016 Dec 6, 8:10am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Mark D says

i don't really see a relationship between the two. i agree with joeyjunior, interest rate is only a small factor.

you understand that your second statement above does not follow from the first (observation), right?Mark D says

income, inflation, housing policy and foreign investments combined is a bigger force.

1. Why would income be a bigger force?? It has exactly the same, direct, effect on affordability as interest rates have.

2. What housing policy exactly do you have in mind, apart from rates?

3. After rates and incomes are already considered, the way inflation matters is to see how much of the income is diverted to other necessities like food, medical care, transportation to work, repayment of student loans.

310   AdamCarollaFan     Jan 8, 11:51pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

every time I get on Zillow or redfin and "think" about the possibility about buying a house I read this excellent article. thanks Patrick

311   Waitup   2/2 = 100% civil   Jan 8, 11:58pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

AdamCarollaFan says

every time I get on Zillow or redfin and "think" about the possibility about buying a house I read this excellent article. thanks Patrick

hope you didn't read and obey during the 2010-2013 frenzy

312   AdamCarollaFan     Jan 11, 9:17pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Waitup says

hope you didn't read and obey during the 2010-2013 frenzy

thank gawd, no!

remember when Obama was offering that $8,000 tax credit in 2008 and 2009(?)? Well, I got mad because I "missed" the boat and missed out on a cool, free $8K.

Well, lo and behold, within six months of that credit expiring, the median house price in my area went down more than $8K. Dodged a bullet there!

313   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   Jan 12, 5:49am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"Well, lo and behold, within six months of that credit expiring, the median house price in my area went down more than $8K. Dodged a bullet there!"

What's the median price today?

314   AdamCarollaFan     Jan 12, 11:26am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

The median home value in Sacramento is $283,800. Sacramento home values have gone up 11.8% over the past year and Zillow predicts they will rise 5.4% within the next year. The median list price per square foot in Sacramento is $193, which is lower than the Sacramento Metro average of $213. The median price of homes currently listed in Sacramento is $269,900. The median rent price in Sacramento is $1,340, which is lower than the Sacramento Metro median of $1,575.

www.zillow.com

315   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   Jan 12, 12:22pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

So how did you dodge a bullet exactly?

316   AdamCarollaFan     Jan 12, 12:31pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

because house prices decreased more than $8,000, which would have wiped out the $8,000 credit.

that $8,000 credit was just another way the government tried to prop up and "save" the housing market. they basically artificially inflated the market, so to speak. they should have just stayed out of it, as markets, all markets, go up and down and eventually correct themselves.

317   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   Jan 12, 1:13pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"because house prices decreased more than $8,000, which would have wiped out the $8,000 credit."

So, you would have come out even and that's dodging a bullet?

318   Strategist   452/453 = 99% civil   Jan 12, 1:24pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

AdamCarollaFan says

because house prices decreased more than $8,000, which would have wiped out the $8,000 credit.

that $8,000 credit was just another way the government tried to prop up and "save" the housing market. they basically artificially inflated the market, so to speak. they should have just stayed out of it, as markets, all markets, go up and down and eventually correct themselves.

What about the subsequent years? Seems to me you did not dodge the bullet.

319   AdamCarollaFan     Jan 12, 1:37pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

the median housing price (specifically, the area i was looking at) decreased further than 8K, though. at the time, housing was on the downward slope, and the government was trying to help. people were buying into it, though, which is their decision. i'm just glad i didn't, especially since life has changed since that time. i'm hoping to buy on the upward slope, but that will be difficult. i've already missed it (2011). it'll eventually go down again - just not sure when.

320   RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks   133/133 = 100% civil   Jan 12, 10:00pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

lol @patrick's "feel good" thread still getting visitors

321   Patrick   962/962 = 100% civil   Jan 12, 10:18pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Yes, amazing. Feels like it made a tiny difference in the world, like people were thirsty for the info that the realtors will never tell them and now they can get at least some of it.

322   BayArea   85/85 = 100% civil   Jan 13, 7:23am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick says

Yes, amazing. Feels like it made a tiny difference in the world, like people were thirsty for the info that the realtors will never tell them and now they can get at least some of it.

it really is the only book of its kind I am aware of

323   BlueSardine   173/175 = 98% civil   Jan 13, 7:29am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

in the kingdom of LibbyDom, where everybody gets a trophy for generating a new cell on a nanosecond basis, "coming out even" is considered the nirvana of results...

joeyjojojunior says

"because house prices decreased more than $8,000, which would have wiped out the $8,000 credit."

So, you would have come out even and that's dodging a bullet?

324   joeyjojojunior   183/186 = 98% civil   Jan 13, 7:35am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"in the kingdom of LibbyDom, where everybody gets a trophy for generating a new cell on a nanosecond basis, "coming out even" is considered the nirvana of results..."

You're not even a good troll anymore. Why don't you stick to correcting people's grammar?

325   jazz music   150/150 = 100% civil   Jan 13, 7:47am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

No such thing as a good troll when there are worthwhile things to think about and discuss.

326   BlueSardine   173/175 = 98% civil   Jan 13, 7:48am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Two triggered libbies inside the half hour...excellent start to the day!

327   AdamCarollaFan     Jan 13, 9:45am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

« First     « Previous     Comments 288-327 of 327     Last »

home   top   users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker: