patrick.net

wthrfrk80 says

Even when the mortgage is paid off, you don't "own" your house. Try missing a few property tax payments and see how much you really "own."

Even when the mortgage is paid off, you're renting the land from Your Local Government.

I am game for this definition. It is more in line with reality that everyone going around living in debt saying they own their leased car, leased house, leased wife, etc. The only thing you really own are your mistakes. ;)

Realtors Are Liars says

tatupu70 says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

As collateral or guarantee of payment, the lender of the mortgage holds the deed or ownership of said property, until the buyer pays the mortgage off

Ding, ding, ding, ding. Do you see the word collateral in that sentence?

Ding, ding, ding, ding. Do you see the sentence "lender holds the deed" in that paragraph?

Yup, The holder of the deed is the owner. Amazing how you just skip over the last sentence where it says "the mortgage holder occupies the house as if they were the owner". Read - "as if". I know, I'm waiting my time. Where is that ignore button before I get dumbed down in the process of trying to help. Ugh

robertoaribas says

30 years of an inability to invest your money when you buy into today's prices.

Who said I had any money to invest in the first place? The assumptions floating around here are astounding.

Rent and PITI are identical right now, in the places we are looking. 100K interest free deferred payment (40 years, heck I'll be dead by then) down payment assistance from the city and a mere 2.5% cash from me.

Not sure about the rest of the readers here, but the bottom 90% of Americans are not sitting around wondering how to invest their money: we are trying to figure out how to pay the rent or the mortgage, keep our jobs, and feed our kids.

If I decide to move and get another rental, I would probably have to come up with over 8K cash for first, last and security deposit. For a 500K house: 13K. Monthly nut: 3K whether I rent or buy.

I'll gladly pay the additional maintenance (with a house/painter carpenter and auto mechanic couple, I know we can do more ourselves than the average homeowner) than have to deal with haughty, imperious, greedy landlords for the next 5-10 years.

Besides, I want another big dog. And maybe some pygmy goats.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Yup, The holder of the deed is the owner. Amazing how you just skip over the last sentence where it says "the mortgage holder occupies the house as if they were the owner". Read - "as if". I know, I'm waiting my time. Where is that ignore button before I get dumbed down in the process of trying to help. Ugh

Sorry, I think you were already dumbed down. Yes, the bank holds the deed. What ownership rights does that give them? Do they have any rights to the appreciation of the asset? Are they responsible for any liabilities caused by the asset? Do they have any access to the asset?

What ownership rights does the bank have??

Who cares about "ownership rights"? That's academic. The fact is: if you stop paying your mortgage, the bank gets the house. Or at least that's the way it was until recently.

Unless you're buying outright with cash, you're either renting from Your Landlord or you're renting money from Your Bank. Do whichever option is cheaper and less risky.

Mortgage interest is "rent" too: it's rent paid to use money you don't own. If it's cheaper to rent money than rent houses, do that. If it's cheaper to rent houses than rent money, do that.

wthrfrk80 says

Who cares about "ownership rights"? That's academic. The fact is: if you stop paying your mortgage, the bank gets the house. Or at least that's the way it was until recently.

Unless you're buying outright with cash, you're either renting from Your Landlord or you're renting money from Your Bank. Do whichever option is cheaper and less risky.

Mortgage interest is "rent" too: it's rent paid to use money you don't own. If it's cheaper to rent money than rent houses, do that. If it's cheaper to rent houses than rent money, do that.

+1

robertoaribas says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Yup, a 30 yr old piece of crap that needs major updates. You don't think there will be better building materials, better engineering technique, better built-in media and communication systems? Your 30 year old home will be a tear down, so what did you really end up with? 30 years of an inability to invest your money when you buy into today's prices.

My current home was built in 1968.... I'm in the process of updating most of the interior, hardly a teardown, and close to everything, unlike new homes built way out in BFE.

By the way, most buildings people own condos in in eurpope are hundreds of years old...

Built with brick and mortar rather than wood like most SFH in the US. I guess builders never read "the three little pigs". Every contractor should able to recite this story before given their license. I spent some time in Germany and the 200 yr old houses look like they were built yesterday. Here in the U.S. after 200 yrs all you got is a liability. Horrible foresight, and you can see the greed straight in the materials list on the blueprint.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I spent some time in Germany and the 200 yr old houses look like they were built yesterday. Here in the U.S. after 200 yrs all you got is a liability.

Yep, that's America. If we built stuff to last, we wouldn't need to keep consuming. And if we didn't need to keep consuming, our overlords would stop making money...

wthrfrk80 says

Who cares about "ownership rights"?

Obviously you don't. But they are pretty important.

wthrfrk80 says

Mortgage interest is "rent" too: it's rent paid to use money you don't own. If it's cheaper to rent money than rent houses, do that. If it's cheaper to rent houses than rent money, do that.

That much we can agree on.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Built with brick and mortar rather than wood like most SFH in the US. I guess builders never read "the three little pigs". Every contractor should able to recite this story before given their license. I spent some time in Germany and the 200 yr old houses look like they were built yesterday. Here in the U.S. after 200 yrs all you got is a liability. Horrible foresight, and you can see the greed straight in the materials list on the blueprint.

Brick isn't exactly the best idea in a major earthquake zone.

CalifGal says

Bigsby says

Brick isn't exactly the best idea in a major earthquake zone.

Really?

Tell us about seismic zones and seismic restraint as it relates to horizontal and vertical reinforcing in double wythe masonry walls.

Does that relate to one of your $60/sq. ft. houses? Why don't you explain to me why brick isn't the material of choice in seismically active areas? In fact, I don't think I can recall ever seeing a brick house in all the years I lived in Tokyo. Are there lots of them in the Bay area?

Oh, and didn't you forget something?

She's a BRICK...HOUSE...

Oh it's a SHIT...HOUSE...priced mighty mighty, just rentin' it 'til the rout...

69Charger says

I can't put up a CMU building in seismic zone S-4? Really? REALLY?

Realtors Are Liars.

Where exactly did I say that?

Contractors Are Liars.

Most especially $60/sq ft ones.

And doesn't that mean that you are one of a handful of people on here who actually benefited from the housing bubble. Or are you just Googling your construction info?

hrhjuliet, I am in a similar boat. The biggest problem is that my husband can't get a job that pays nearly as much anywhere else. I don't think we can move. So I sit here pondering the purchase of a home. I can't figure out what to do about it. I continue to work on my down payment. I think that prices will continue to go down at a "slow hiss" pace on Peninsula. I have almost been thinking about buying a rental while we continue to rent. On the low end, it seems that there are properties that meet rent parity.

edvard2 says

Still another option is to hold out for longer, save up a LOT of cash from your supposedly cushy, well-paying California job, and basically semi-retire somewhere else. My folks live in Semi-rural NC and they own a large piece of land, a decent house, and so on and the value of all of it is well under 200k. Where they live a normal house in say- an acre of land- is still easily less than 150k. I have even seen some for under 100k. So figure you save up lots of dough and go to someplace like that, buy a house for cash, stick the rest into various savings and retirement accounts, get some crappy joe-job that at least pays for your insurance, and call it a day. Sure- it would be a huge shift in lifestyle. I grew up that way. For others it would be a real shocker

This has been our generally approach.

edvard2 says

But getting back to that question, if where you live means you actually have to pay more to get what you really want, then would it be worth it to save up some more? I personally don't see a reason to rush right now. The market is actually still depreciating and even if it bottoms out, it will probably be awhile longer before it moves.

That has also been my view of things. Even if it bottoms, I don't think it will take off like a rocket. I think recent increase in prices is artificial, akin to a dead cat bounce.

BG

holy zombie thread...

hrhjuliet says

Of course I don't like the Bay Area, lots of people don't, but a lot of people are stuck here for the very reasons I gave. It is a hard choice. I'm afraid of regrets, but I'm also afraid of making the wrong choice and buying if the market is still going down.

How's the housing market in your area between Feb and now? Up, down or sideways? If so, by how much?