patrick.net

Bigsby says

Many, many people are to blame for that, and that list includes many of the buyers themselves.

Very true and I agree. That doesn't remove the anger I have for a corrupt institution that is not there to help people. I have enough anger for everyone. ;)

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Bigsby says

The data flat out doesn't demonstrate that if I bought house X for Y price, then I'd be paying Z amount over the equivalent rental price. In that regard, the data is totally useless, and Patrick has basically said the same. It seems that it is you who is the only one unwilling to accept that.

Big hand wave to make the data go away. Go away data, I don't like you. :)

You still appear to not get what I'm saying. It's not a matter of wanting the data to go away, it's a matter of the data being completely unrepresentative. It does not inform on the relative value of any given purchase in comparison to equivalent rentals. Patrick has said the same.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Big hand wave to make the data go away. Go away data, I don't like you. :)

Do you seriously not get it? There have been at least 5 posters telling you the same thing. There is an OBVIOUS bias in the data. The data isn't lying, it's just not saying what you think it says. The methodology is flawed.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

My rent = 3K for a house that can sell for 1.2m+

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in. I just padmapped San Mateo. First thing I noticed is there are very few homes for rent. This kinda sucks if the landlord wants to move back in and you need to quickly find another acceptable place in the same school district.

The second thing is that nothing that would sell over a Million is priced anywhere close to 3k per month. In Marin -area I am familiar with - a 1 million dollar home rents for about 5-6k. Depending on the home, it still may be a good deal to rent, but it is not the insane bargain you make it out to be.

I understand the bitterness of getting screwed, but not everyone who sells real estate is a complete asshole, and not everyone who made a stupid purchase is the poor victim. But yeah, most realtors, like most sales people in general, are often annoying.

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=109818825&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=109744905&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=110222341&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=110075966&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=110001314&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=109200613&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=109308633&src=main

rowemoore says

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in. I just padmapped San Mateo.

Maybe he lives with his parents.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

It is the Mercedes driver that talks to the family that is just barely making a living and telling them that real estate will make you rich.

Yes, it is infuriating and all, the problem is that people don't analyze the situation. If you buy a house as an investment and take out a interest only loan hoping to get rich on it just by holding the property and then get wiped out financially, it is a way of karma teaching you a lesson and then one must atone for their sins of greed. However, lets not go overboard from this and assume that renting is better than buying in all cases. It isn't. It was until about 2009 in bay area, but afterwards, opportunites appeared where it is now possible to minimize lifetime housing costs when choosing to buy vs rent. There are many variables out there to analyze - monthly household income, job stability, commute, can payment be made if one person loses the job, quality of purchsed property vs rental property etc. The worst thing to do is to be an idealogue whether one is pro/anti renting/buying and closing the eyes to reality.

rowemoore says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

My rent = 3K for a house that can sell for 1.2m+

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in. I just padmapped San Mateo.

Just doing a quick search on Redfin, a 3/2 house of 1500 sq ft in Foster City likely would sell for $800k based on recent sales.

tiny tina says

rowemoore says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

My rent = 3K for a house that can sell for 1.2m+

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in. I just padmapped San Mateo.

Just doing a quick search on Redfin, a 3/2 house of 1500 sq ft in Foster City likely would sell for $800k based on recent sales.

Try to find one on the water for 800k. Good luck.

tiny tina says

Just doing a quick search on Redfin, a 3/2 house of 1500 sq ft in Foster City likely would sell for $800k based on recent sales.

Here are comparable houses to mine.

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/602-Bridgeport-Ln-100_81207952.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/760-Coronado-Ln-100_81145696.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/707-Matsonia-Dr-100_81209973.htm

Does my landlord like me? Sure, why shouldn't he. I pay on time. I take good care of the place. I treat the home as my own and have upgrade lots of stuff in my spare time. I don't pay for materials but use my time for free. It helps my living arrangements and the landlord doesn't mind the improvements. I already told you guys, Win-win and it has always been like that. There is lots of common ground between a renter and landlord if you try to understand both sides.

You can not believe me all you want. Truth is that I could find another house like the one I have in a few weeks if needed. That is small stuff to me and I don't spend a second worrying about it. I worry about my families safety and health, but the rest is nothing to me. :)

dublin hillz says

Yes, it is infuriating and all, the problem is that people don't analyze the situation. If you buy a house as an investment and take out a interest only loan hoping to get rich on it just by holding the property and then get wiped out financially, it is a way of karma teaching you a lesson and then one must atone for their sins of greed.

I'd be fine it that was true. But my karma did nothing to the situation and doesn't need to be taught anything. The current system punishes us all for the greed of the few. Have you seen the debt we are running try to bail out this system of greed and corruption. That is why I am angry. If people want to go destroy themselves financially, then I wouldn't care. It is when they take the whole country on the cliff dive with them. I am affected, my children will be affect. My company is affect. We should be all sick of it. I still get fliers for 0% down, it needs to stop.

rowemoore says

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in.

Believe what you want. But no misrepresenting here. 3 homes have sold on my street and one of the home is an exact copy of the one I rent. It is what it is. I don't need to lie. You also don't need to believe.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

The current system punishes us all for the greed of the few.

This brings up the issue of how to control bubbles in general. What about investors who did not participate in tech stock bubble in leading up to 2000? They still ended up as collateral damage even though they were more disciplined than money hungry "greater fools." Why should somebody for example who invested in telecom lose 20% of net worth while someone who invested in nasdaq stocks lost 50% or more in some cases? How can bubble activities which are fueled by greed and thoughts of easy money be curtailed?

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Here are comparable houses to mine.

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/602-Bridgeport-Ln-100_81207952.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/760-Coronado-Ln-100_81145696.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/707-Matsonia-Dr-100_81209973.htm

If by comparable you mean 500sq ft larger, then yes, they are comparable. Plus, the only one close to $1.3M is not selling. Your claim appears to be quite a stretch.

A way to curtail a bubble is no credit to the person buying the bubble asset.
This tends to minimize the bubble forming.
No one pays out of pocket for medical treatment>medical cost bubble.
College loans are avaiable for large amounts>college cost bubble
Breathing and can hold a pen eligible for mortgage>house price bubble
Margin allowed100% in stocks (1929)>stock price bubble
There are other bubbles but a rule of thumb is that if you pay cash out of your own pocket for something you are more cautious.

tiny tina says

If by comparable you mean 500sq ft larger, then yes, they are comparable. Plus, the only one close to $1.3M is not selling. Your claim appears to be quite a stretch.

So 1.189m is not close to 1.2m? Sorry, I was way off. Also, I haven't actually measure my sqft. It probably is closer to 1800 or so. That was a guess from me cause I really don't want to go around with a tape measure. I do know that the sister home to mine which is just across the street sold 6 months ago for 1.2m and why I use that number. Believe what you want, sounds like you got your mind made up already. Your disbelieve just shows me how smooth of a rental finder I am. My wife found it hard to believe also when I yanked her out of work and brought her there. Maybe it is my good karma. ;)

clambo says

A way to curtail a bubble is no credit to the person buying the bubble asset.

This tends to minimize the bubble forming.

No one pays out of pocket for medical treatment>medical cost bubble.

College loans are avaiable for large amounts>college cost bubble

Breathing and can hold a pen eligible for mortgage>house price bubble

Margin allowed100% in stocks (1929)>stock price bubble

There are other bubbles but a rule of thumb is that if you pay cash out of your own pocket for something you are more cautious.

Finally, someone that is making sense around here finally. Yes, no credit. End the greed and the stupidity. I'd vote for it in a snap. Let people have to pony up cash and you will see how poor this country really is. The resource based countries are going to have their day if we are not careful. Canada, Australia, Brasil are just waiting and getting stronger everyday. Forget oil and precious metals. Potash, rare earth minerals, and eventually water will be big news during my lifetime. Guess who got them? Hint: not us.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Here are comparable houses to mine.

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/602-Bridgeport-Ln-100_81207952.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/760-Coronado-Ln-100_81145696.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/707-Matsonia-Dr-100_81209973.htm

You've said your home is 1500sq ft. These are all bigger. Also, these haven't sold. In your area if I wanted to buy a 1500 sq ft property it would be 800k. I'm basing this on recent sales in the neighborhoods of these homes. Renting that place would be about 4k(according to padmapper). Townhouses in your area rent for about 3k and sell for about 5-600k.

So yes, you have a deal, but not some insane deal. BTW, don't buy there--Landfill death zone.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

water will be big news during my lifetime. Guess who got them? Hint: not us.

We've got plenty of fresh water near me. And the Great Lakes aren't too far away either.

Of course, it takes 9 months of cold, wet, cloudy weather to get that nice fresh water...;-)

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Finally, someone that is making sense around here finally. Yes, no credit. End the greed and the stupidity. I'd vote for it in a snap. Let people have to pony up cash and you will see how poor this country really is. The resource based countries are going to have their day if we are not careful. Canada, Australia, Brasil are just waiting and getting stronger everyday. Forget oil and precious metals. Potash, rare earth minerals, and eventually water will be big news during my lifetime. Guess who got them? Hint: not us.

I don't think we want to go to this extreme as a nation. I was in Nicaragua a couple of years ago and there is no lending available. As a result, only the elite can afford anything more than bare subsistence. That's why you see children hounding tourists who get off tour buses for apples and dollar bills.

rowemoore says

You've said your home is 1500sq ft. These are all bigger. Also, these haven't sold. In your area if I wanted to buy a 1500 sq ft property it would be 800k. I'm basing this on recent sales in the neighborhoods of these homes. Renting that place would be about 4k(according to padmapper). Townhouses in your area rent for about 3k and sell for about 5-600k.

So yes, you have a deal, but not some insane deal. BTW, don't buy there--Landfill death zone.

As I said, I guessed at 1500sqft. In my area, you get nothing on the water for less than 1mil. Believe, me I have been trying for about 3 years now. There was one house for 800k in foreclosure but it was so in need of repairs that it would have put me into the 1.2m anyway. Believe what you want. I know what I got and how much I pay for it. I got an insane deal, anyone and everyone that enters my place says so. I do agree with you on the landfill death zone and why I haven't taken the plunge. I researched in the FEMA and buying adequate insurance and the results were not good. I'll probably end up buying on the east bay eventually to reduce the earthquake risk, and also avoid 101 completely. Getting worse by the day.

rowemoore says

You've said your home is 1500sq ft. These are all bigger. Also, these haven't sold. In your area if I wanted to buy a 1500 sq ft property it would be 800k. I'm basing this on recent sales in the neighborhoods of these homes. Renting that place would be about 4k(according to padmapper). Townhouses in your area rent for about 3k and sell for about 5-600k.

So yes, you have a deal, but not some insane deal. BTW, don't buy there--Landfill death zone.

Okay, I did some digging and it is not 1500sqft, it is 1790sqft. Found the original blueprint of the house in the garage. Here are some of the same houses nearby and what they actually sold for. The one 6 months ago was sold for 1.1m, I stand corrected. Then the one last year for 1.35m.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Foster-City/608-Mystic-Ln-94404/home/1634896

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Foster-City/608-Bridgeport-Ln-94404/home/1553781

Now, if I see any of you bashing fool even driving around my neighborhood I got no problem using my potato gun on you. I'll use the large Idaho potatoes as well, so beware. ;)

RentingForHalfTheCost says

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Foster-City/608-Mystic-Ln-94404/home/1634896

This one sold for more than it did in 2006.
Prices should be crashing any minute now...right?

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I got an insane deal, anyone and everyone that enters my place says so.

Yes you did. In fact, there is nothing even close to the same value as you have for rent in San Mateo right now. What happens if your landlord decides to sell or move back in? If you have kids in the local schools this can be a real stress. Finding a deal even close to the one you have now in the same school district in a short time frame will be nearly impossible.

For couples w/o kids now or in the near future, renting allows flexibility and value (you can rent a nice place in a crappy school district). Otherwise, if you value stability look for a modest home in the best "fortress" neighborhood that you can afford. When it comes time to sell in 10 - 15 years you will not lose money and the stability of keeping your kids in one school district will save you a lot of family stress.

tiny tina says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Foster-City/608-Mystic-Ln-94404/home/1634896

This one sold for more than it did in 2006.

Prices should be crashing any minute now...right?

It went up 100k but it is entirely possible - in fact likely - that the 2006 buyer poured several hundred k into the place. Those 1970s homes are usually very poorly built and need lots of love. For example:RentingForHalfTheCost says

There was one house for 800k in foreclosure but it was so in need of repairs that it would have put me into the 1.2m anyway.

rowemoore says

Yes you did. In fact, there is nothing even close to the same value as you have for rent in San Mateo right now. What happens if your landlord decides to sell or move back in? If you have kids in the local schools this can be a real stress. Finding a deal even close to the one you have now in the same school district in a short time frame will be nearly impossible.

I redo a yearly lease when the previous one ends. That gives me a good bit of security. Also, I have 5 years before I have to worry about schools. These are concerns, not trying to downplay them. Just not in my radar yet.

rowemoore says

Those 1970s homes are usually very poorly built and need lots of love

There is a truth. If a racoon is eating some of the vegetation next to the house, it sounds like he is right in the bedroom. Scares the crap out of my wife, I actually don't mind. It is like living in a 1.2m dollar tent. At one with nature. Not sure what the building codes were like back in 1977, but they sure couldn't have been that tough. The good part is I think I can escape my house from anywhere in case of a fire. Just a few good kicks and I'll be free. ;)

rowemoore says

It went up 100k but it is entirely possible - in fact likely - that the 2006 buyer poured several hundred k into the place. Those 1970s homes are usually very poorly built and need lots of love. For example:RentingForHalfTheCost says

There was one house for 800k in foreclosure but it was so in need of repairs that it would have put me into the 1.2m anyway.

Maybe, maybe not - it's irrelevant though. The point is that to buy a house in this specific area with the other specific criteria mentioned above, a buyer will be paying approx $1.2-$1.3M, about the same he would have paid in 2006. To assume that prices are going to be collapsing any time in the near future (which is what renting has previously said) is based on mere hope and nothing more.

tiny tina says

rowemoore says

It went up 100k but it is entirely possible - in fact likely - that the 2006 buyer poured several hundred k into the place. Those 1970s homes are usually very poorly built and need lots of love. For example:RentingForHalfTheCost says

There was one house for 800k in foreclosure but it was so in need of repairs that it would have put me into the 1.2m anyway.

Maybe, maybe not - it's irrelevant though. The point is that to buy a house in this specific area with the other specific criteria mentioned above, a buyer will be paying approx $1.2-$1.3M, about the same he would have paid in 2006. To assume that prices are going to be collapsing any time in the near future (which is what renting has previously said) is based on mere hope and nothing more.

Tiny tina is correct. Wide-Water accessible housing in Foster City have been stable during the crash. It is like they don't move. The rest of Foster City is not the same, though, and has experience the downward pressure. I won't say the particular nationality that might be affecting this. ;)

As brought up many times any conclusions that can be drawn from this exercise is flawed.

For example, #10 least affordable in your survey is Manhattan Beach, 90266.

- A city in which 75% of the housing units are not multifamily units, and the ones that are multifamily are generally located in less desirable locations.

Compare that mix to Laguna Woods, #6 most affordable
- A city in which 60% of the housing units ARE multifamily which are spread out throughout the city

I'd guess other affluent cities may have a similar mix, thus completely distorting your conclusions. Aside from the mix, affluent homes for rent may avoid listing on craigslist, and use realtors to advertise, while apartment complexes are more likely to use craigslist.

All that being said, I think everyone can agree with your general conclusion that nicer neighborhoods are more expensive to rent than poorer neighborhoods, but your data does a poor job of trying to detail the discussion.

As far as trying determine why price/rent ratios are higher in nicer neighborhoods (and cities for the matter), it seems obvious that after a certain point, housing stops being a need and more of a luxury. The further you creep into the luxury point of the equation the less pure $$$ matter. Things like stability/pride-of-ownership/freedom to customize/status symbol all come into play.

orbitron says

Good luck waiting for peninsula housing going to 6x p/e.

Jeez, I don't need 6x p/e. I just need something less than 20x p/e. That day will come. History has a way of repeating itself. Having patience and a good savings rate is always a good thing. I have lived long enough to realize this truth.

orbitron says

That's a hilarious comment considering that the primary argument that many/most housing bears rely on in the "reversion to mean" theory. "House prices must come down because historically blah blah..."

Housing bears claim that price is declining no matter what the data said. The only reason for housing price to be in a downtrend in SV ceased to be the technology leaders like Detroit ceased to be auto industry leader. Given current monetary management (fiat money), there is no way nominal house prices would be in a downtrend even if the inflation-adjusted prices may be declining. So unless you are putting your cash in good use such as investing in AAPL, not sitting in the bank collecting low interest, you're better off buying a house.

hanera says

not sitting in the bank collecting low interest, you're better off buying a house.

Sitting in the bank earning 0% is better then declining equity RE - at any given time.

bubblesitter says

hanera says

not sitting in the bank collecting low interest, you're better off buying a house.

Sitting in the bank earning 0% is better then declining equity RE - at any given time.

Obviously.

Patrick,

I'd like to inquire about your data-set.

What can you say about how or why this particular group of cities was picked for the analysis?

Is it simply because this is what you had access to, or is there a reason that these particular cities were selected?

It's just the cities where I had at least 1000 rents and prices.

I wish I had data for everywhere, but I started collecting data earlier on the west coast, and Craigslist has more west coast data anyway.

Thank you for pointing it out.

The reason I asked stemmed from a dinner discussion.

The question was, "...worse deal for buyers is Newport Beach? Among what?"

Now I can go back and say that it was based on a data-set where at least 1000 rents and prices were accessible by patrick.net.

Check out www.movety.com you can compare rents there.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I'd be fine it that was true. But my karma did nothing to the situation and doesn't need to be taught anything. The current system punishes us all for the greed of the few.

Uh, no. The current system (like much of life) says, look out for yourself, no one else is responsible for you (nor should they be). When my mortgage lender tells me that I'm eligible for a $300K loan, I KNOW that while I might be eligible using her books, math and logic; in point of fact my math, logic and numbers tell me that I'd better not buy anything over $150K price tag. The system is the system, you learn to live within it and deal with it. You need help, help that you can trust, you have parents and friends who have gone through this, if you don't turn to them for advice and logic (or if you don't take the advice and think it through) then you CERTAINLY shouldn't expect the 'system' to help you out or be working in your best interest; its NOT.

mmmarvel says

you CERTAINLY shouldn't expect the 'system' to help you out or be working in your best interest; its NOT.

So true!

@patrick, can you update this for today? Some of the ones on the top of the list would have been the best places to buy then, and have done extremely well in the past 4 years!