patrick.net

Serious, if Amazon did I was going to download the content from my work to save 0.02.

snyderkv says

Read the book on Kindle for PC in 4 hours and thought it was great!

Thanks! I will incorporate your feedback into the next edition. I'm thinking of doing a new edition each year.

snyderkv says

Error on the kindle for PC, not sure if it was my computer/internet scrambling the words but this paragraph read like this:

Yes, that is some kind of Kindle error. The text is fine in the actual book. Thanks for telling me.

snyderkv says

But Isn't timing the market speculation and gambling?

I'm trying to say you should always look at the rent / buy ratio for a specific house, and if it's not good, then wait. If it's a good deal compared to renting (not compared to lemming-comps!), then go ahead and buy.

I'm trying to say you should always look at the rent / buy ratio for a specific house, and if it's not good, then wait. If it's a good deal compared to renting (not compared to lemming-comps!), then go ahead and buy.

But what about the places where the buy/rent ratio hasnt been good in decades? What if (per the OC Housing News guy) some areas have not been at rental parity since at least 1988. Would you advise these people to "wait"?

Seems to me the better advice would be either (a) pay the premium and buy at the bottom or (b) accept permanent renting as a lifestyle choice and celebrate the fact the landlord subsidises your lifestyle to live there.

Wouldnt this be better than to give people false hope that if they "wait" a metric that hasnt proven true in 23 years will sudenly become true?

Just bought the book on kindle. I have been on this sight for a couple years. Love the Book! Thanks Patrick. Best $8 I ever spent

Glad you like it!

Sold 78 Kindle copies total so far, plus 186 paper copies.

Let me know if you have any marketing advice.

I am going to buy a hard copy too tonight. You need media attention. You need to get in front of people. Book stores etc... I don't know anything...

I listen to Peter Schiff on TuneIn radio. He is an ego maniac but You would probably be a good guest on his show. Tom Leykis is another Internet radio host who ( not sure about spelling) would love your message. Send them copies of your book or call.

You are at a crossroad with your website. I hope you don't stop. You have helped thousands of people I'm sure. Thank you

I agree with the above. This book really is an excellent reference material to have on hand (and Jody even get's a shout-out)! I've thought about buying one or two extra to leave around my favorite coffee shop where I hear Real Estate agents conspiring all the time -- without buying a beverage I might add!

Thanks Patrick for making from flight from DTW to SFO seem shorter.

Kindle rocks!

CDon says

But what about the places where the buy/rent ratio hasnt been good in decades? What if (per the OC Housing News guy) some areas have not been at rental parity since at least 1988. Would you advise these people to "wait"?

The SF Bay area had the same price/rent ratio as the rest of the country until fairly recently, about the year 2000 according to John Talbott's book "Sell Now!"

I think prices can just as easily drop back to the normal ratio. Rents cannot rise beyond what salaries support.

That's only if salaries go down in the Bay Area. The salary run up since 1998 has been impressive in a number of industries. First year attorneys at the big law firms still make over 130k and software engineers command a premium.

The SF Bay area had the same price/rent ratio as the rest of the country until fairly recently, about the year 2000 according to John Talbott's book "Sell Now!"

As I noted in the other thread, From Amazon's review of Mr. Talbot and his Sell Now book...

"As a guide for the average homeowner, this book is a convincing argument broken down into laymen's terms, albeit one fueled by bias: Talbott admits he, "allowed his anger and bitterness," to influence his writing, making it less a studied survey than a "creative analysis," as Talbott terms it."

Hanging your hat on the "creative analysis" of someone fueled by bias with a self admitted axe to grind is propbably not the best proof that the price/rent ratio in San Francisco, let alone the fortress, was the same as everywhere else.

Rents cannot rise beyond what salaries support.

Sure they can. People can, and do, double up. Like sending the spouse back to work.

DukeLaw says

The salary run up since 1998 has been impressive in a number of industries.

On the other hand, the number of companies (public) is half of year 2000 from 400 down to low 200s. Thats even far less the the early 90s. The start up companies are even worse than the 90s.

Take away the low end mfg wages folks, and most of your headcount from R&D and G&A moved to other states and overseas.. all you have left is the high paid executives which skew the salaries in the SFBA. They only seem high, but didnt really show any growth for the past 10 years.

One individual there gave you a negative review, and I honestly don't think they even read the book.

Because what that person wrote wasn't accurate regarding the book.

Patrick, for the next revision, I think you should touch on a point of risk that was powerful for me to hear...

When you sign your 30yr promise to repay for example, watch what happens if you lose your job and miss your 360th payment.

With a 9% unemployment rate today, I think that topic should at least be mentioned in your book for buyers to consider since so many people these days are living month to month and a lost job can have a devastating effect on homeownership for those types.

BayArea says

watch what happens if you lose your job and miss your 360th payment.

Great point! I will include it in the next edition.

BayArea says

watch what happens if you lose your job and miss your 360th payment.

Great point! I will include it in the next edition.

A shout out to BayArea in the opening along with all the others wouldn't hurt either... ;-)

I would also like to see the book reference a YouTube link showing a 30 minute interview of APOCALYPSEFUCK's view of the housing market since that would be wildly entertaining, lol.

BayArea says

A shout out to BayArea in the opening along with all the others wouldn't hurt either... ;-)

Will do. Sorry I forgot you on the first edition.

BayArea says

I would also like to see the book reference a YouTube link showing a 30 minute interview of APOCALYPSEFUCK's view of the housing market since that would be wildly entertaining, lol.

I'd love that. @"APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich" how about it?

Let me know if you have any marketing advice.

These days it's either a wardrobe malfunction or a sex tape. Your choice.

What we really need is an intelligent show for the public. My dream team for an alternative to 'the view' would be Patrick, Matt Tabbi, and Charles Hugh Smith.

I think prices can just as easily drop back to the normal ratio. Rents cannot rise beyond what salaries support.

With enough corruption you have two different classes. Owners for whom price is no object, and then everyone else.

Wow, it's not even an autographed copy!

Weird.

That's a 47% gain in just a matter of weeks.

Is Patrick a misogynist…?

That was the question put to me by someone reading through my copy of the book.

I don’t remember what passage sparked this question (I think it may have been something about the wife spending the husbands money, insinuating that the marriage is not a 50/50 partnership), but it was before they even got to the section “Your Wife”, which personifies this theme in the book.

I believe that the reason for this is that in general the book is speaking to men, and when referring to women often paint them as a “bad guy” during the home buying process.

Do I think that Patrick is a misogynist? No, I actually agree with the reasoning in the “Your Wife” section.

Suggestions for giving the book more cross-gender appeal:
- I think that “Your Wife” has good info on why some women would “conspire” to buy a home. Being that it is very women specific I don’t think simply labeling it “Your Spouse” would be enough. I think that there are also uniquely masculine motivations for a husband to become a conspirator (Yes, men also have innate motivations that would get them to buy when they should not). I think that two sections to address each, “Your Wife” and “Your Husband” would be a good solution. That in mind…;

- The book ignores the spectrum of behavior for feminine to masculine stereotypes, and that some men can advocate for housing for “feminine” reasons and some women for “masculine” reasons. When writing you may want to keep this in mind and not be too absolute on the behaviors of either gender. Qualifying sentences like, “While these behaviors general motivate women to want to buy, do keep in mind that you may end up hearing some of these from your husband.”;

- However, for the most part you may want to write from a gender neutral position. This book should also speak to a women who is having hesitations about buying and is being pressured by her husband. In short when writing don’t assume that the male bread winner is the one who is being pressured into buying a home that they cannot afford.

Other suggestions for future prints of the book:

- Another conspirator “Your Friends.” In my case, during the run up, I had significantly more pressure from friends to buy than from any of the other conspirators. Bother “internal”, just seeing them buying and wanting to own also, and directly friends actually telling me what a great time it was to buy (BTW, most now are underwater or foreclosed).

- More visual data. Charts, graphs, etc. can often times help ideas and data come alive driving home a point in a much more convincing manner than a page of text will.

Thanks for the suggestions! I will use them in the next edition. I admit the first edition was rather rushed, but my wife did review it, and she is one of the few readers who didn't object to my point that the majority of houses are bought by men for their wives!

I don't think I'm misogynist. At least I've never been accused of it before.

...the majority of houses are bought by men for their wives!

Yeah, I would bet the majority are, but probably not by too much. These days there are a lot of dual income houses...

I don't think I'm misogynist. At least I've never been accused of it before.

It was more of a question than an accusation ;)

taxee says

Let me know if you have any marketing advice.

These days it's either a wardrobe malfunction or a sex tape. Your choice.

Can I vote for neither of these?

The only thing that I know about marketing books on Amazon is that reviews are valuable.

Buying the book is a great way to support Patrick, but enjoying the book then writing a review is even better!

looks like a good book did you ever buy a house or are you still waiting for the bottom?

majority of houses are bought by men for their wives!

Women buy the majority of houses.

It's a thing in the Real Estate business that women control 80% of the world's wealth.

When a women says she has $5K in the bank, she has $10K. When a man says he has $5K in the bank it means he owes $5K, to somebody.

Real Estate agents know never to talk to the man. If the man is in charge, the deal is screwed, and it's best to move on.

Women save, and make the financial decisions.

toothfairy says

looks like a good book did you ever buy a house or are you still waiting for the bottom?

I don't bother trying to predict future prices. I just look at how much money I'm saving every month by renting. I'm still saving a ton, so I still rent. It's too much free money to give up.

If that changes for my area and the kind of house I'm in and I can save by owning, then I will own. I'm not philosophically opposed to owning. I don't like burning money just to get a warm feeling.

Well you can rent forever but isn't there a crossover point where buying always becomes cheaper? I mean if you're renting for 30 years. If you'd been paying a mortgage for that time the house would be paid off.

Actually you dont even have to wait 30 years. Once the mortgage balance is half paid off you can refinance and cut your monthly payments in half.

toothfairy says

Well you can rent forever but isn't there a crossover point where buying always becomes cheaper? I mean if you're renting for 30 years. If you'd been paying a mortgage for that time the house would be paid off.

Actually you dont even have to wait 30 years. Once the mortgage balance is half paid off you can refinance and cut your monthly payments in half.

Exactly.

Renting for 30 years at 2600/month = 936k if your rent never goes up.
Buying a 600k house with a 30 year fixed 3.675% = 1mill including prop tax and interest. Not included are maintenance costs and the tax break you are getting when you purchase.

After 30 years...one still has to rent for maybe another 20 years...and the other one doesn't and only pays prop tax.

I don't see the vast amount of "free money" while renting part in this equation. Patrick, is your neighborhood so different. Give us some examples of recently sold properties and the going rate for rent for the same house in your neighborhood. I only know the LA market, but not the SF market. Maybe its different where you are.

SubOink says

Give us some examples of recently sold properties and the going rate for rent for the same house in your neighborhood. I only know the LA market, but not the SF market. Maybe its different where you are.

I dont doubt that Patrick has some sweet deal where he pays little in rent. Even if he's renting a $5k per month house for $2k to me that's not saving money. It's living a lifestyle you can't afford. Sort of like leasing a Ferrari for $800 per month.

toothfairy says

Well you can rent forever but isn't there a crossover point where buying always becomes cheaper? I mean if you're renting for 30 years. If you'd been paying a mortgage for that time the house would be paid off.

Actually no! There is no crossover point where I live.

My rent is about equal to what property taxes and maintenance would be for me. (My landlord pays near zero property tax due to Prop 13, but I could not get that same deal, being a relative newcomer.)

So I get the use of the capital that is the house and land for free. You just can't beat that.

SubOink says

Maybe its different where you are.

Yes, the Bay Area is planet weird in many respects, and the price to rent ratio is one of those respects. I understand that in many cheap places there are good deals now, meaning it's cheaper to own than to rent over the median holding period of 6 years.

SubOink says

After 30 years...

Assuming that one will own for 20 or 30 years is probably the most common fallacy out there.

The median ownership length in America is only 6 years. You may think you're different, but statistically, you're not.

So youre renting a $700k house for around $1k per month? Then thats a pretty good deal. You cant even rent an apartment in the ghetto for that much.

If I were given that deal I would probably rent but only until I saved up enough money to buy

toothfairy says

So youre renting a $700k house for around $1k per month? Then thats a pretty good deal. You cant even rent an apartment in the ghetto for that much.

Yes, you got the ratio right, but my numbers are higher. Wait, it's actually more like 2.2% annual rent / purchase price for me. Still a great deal though.

toothfairy says

If I were given that deal I would probably rent but only until I saved up enough money to buy

You'd buy even if it continued to be a far better deal to rent the same thing?

I guess that's one of the things that motivates me to do all this. People who grossly overpay make it harder for me to get a good deal. So I want to point out just how much they are overpaying.

You'd buy even if it continued to be a far better deal to rent the same thing?

well I wouldn't buy that house.. I'd probably buy something cheaper. Using those same numbers I'd probably try to save 200k and look for a 500k house. With the tax deduction the payments would be about $1300 per month. Just counting the interest your monthly payments are about $875 per month.

Assuming that one will own for 20 or 30 years is probably the most common fallacy out there.

The median ownership length in America is only 6 years. You may think you're different, but statistically, you're not.

That't the line mortgage brokers and real estate agents tell you when they try to push you into a 5/1 or 7/1 arm loan...total BS.

The truth is - I don't know ANYBODY that has owned and moved within 6 years and I know a lot of people. My entire neighborhood consists of people that have lived here their whole life. My old neighborhood where we rented for a long time (woodland hills) was the same way and I am sure there are more. All my close friends that own houses own and live in them for more than 15 years.

Not a fallacy, its a reality.

Also, if you buy at the right price...you can move if you want to. You don't need to sell the house just because you move. Rent the house and move.

You'd buy even if it continued to be a far better deal to rent the same thing?

Most people are willing to pay more to own than rent because they prefer the lifestyle. It's the only way to have a house that (over time) is completely personalized. Remodel to your liking, restructure to your liking.