patrick.net

robertoaribas says

Well, it would certainly be impossible to buy BOTH a home,

I own homes, and we are selling one as soon as it's ready for the market. Why would anyone hold onto property in this economic climate? It makes no sense. Even in your dream world of rental profits, I see much more money in maintaining properties than owning them.

David Losh says

robertoaribas says

Well, it would certainly be impossible to buy BOTH a home,

I own homes, and we are selling one as soon as it's ready for the market. Why would anyone hold onto property in this economic climate? It makes no sense. Even in your dream world of rental profits, I see much more money in maintaining properties than owning them.

Reasons are simple:
In a highly manipulated housing market, it is not hard to make quick profit through flipping and/or rental if you know your local market (all short term. Long term wise, you have the risks of government pulling the support.) There are other options but they all have their own issues, for example:
1. Stocks - even more highly volatile and highly manipulated.
2. Bonds - either the rates are too low or they are gambles like stocks. (Some company bonds may have good enough rates but it depends on how confident you are to these companies.)
3. Gold/Silver - overvalued IMO.
4. Cash - safe and maybe not a bad idea if you don't need any dividend.
5. Small business: depending on the nature of business. For a fulltime worker, the options are limited (obviouly you need to work 40 hr/wk or more) except when you invest in other people's small business (not my preference).

Therefore, real estate becomes handy for many people who do not want to play the stock/bond market.

Mobi says

Therefore, real estate becomes handy for many people who do not want to play the stock/bond market.

In terms of investment Real Estate will always be there.

I disagree that buying into today's Real Estate market was a great idea, or any time after the global economic crash.

The economy changed. Wages, and employment have changed.

What really bothers me is the amount of debt. If you want to talk about investments, you should be talking about getting out of debt.

Even a mortgage at these historically low interest rates is 3.5%. A safe Mutual Fund is paying 4.5%. Getting rid of your debt is a much safer investment than anything else.

Next is this thing about how your renters are going to be paying your mortgage. I don't buy into that at all. Here in Seattle they are building apartments to accomodate the temporary workers we have coming in for tech jobs.

I think buyers are smarter than they were. I did a search in my area of solds, and available listings, and was surprised that some people have bought pretty well in today's hot market.

As Roberto says you can buy for less than rent, so why are these rentals going to be paying for themselves?

Renters will pay debt, look for cheaper rents, take some time, buy well, and the rental market will be floated by corporate investors.

Real Estate is a job, it's a long term hold unless you turn properties. As we get closer to equilibrium in pricing, which will be up to the Fed, we'll lose appreciation. There is no other rationale. There is no economic reason for the price of Real Estate to continue to go up.

robertoaribas says

the majority of eocnomists give Bernanke pretty high marks for his handling of what could have been the 2nd great depression.

It takes a real kensian economics professor to make such a statement, which basically means that that:

1. Govt can create wealth.
2. Govt can make something out of nothing.

Both of these points were refuted over and over again, in history, but, I guess, some of us, will never learn.

David Losh says

Why would anyone hold onto property in this economic climate? It makes no sense. Even in your dream world of rental profits, I see much more money in maintaining properties than owning them.

If you bought property with the plan to rent them for profit and you are spending more on maintenance than you are profiting, then you are doing something wrong (or you got unlucky).

Maybe Seattle isn't a good place to buy-to-rent, or maybe your timing was unfortunate. There are many, many people out there in the world who have done quite well buying properties and renting them out. Sometimes it's a no-brainer to make it work (look at the price to rent ratio in Phoenix when Roberto bought), and sometimes it's marginal and takes some other factor to make it work: circumstances that make the tax benefits particularly valuable, skills or related occupation that gives you an edge, or some other flexibility or complementary benefit. Economies of scale apply, too (if you maintain them yourself, and can amortize your tool purchase across 5 properties instead of 1, for example).

I watched my parents acquire 4 buildings over a decade. Their approach was to select a property that was in poor condition, and under market rents, but would cover the payment, hopefully with a little bit of headroom. As tenants moved on (as they always do) they would go in and upgrade the unit - often a full gut job. They were small business owners in a business with strong seasonal patterns -- summers were slow. To keep their employees busy, they would have them paint, sand floors, etc. As the properties gained equity, they also provided an important source of collateral for their business loans.

If they hadn't been willing to hang drywall and lay tile themselves, or if the didn't have the flexibility and idle employees that the business provided, it wouldn't have worked out as well for them. They would have hired all the work done, maybe hired a management company, and in the end they would still own the buildings free and clear, but they would probably have come out behind compared to other investment options.

I had always thought I would repeat what they did, but my situation is so different, and I don't have all of the complementary puzzle pieces to make it work. I have a job that takes a lot of my time, has me traveling frequently, and doesn't provide the flexibility I would need.

It's not for everyone or every situation, and if it isn't working out for you, and you can get out with your skin...do it. But I think you would be wrong to conclude that it's a losing investment strategy...

swebb says

It's not for everyone or every situation, and if it isn't working out for you, and you can get out with your skin...do it. But I think you would be wrong to conclude that it's a losing investment strategy...

You outlined perfectly how Rental Property can be a very good investment, but there was no reason to rush into Real Estate after the economic crash, before you could see where all the prices will fall.

I also have a variety of workers who did work on properties we owned. I sold them before 2007, we still have some partnership positions that I want out of.

The way I see it is that the tax credit encouraged first time home buyers to pay more for properties than I would want to spend. Then we had the lower interest rates and prices started moving up again.

We could have flipped some properties, but in our market place more guys ended up with rentals in 2009, 2010, than they intended. Those are being sold off now in this extreme state of exhuberance.

I like Real Estate. I've been in the Real Estate business my entire career. I'm just saying that we have a very screwed up market place today, with way too many people paying way too much for properties. I can see a quick flip, but not a long term hold.

David Losh says

I like Real Estate. I've been in the Real Estate business my entire career. I'm just saying that we have a very screwed up market place today, with way too many people paying way too much for properties. I can see a quick flip, but not a long term hold.

I think that's going to vary a lot from market to market, and where you think things are headed. I think the flip vs buy and hold question varies not just with the market but also on individual situation -- some people are better equipped / connected / situated to flip, for others the buy and hold strategy is a better fit.

I'm not in the buy-hold-rent situation, but I did buy a place so I could live in it. The analysis isn't exactly the same as a pure financial investment, but it's similar. My net "rent" (less maintenance) is in the $900-$1000/month range. Similar property would cost me $1800/month to rent. For Denver, for my situation, for this particular house...it's a no brainer, and would also make a nice rental...I bought well and the market is improving...whether or not it makes more sense to hold or sell is a tougher call. Both are good. I don't know that I could "step and repeat" even 3 months later -- market is "improving" too quickly. Maybe Denver will look more like Seattle in the coming quarters.

robertoaribas says

If you waited, you will now pay more,

No I won't.

Let me recap this for you again, because you really aren't getting it.

In 2007 prices were obscenely high. After the crash prices came back into focus, until the tax credit, then the interest rates.

The example I gave before about the blocker in Shoreline was that a buyer paid $225K for that bank owned property, I guess based on the fact the bank had lent $430K on the property pre 2007.

$225K looked like a bargain to that buyer, but to me it was full retail.

There is no bottom or top to the Real Estate market. There are only good deals, or liabilities. The very idea some one is using sales data as a barameter should have been dispelled in 2008, but here we are with Real Estate agents pushing the greater fool priniciple.

I won't pay pay more. No buyer needs to pay more, and like I said, looking at my area, some buyers are getting pretty good deals. My area, however, is across the Freeway from the Puget Sound part of the city, where the competition is fierce.

It's all in the deal. My deal is that I'm clearing my leverage, and getting to cash.

David Losh says

I disagree that buying into today's Real Estate market was a great idea, or
any time after the global economic crash.

Depend on your strategy.

First, you do not have to hold. As a matter of fact, you want to turn it over as fast as you can if you see the writing on the wall (not only real estate but also everything else.)

Second, buy properties that are harder to get loan with so the prices are not artificially supported by low interest rate. Wait to sell them when the foreclosure pipeline empties out (e.g., Roberto would make a really nice profit if he sells now. It may get better next year in his local market.)

You will not see this kind of market very often (once in a lifetime kind of thing.)

robertoaribas says

as prices have risen strongly since then

So what? Prices rose strongly in 2006. Two years of price hikes based on low interest rates doesn't mean squat.

robertoaribas says

a very clear bottom, in most cities 1 to 2 years ago.

Baloney. According to Real Estate sales people there may have been a bottom, or top, based on that sales data barometer, but no, there isn't a cleiling, or a floor to getting a good deal in Real Estate. It all depends on the buyer, and seller.

Mobi says

You will not see this kind of market very often (once in a lifetime kind of thing.)

We saw it in 2006, 2007, and we did turn a few properties. This time around the margins for my area are much tighter, and in 2008, 2009 some flippers flopped. Some who wanted a quick buck ended up renting out the property, but will be selling now I expect.

Most of my work has been with distressed properties, and those that were not bank financable. It was good money then, but now we have way too many yahoos who entered the get rich quick schemes that really screwed with the profit potential..

The Professor says

These people, most of who are not "pure slumlords", are the reason that it is possible to pay "half as much to own vs rent same house". They are also the reason that young families can't buy entry level homes, but they can rent them.

What you are writing makes about as much sense as accusing chicken farmers and grocery stores of causing hunger in the world: if only they had not fed the corn to the chicken, and let the corn sit in the field not consumed by distributors, there would be much more corn per capita around the world! It's the classic socialist technocrat idiocy of assuming bureaucrats moving food from field to people's dinner table would cost nothing, whereas in reality that kind of government-run monopoly is far more costly than market competition bringing food to people. Likewise, hasn't the housing bubble and crash in recent years proved again that ownership is not a good idea for everyone? Renting money and being stuck to a big bundle of housing (in time) can be far more costly than renting houses (by the small time increments).

Not everyone wants to buy 30yrs of housing at a time or even 5 years . . . just like you can buy a dozen muffins for $5 or so at Costco, or you can buy 1 muffin for $1 near your office. Do you want to buy a dozen every two weeks and figure out ways how to keep them from going stale for the next 11 days? A house is just a wooden box sitting out in the rain.

Houses should be a place to live, not an investment.

If nobody invests in a house, there wouldn't be new houses, and those existing houses would also deteriorate quickly. Investing in house is just someone bringing more and better housing service to the market. . . just like chicken farmers use corn to raise chicken, producing a product that is worth more to the end consumer, even if to the statistically obsessed morons the chicken farmer actually consumes more "food" by weight than the "food" he produces by weight.

David Losh says

Mobi says

You will not see this kind of market very often (once in a lifetime kind of thing.)

We saw it in 2006, 2007, and we did turn a few properties. This time around the margins for my area are much tighter, and in 2008, 2009 some flippers flopped. Some who wanted a quick buck ended up renting out the property, but will be selling now I expect.

Most of my work has been with distressed properties, and those that were not bank financable. It was good money then, but now we have way too many yahoos who entered the get rich quick schemes that really screwed with the profit potential..

There weren't many distressed properties back in 2006-2007 and that's the difference. But then, you paid a lot (even for distressed properties) and tried to flip, which is risky. Now you can work with distressed properties and do a quick flip. Profit margin is an issue but as long as you don't put mcuh money to fix them up, you are OK. You have to know your local market well so that you do zero fixing and zero renting before flipping them (have to be patient and only viable for small investors.)

robertoaribas says

and 2010, the bottom...

You have no idea what you are talking about.

There are no economic facrtors to support the price hikes we have, except historically low interest rates.

We are in a massively manipulated Real Estate market place.

You are promoting the greater fool concept of sales for the people who will pay way more than a property is worth.

You are looking at select data to promote sales. It's unfair to the the client.

Mobi says

There weren't many distressed properties back in 2006-2007

There were always distressed properties, but in my case we bought from home owners who wanted to sell the crap they had owned for many many years. In one case we bought an unfinished flip. We paid less than we could get on the open market after the house was completed.
'
There is always a deal in Real Estate. The difference now is the margins are less due to increased competition.

The Professor says

Reality says

If nobody invests in a house, there wouldn't be new houses, and those existing houses would also deteriorate quickly.

Invest in building, sure.

Are you saying that an invester takes better care of a house than an owner?

The house became empty precisely because the previous "owner" abandoned it.

The Professor says

Reality says

makes about as much sense as accusing chicken farmers and grocery stores of causing hunger in the world: if only they had not fed the corn to the chicken, and let the corn sit in the field not consumed by distributors, there would be much more corn per capita around the world!

Huh??

How does this equate to rentiers collecting money for doing nothing more than being connected to the source of credit?

With the numerous government subsidized loans around, the first-time home buyers of any credit worthiness is far better connected to cheap sources of credit than any typical investor, who usually have to pay substantively in cash for those houses.

The broken houses, abandoned houses are the corn, something that is theoretically "food" but nobody wants to eat when chicken is on the offer. The investor money is what turns such shacks into livable houses (akin to corn into chicken), along with the on-going services that keep roof over roughly 35% of the population that are either in too mobile stage of their lives to settle down or simply don't have the temperament for maintaining houses.

David Losh says

It was good money then, but now we have way too many yahoos who entered the get
rich quick schemes that really screwed with the profit potential..

It's just like the housing boom that attracted all the mopes, and the bust has too. They're late to the game and fighting over the scraps now without the benefit of a diverse system to account for problems that arise. Some people think that's a sign to get out.

The Professor says

Reality says

The Professor says

Reality says

If nobody invests in a house, there wouldn't be new houses, and those existing houses would also deteriorate quickly.

Invest in building, sure.

Are you saying that an invester takes better care of a house than an owner?

The house became empty precisely because the previous "owner" abandoned it.

Huh?

Do you not realize that the people that do not have budgetary skills to keep a house but were previously helped by government zero-down loans into home ownership were simply one roof leak or one furnace malfunction from losing home ownership? These are the people who need other people who can keep roof over their heads, and make all payments into equal monthly payments regardless contingencies.

The Professor says

Reality says

The broken houses, abandoned houses are the corn, something that is theoretically "food" but nobody wants to eat when chicken is on the offer.

Investers aren't buying corn they are outbidding 1st time house owners and renting them the house for more than they would have paid in mortgage.

We have gone through this numerous times already. Explain what's preventing 1st time home buyers with near-zero down payment FHA loans at 4% or less from out bidding the investor? What kind of moron investor would be chasing rental yield of 4% or less?

The usual answer is because the house is broken or missing major components (like copper pipes) hence can not be mortgaged under FHA program. It may take 6 months to fix the property, the 1st time home buyer simply can not service the debt on the new house for 6 months while still paying rent for the existing home. Hence, your theory about investors outbidding 1st time home buyers is false because the 1st time home buyers who can not stump up the cash to float the house for 6 months during repair isn't even in the bidding.

the fly in his ointment is interest rates.

if the interest rate rises, the property becomes unbearable

patb says

the fly in his ointment is interest rates.

if the interest rate rises, the property becomes unbearable

You can lock a 15-year fixed for 2.75% or 30-year fixed for 3.5% right now. Who cares if interest rate rises. Did you know that FHA loans are assumable? Why pay the high interest rate when you can assume the low interest rate loans?

Man, I love real estate.

David Losh says

There were always distressed properties

Reading skill here... I said weren't MANY. There were of course always distressed properties and i bought one before 2006, too (sold in 2007 for profits.) Like you said, there are always deals, 2006 or 2013. If you are good, you can manage the profit margin. (More demands nowadays but also a lot more supplies.)

robertoaribas says

and a very clear bottom, in most cities 1 to 2 years ago.

A math professor who doesn't even understand the difference between a local bottom and an absolute bottom.

The Professor says

Reality says

Explain what's preventing 1st time home buyers with near-zero down payment FHA loans at 4% or less from out bidding the investor?

The appraiser.

You are grabbing at the straws. Do you honestly believe first time home buyers with near-zero down are suitable candidates for setting new price records?

Besides, a buyer can always pay down cash to make up the difference between his bid and the appraisal value. The appraisal only has to exceed the loan value. So if the market has gone up 10% in 6 months, the 1st time home buyer only needs to put down 10% in order to get the 3.5% loan!

The Professor says

Reality says

These are the people who need other people who can keep roof over their heads, and make all payments into equal monthly payments regardless contingencies.

Are you an invester or a government welfare worker?

Do you think everything that people need should be provided by government monopoly? Like I suspected, at the bottom of your heart, you probably think food production should be run by the government according to people's need too . . . as we know, the result of such a monopoly is starvation.

Government welfare worker is just a government appointed monopolist who gets to dine on the government issued credit card (theoretically for her clients but in reality usually used for the welfare worker herself).

Consumer choice enables food plenty and quality. Likewise, competitive choices in the rental and purchase market enable best bang for the consumers' buck. Many consumers just want houses to live, not houses to maintain. What horse sense does it make for someone to buy and pay 6% realtor fee, several thousand closing cost, and assuming the risk of market volatility, just to live in a place for a year or two or even four (like getting a degree)?

The Professor says

No. I believe in people. I think most are capable of maintaining a house and do not need to pay a rentier "double the PITI" to maintain it for them.

"Most" is only 51%. Where do you think the rest should live? in boxes in the streets? The real numbers break-down seems to be around 65% to 35%. The foreclosure experience in the past half decade seem to prove in spades that artificially pushing people into home ownership doesn't really benefit people in the long run.

Your "double the PITI" claim is also taking statements out of context. For example, the PITI referred to by others in those cases are payments after substantial down payment! For example, the originator of this thread put down $175k cash down, not counting closing cost etc. He will also be responsible for doing all future repairs to his house, instead of being able to count on the housing service provider.

The Professor says

Reality says

Like I suspected, at the bottom of your heart, you probably think food production should be run by the government according to people's need too

Where did you get that idea from?

Because you assumed anyone providing any necessary service to others should be government social welfare workers. What you don't understand is that people go into government social welfare jobs because can not make as much money in the private sector . . . i.e. counting on the government coercive power to help them stay over-paid! That overpayment comes directly out of the rest of the society.

Again, I believe in people. I think most people want to work and EARN their living. For the most part the government does NOT help the commom person but is set up to enrich the connected; look up "oligarchy".

That's what government loan guarantees do: help the banksters by inducing people to over-pay for houses.

The Professor says

Reality says

as we know, the result of such a monopoly is starvation.

How do "we " know this?

Because government monopoly on food production has been tried numerous times in the 20th century. The result was mass starvation every single time!

The Professor says

Reality says

The appraisal only has to exceed the loan value. So if the market has gone up 10% in 6 months, the 1st time home buyer only needs to put down 10% in order to get the 3.5% loan!

Let them eat cake!

Or the seller can accept the invester's cash offer with no contingencies and avoid the hassle.

Hassle and time delays are no big problem in a rising market, which is assumed if you say lagging appraisal value getting in the way. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

If the buyer doesn't have the cash down payment that is equivalent to the rise in the house value in 6 months, do you really think it's a good idea to encourage home ownership in that situation? The roof can leak, the furnace can break, and the house price can drop just as much in another 6 months, wouldn't the taxpayers then be on the hook for loan default, just like the last time go-around? Wouldn't downloading the risk to an investor actually be a wise solution to the problem?

The Professor says

So you're an investor?

I consider myself a housing service provider.

robertoaribas says

buying in 2006 and 2007 certainly was foolish and very risky, no wonder you have left active real estate.

You have no idea what you are saying or talking about.

My margins in 2006, and 2007 were twice what flippers are getting today. We turn properties, but not today, because the margins are tight.

You are looking solely at your own get rich quick scheme, and trying to make it universal.

The facts are that not all Real Estate market places are rising, as I pointed out about Atlanta. 2008, or 2009 was the bottom of the Real Estate if you wanted to use that phrase.

You claimed banks were stupid to sell properties in 2008, 2009, for less than if they had waited. I said banks know exactly what they are doing.

Banks did pull inventory, and they are getting twice the price for properties by creating an artificial shortage, coupled with historically low interest rates.

Now we have Billions of dollars tied up in Real Estate assets from large investors. Those investors will move on the same as they did after the Savings, and Loan scandal.

There is nothing in you being a college professor, in math, or anything else that would prepapre you for a career in Real Estate. The Real Estate market place is getting more clear, and you are getting more lost.

Have another bottle of wine, look at your sales data, pat yourself on the back again, but you should really come up with some new material.

The Professor says

Real estate agent?

No.

Do you have a job title and description you are willing to claim?

I have several jobs. The one most closely related to the topic at discussion, my customers call me "landlord" but I don't consider myself landlord as I doubt any of them would be interested in renting land from me if the properties that I own were bare land. I manage and repair houses so the people on annual leases can have a place to call home without having to deal with the repairs, up keeps, paying expensive transaction fees or exposed to the gyrations of the housing market prices. Meanwhile, the town gets the tax bills paid and the properties maintained so they don't become eye sores. That's why I call myself a housing service provider in that job capacity.

I teach computer science and applications to college students. I am a teacher. My mission is to inspire confidence and instill ability.

You are a petty bureaucrat. Your primary goal at the college is to draw a tenured check that is better pay than what you can get elsewhere. If you were primarily concerned with inspiring confidence and instill ability, you'd be either volunteering without pay or start your own computer science after-school program so you don't have to deal with the typical college administrative bureaucracy.

The Professor says

If it is to your advantage to see housing costs go up then "housing recovery" sounds good. If you are one car breakdown from poverty, rising rent is a catastrophe.

What do you think would drive rent down? More housing service providers on the supply side! It's no different from encouraging private food production by farmers would result in plenty food for everyone, whereas government bureaucratically run "fair" food production schemes always end up in mass starvation. Every time I finish renovate a house, guess what I have to do in order to attract customers? I have to offer a price lower than my competitors in order to get my units filled quickly! Time/occupancy is a perishable good.

Reality says

The Professor says

If it is to your advantage to see housing costs go up then "housing recovery" sounds good. If you are one car breakdown from poverty, rising rent is a catastrophe.

What do you think would drive rent down? More housing service providers on the supply side! It's no different from encouraging private food production by farmers would result in plenty food for everyone, whereas government bureaucratically run "fair" food production schemes always end up in mass starvation. Every time I finish renovate a house, guess what I have to do in order to attract tenant? I have to offer a price lower than my competitors in order to get my units filled quickly!

But your willingness to hold out for the price you want to get strongly depends on how much your financing and upkeep costs are for keeping it vacant. And if you have access to close to zero interest rates you can certainly wait much longer, thus reducing the pressure to underprice for anybody.

mell says

But your willingness to hold out for the price you want to get strongly depends on how much your financing and upkeep costs are for keeping it vacant. And if you have access to close to zero interest rates you can certainly wait much longer, thus reducing the pressure to underprice for anybody.

Do the math, every month of vacancy would require 9% higher rent in the next 11 months to make up! If you were ever on the supplier side, you'd know that vacancy is extremely costly, usually the result of the owner getting distracted by something else in his/her life and unable to manage the property efficiently, not a deliberate strategy.

Reality says

mell says

But your willingness to hold out for the price you want to get strongly depends on how much your financing and upkeep costs are for keeping it vacant. And if you have access to close to zero interest rates you can certainly wait much longer, thus reducing the pressure to underprice for anybody.

Do the math, every month of vacancy would require 9% higher rent in the next 11 months to make up! If you were ever on the supplier side, you'd know that vacancy is extremely costly, usually the result of the owner getting distracted by something else in his/her life and unable to manage the property efficiently, not a deliberate strategy.

Sure, but what do you think about the reports a couple of years ago about big real estate trusts that just let their mostly commercial complexes sit and rot until they get an acceptable offer by the city/state to fill it or buy them out because it was better for them to roll over, especially if they financed those properties mostly and hardly had any down-payment at stake?

mell says

Sure, but what do you think about the reports a couple of years ago about big real estate trusts that just let their mostly commercial complexes sit and rot until they get an acceptable offer by the city/state to fill it or buy them out because it was better for them to roll over, especially if they financed those properties mostly and hardly had any down-payment at stake?

They needed more competition. The city/state should never be in a position to be able to fill them or buy them out to begin with. Talk about messed up incentives.

The Professor says

You go volunteer. I have bills to pay.

Actually I do/did. I volunteered at local schools and colleges when I had more time.

The Professor says

There is no shame in being a landlord. As you explained you provide a needed service. Would you prefer the title "Keeper of Houses"?

I may consider that. Thanks. I don't like the term "landlord" because the term's imprecision: the primary asset of value is not land but the house, and there is no "lordship" but a service, me and my workers being at the service of the customers. The appropriate medieval analogy would be the innkeeper not the feudal lord. It's a two-way negotiation for service at pay, not overlordship.

The Professor says

Banks have done the math. In their calculus not only can they go without collecting mortgage they will also pay a delinquent loanowners taxes and insurance.

Banks do that in order to avoid recognizing losses on bad loans. It's a form of fraudulent book keeping. The hope is to punt to the next bank manager or wait for taxpayer bailout.

The typical housing service provider however have no such luxury. He/she would have to eat the lost revenue by him/herself.

To the original poster's numbers:

At 1% annual repair reserve, the $875k house needs a $730/mo repair and "honey-do" reserve (most home improvements demanded by the wife will have very little resale value in the future). So between the $3800 rental potential and $2588 PIT, there's only less than $500/mo left for insurance and water/sewer bill, which just about cover the $500/mo for such a house.

So the original poster is getting almost 0% return on his $190k or so down payment and purchasing/closing cost, as far as cash flow is concerned. The only gain since buying would have to come from home appreciation.

What's there to be jealous about again?

Just as I suspected, the "rent being double the ownership cost" is pure figment of imagination. The doubling can not possibly be there when the house' rental yield is so low.

Well 20% price appreciation is pretty sweet. I will let you all know what my best offer is - plan to sell in June.

Roberto,

Budgeting 1% of house value as annual repair reserve is fairly standard practice for basic home ownership financial planning. Water heater replacement is a miniscule cost in the scheme of things. The more expensive items are like roof etc. More expensive houses tend to have bigger more expensive roofs and are located in areas with higher cost of labor.

In the cases similar to the original poster, where the house price to rent yield ratio is close to 20:1 (both of us would probably pause at somewhere close to 10:1), I was also counting the typical wife's demand on frivolous home improvements towards that 1%. Improvements that will add very little to house value at sale time. It's just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses in those neighborhoods and keeping a wife.

As for banks being slow at recognizing losses, what I wrote was not a statement on whether they are doing it, but a reason for why they did it once upon a time (if they did), as The Professor raised the issue.