---

STARCHY wrote:

Interest payments and taxes are all part of the cost, the cost of OWNING something- in this case a house. Rent does not lead to ownership, it is a fee for use.

 

Now feel free to make the argument that one is "better" than the other, or that owning is not "worth it" in the long run, but you can't escape the fact that rent only gives you use, not equity.

---

 

And I get to own your renting butt as you pay off my debts.

---

STARCHY wrote:

Interest payments and taxes are all part of the cost, the cost of OWNING something- in this case a house. Rent does not lead to ownership, it is a fee for use.

 

Now feel free to make the argument that one is "better" than the other, or that owning is not "worth it" in the long run, but you can't escape the fact that rent only gives you use, not equity.

---

I have a personal scenario that does not work with your theory.

I have 440K invested with a highly regarded funds/hedge manager, he has averaged a %13 return over the last 7 years. 

I based on his track record, I am expecting a 10% return on my investment. or ~3,600 per month. I am renting a home for 3,100 per month.  Before we signed the lease, I asked the owner how much he would sell it for he said 850K. 

If I were to put that 440K down on the house, with a 5%, 30 year fixed loan my PITI (and HOA) would be ~3,500 per month. AND the 440K would be tied up so I wouldn't be getting any interest from it. 

Basically my 440K that is invested is paying my rent.  So I look at it this way, I am saving 3,500 per month by renting.  That is I will come out 1.2 MILLION dollars over 30 years.  I am re-investing this money into the same guy, so I will add the compounded interest on to the 3,500 per month I end up with 7.2MILLION dollars in the bank. I know I don't have taxes figured into this scenario so don't go there. 

I also used this calculator

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html?_r=2#

And it confirms that I am better off renting.

Oh, also he pays for the pool guy and the mow and blow guy and the once a month tree trimmer.  He also put in a new BBQ, fixed the garage door and a gate, all expenses I don't have to worry about.

Sounds great. Congrats.

Cash (flow) is king!

---

STARCHY wrote:

Well I can see right away you and I are in for a long long chat.

 

Let's start with the obvious: I never said "there is no bad time to buy". 

Perhape you should return to my posts and read the following words:

"YOU CAN"T TIME THE MARKET" 

I'll assume you know what that means- but at this point I'm skeptical.

 

Next, if your childish banter is to be believed, your original contribution to this thread was to offer up a cherry picked year (2006) as the "proof" (in hindsight) that there are bad times to buy (and the ridiculous notion that everyone who DID buy in 2006 has lost 40%).

 

I replied with the obvious (the aforementioned definition of cherry pick) and explained to you its relevance. For your benefit, I'll post it agin here:

 

"In our example, (this thread) you ignore the long line of peaks and valleys of the real estate market and pick the absolute height of the market to prove your point, ignoring the remainder."

 

Apparently this information blew your small little mind and set you off! Flailing around the keys you vent your anger and post some slightly amusing rants with the expected personal attacks, all in an effort to cover up the fact that your argument is weak and completely off topic (often the strategy of whiny little people).

 

But let's push on to your next post shall we?  

You THEN accuse ME of "cherry picking" 1995 for the year that I bought my first house - in Chicago.

I guess I'll assume you are calling me a liar?

If thats the case then nothing I can say will make any difference right?

 

But because I am a nice guy, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not realize I was recounting my own (Chicago) experience NOT as an example of "how to time the market" but exactly the opposite.  I bought when I had the money, had the job, and when I found the right house. I bought knowing I was in it for the long haul, and HOPING it would work out for me and my family. 

 

So now that I have set you straight, and we have dispensed with your little side track of abuse and condescension, let's return to the thread shall we?

 

Now- if you would, please explain your original point, your contributions to this thread?

 

Oh. wait.. I forgot. Thats right you HAD no point- only the screechings of an adolescent. Sorry, my bad.

 

 

 

 

 

---

You have a very serious reading comprehension problem. I explained, in great detail, why I wasn't "cherry picking", and you responded by simply copying and pasting the exact uninformed claim you made the first time. I can only assume you didn't even read what I wrote.

Then it gets worse: After I carefully showed how your OWN example was cherry-picked, because the time you bought happened to be the exact bottom of the market, you inexplicably now seem to believe I think you were lying, and that you didn't really buy that house. Well that would be the exact opposite of what I said.

---

STARCHY wrote:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not realize I was recounting my own (Chicago) experience NOT as an example of "how to time the market" but exactly the opposite.

 

 

 

 

---

 Please go back and read again. I said you DID time the market perfectly, but CLAIMED that you can't time the market. I said you "claim this as an example of your mantra that you can't time the market." Now why would you say I don't realize something that I explicitly WROTE?

Your post is such a jumble of incoherent ranting that I can't even respond to most of it. You obviously only skimmed what I wrote in the most cursory way. I would suggest you go back, take your Ritalin, and try reading it again. Or better yet, just give up and stop embarassing yourself.

I thought I could pull you out of the fire but its a lost cause .

I bought when I bought- thats it. Nothing more to it. 

Only reason I brought it up was because you claimed I was a (bitter) "new home owner". 

But then you claim you're "right" because you didn't buy in 2006 and now, looking back IN HINDSIGHT in 2009, you point out how much you could have lost IF you would have bought, to which I said who cares? Will you be "right" in 2011? Will you be "right" in 2025? WHO KNOWS?

Look, I am not asking or trying to get you to believe the contents of my post (we will never get to that point at this rate), I'm asking you to try and grasp the CONCEPT of cherry picking and hind sight. 

Again- to "cherry pick"  is to select something specific while disregarding the rest.

And this is particularly useful in proving virtually ANYTHING in HIND SIGHT. anything!

My point is YOU HAVE NO POINT!

Now if I missed it buried in all the blather then please- enlighten me.

---

STARCHY wrote:

I thought I could pull you out of the fire but its a lost cause .

 

I bought when I bought- thats it. Nothing more to it. 

Only reason I brought it up was because you claimed I was a (bitter) "new home owner". 

 

But then you claim you're "right" because you didn't buy in 2006 and now, looking back IN HINDSIGHT in 2009, you point out how much you could have lost IF you would have bought, to which I said who cares? Will you be "right" in 2011? Will you be "right" in 2025? WHO KNOWS?

 

Look, I am not asking or trying to get you to believe the contents of my post (we will never get to that point at this rate), I'm asking you to try and grasp the CONCEPT of cherry picking and hind sight. 

 

Again- to "cherry pick"  is to select something specific while disregarding the rest.

And this is particularly useful in proving virtually ANYTHING in HIND SIGHT. anything!

 

My point is YOU HAVE NO POINT!

 

Now if I missed it buried in all the blather then please- enlighten me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Starchy, please try to focus. I know it's hard for you, but just try, o.k.? It's like you don't even read my posts. Your entire response is a complete non-sequitur. It is impossible to have a conversation with you. You can stop posting the definition of cherry pick. I already know what it means. I explained it in great detail. YOU are the one who lacks understanding.

You posted your personal story of buying in 1995, ostensibly as an example that proves your maxim that one "can't time the market". I explained that, despite your claim, it in fact IS a perfect example of timing the market. O.K. - I'm not saying YOU claimed this, I'm saying it is a FACT. Even if you didn't do it intentionally, you in fact did time the market perfectly. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Do you need me to use smaller words?

I also explained in great detail what hindsight means, including an example of how Steve Jobs successfully PREDICTED the growth of the personal computer market in the 1970s, and how we can REFER to events in the past that were NOT hindsight, and the fact that the event occured in the past does not mean that event was an example of hindsight. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

Apparently, all you heard was "burble burble burble". This seems to be all that gets through to you when people prove you wrong. That and your blood pressure seems to rise and you start lashing out with a bunch of unrelated insults, and repeating the nonsense that you've already posted.

I wouldn't even bother with you, except that it's amusing to see what gibberish you will write next, and it's also a challenge to see if anything I write will ever get through to you. I suspect it won't, but I do like a challenge.

Starseed9,

You made a lot of good points and expressed pretty much what we are experiencing.  Currently, the Speculators / Investors seem to be putting a support level (to use a stock market term) into the local Housing Market (we are looking in the SFV area). 

We have similar experiences in seeing houses bid up and homes flipped within 30 days of closing and back on the market at a higher listing because they were renovated.  Scuffling with the Speculators / Investors at the entry level end of the Housing Market is tough. Not so sure this support will last when the shadow inventory comes out.

Anyway, it seems the actual winners in the $8k Housing StimBucks Bonus are the Sellers, rather then the Buyers which it was intended.  And right now many of the Sellers are - the Banks . . .  Hmmmm . . .