Dear folks who wish you owned your own home

Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
BoyGenius said:
Then how come all those people that haven't lost a dime can't refi and require a gov't bailout to do so?

:killingme
Click to expand...

You are consistent, I'll give you that.

You mean the people who also put zero down, the ones who, in affect, simply 'rented' the home? That who your talking about?
 
BoyGenius

BoyGenius

Cyber Bully Victim
Larry Gude said:
You are consistent, I'll give you that.

You mean the people who also put zero down, the ones who, in affect, simply 'rented' the home? That who your talking about?
Click to expand...

The people that did it right and put money down actually got screwed in most cases. Their money is gone. Right now, they're better off if they have no skin in the game and can walk away, or can hold their hand out and say "I need a principal write-down/bailout," or I'm going to walk away and default if you don't give it to me.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
BoyGenius said:
The people that did it right and put money down actually got screwed in most cases. Their money is gone. Right now, they're better off if they have no skin in the game and can walk away, or can hold their hand out and say "I need a principal write-down/bailout," or I'm going to walk away and default if you don't give it to me.
Click to expand...

The people that 'did it right' didn't go for some outrageous balloon; they knew what they were doing and, as you say, did it right. You walked right into this one pal; the people who are causing the problem have done nothing more than what you recommend; rent a property.
 
DoWhat

DoWhat

Deplorable
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
The people that 'did it right' didn't go for some outrageous balloon; they knew what they were doing and, as you say, did it right. You walked right into this one pal; the people who are causing the problem have done nothing more than what you recommend; rent a property.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Baja28

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
Larry Gude said:
The people that 'did it right' didn't go for some outrageous balloon; they knew what they were doing and, as you say, did it right. You walked right into this one pal; the people who are causing the problem have done nothing more than what you recommend; rent a property.
Click to expand...
:jet:

:popcorn: :coffee:
 
BoyGenius

BoyGenius

Cyber Bully Victim
Larry Gude said:
The people that 'did it right' didn't go for some outrageous balloon; they knew what they were doing and, as you say, did it right. You walked right into this one pal; the people who are causing the problem have done nothing more than what you recommend; rent a property.
Click to expand...

We'll do this slow for you Larry. Let's use my San Souci scenario. You bought in 2006 for $206k and put $100k down. You now owe 100k and the foreclosure properties on the street are selling for $101k. I bought in 2006 using an interest only loan next door for $206k, I put nothing down.

Scenario 1.: My lender now agrees to write down my loan to 31% of my income using Messiah taxpayer bailout dollars, therefore reducing my principal to $101k, just like you. The banks have no choice, because of the TARP strings, and they need the money or die. I've been rewarded for my stupidity and now have the same equity as you, none.

Scenario 2.: I've been paying interest only, which is was less than the rent amount and the principal amount others are paying. My home has now lost 50% of its value. I just walk away scott free, other than the credit ding and go rent something else. Due to the changes in the tax laws, if I do it before December 2009, I'm not taxed on the amount of loss that would previously have been considered income. During the foreclosure process I don't pay anything for 18 months as the foreclosure drags on with thousands of others.

Once again Larry, you have no clue how the game works.

:popcorn:
 
Last edited:
bcp

bcp

In My Opinion
BG seems to be leaving part of the long term ownership equaton out of his figures.
he claims a house bought for 160k or whatever 10 years ago is now worth X% less because of the reduction in housing costs leaving the homeowner with a negative equity.
however, during that 10 years, the house increased in value every year, so even with the decrease of this last year, the average homeowner still has two things.
1) positive equity
2) stable payment based on the rates 10 years ago when the mortgage was first put in service.

now the renter on the other hand, still has no equity, and his payment has gone up every year.

so what if the homeowner has lost 50 grand on paper, the overall gain is still a large plus in most cases.
what exactly does the renter have to show for his housing dollars over the same period? even if the house price is devalued to the original price, the home owner has only lost interest over that period, the renter? has lost everything. Nothing to show for his 10 years of payments.

Ill keep the house thank you.
 
BoyGenius

BoyGenius

Cyber Bully Victim
R U On Crack?

bcp said:
BG seems to be leaving part of the long term ownership equaton out of his figures.
he claims a house bought for 160k or whatever 10 years ago is now worth X% less because of the reduction in housing costs leaving the homeowner with a negative equity.
however, during that 10 years, the house increased in value every year, so even with the decrease of this last year, the average homeowner still has two things.
1) positive equity
2) stable payment based on the rates 10 years ago when the mortgage was first put in service.

now the renter on the other hand, still has no equity, and his payment has gone up every year.

so what if the homeowner has lost 50 grand on paper, the overall gain is still a large plus in most cases.
what exactly does the renter have to show for his housing dollars over the same period? even if the house price is devalued to the original price, the home owner has only lost interest over that period, the renter? has lost everything. Nothing to show for his 10 years of payments.

Ill keep the house thank you.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you guys cannot grasp the concept that the only time-frame we are discussing is the bubble years? Nobody is assaulting homeownership, they are only assaulting the when you did it period.

If a guy walked out of college in 2005, should he have rented or bought a house in 2005 or 2010? Which scenario would make him wealthier.

:popcorn:
 
bcp

bcp

In My Opinion
BoyGenius said:
Why is it that you guys cannot grasp the concept that the only time-frame we are discussing is the bubble years? Nobody is assaulting homeownership, they are only assaulting the when you did it period.

If a guy walked out of college in 2005, should he have rented or bought a house in 2005 or 2010? Which scenario would make him wealthier.

:popcorn:
Click to expand...
If a guy walked out of college in 2005 and purchased a home, and he is making the payments everymonth, his portfolio may show a slight drop right now because of the value of his home.
however, if he sits on that home and continues to make his payments, where will he be in 2035?
take the same guy that got out of college in 2005 and rented, where will he be in 2035.
assume both are equally employed for the same period.

fact is, the guy that bought might end up selling for the same that he bought it for right, or even a slight loss, but in the end his overall expense over the same period of time will be less than that of the renter who has no chance of recovering his shelter investments, or payments.

I think, long run, providing the buyer is able to make payments, owning is the much better way to go, and the best way to retain some of your earned income over the years.

I bought this house in 86, even with the drop in value I could still sell the property and come out close to 400k in profit. Now, what would I be looking at if I would have rented for that same period of time? is the landord going to share earned equity with me when I leave?
 
somdrenter

somdrenter

Sorry, I'm not Patch...
bcp said:
If a guy walked out of college in 2005 and purchased a home, and he is making the payments everymonth, his portfolio may show a slight drop right now because of the value of his home.
however, if he sits on that home and continues to make his payments, where will he be in 2035?
take the same guy that got out of college in 2005 and rented, where will he be in 2035.
assume both are equally employed for the same period.

fact is, the guy that bought might end up selling for the same that he bought it for right, or even a slight loss, but in the end his overall expense over the same period of time will be less than that of the renter who has no chance of recovering his shelter investments, or payments.

I think, long run, providing the buyer is able to make payments, owning is the much better way to go, and the best way to retain some of your earned income over the years.

I bought this house in 86, even with the drop in value I could still sell the property and come out close to 400k in profit. Now, what would I be looking at if I would have rented for that same period of time? is the landord going to share earned equity with me when I leave?
Click to expand...
1986? 2035? Why not 1896? You seem to miss the gist. Were talking bubble years. And the scenario(s) you described do not account for purchasing during the bubble years, and/or they do not account for the monies saved by renting for about ½ the cost of purchasing during the bubble years. 1986? I mean come on, why not make it 1886? And 2035? No one has advocated renting long term, much less 30 years.

Given all the market indicators; inventory, foreclosures, and for Christ sakes bailouts, just to name a few, you’d think more than one other would imagine “gee, somethings gone and went awry”

Even with our local downturn, the average home is still around 3.5x family income. Still not quite close to historic levels of affordability. We’ll need another $94k drop in average prices before we get back to something resembling historic levels. And we’re looking for a turnaround in the next few years? Sure, I’ll concede a quick turn around, so long as income rises to match those prices and/or, the return to loose lending and toxic mortgages.
 
CrashTest

CrashTest

Well-Known Member
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but between 1990 - 2000, average home prices in Maryland fell 1.1%.

I think it's unrealistic to think homes are going to once again become everyone's personal winning lotto ticket.
 
BoyGenius

BoyGenius

Cyber Bully Victim
CrashTest said:
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but between 1990 - 2000, average home prices in Maryland fell 1.1%.

I think it's unrealistic to think homes are going to once again become everyone's personal winning lotto ticket.
Click to expand...

Nobody likes to mention that because it doesn't allow you to get any suckers back in the game under the pretense that: "yeah, we're down, but prices always come back and rise even more!"

:killingme
 
DoWhat

DoWhat

Deplorable
PREMO Member
BoyGenius said:
Nobody likes to mention that because it doesn't allow you to get any suckers back in the game under the pretense that: "yeah, we're down, but prices always come back and rise even more!"

:killingme
Click to expand...

:rentboy:

:becausehedoesn'thaveanymoneytobuyhisownplace:
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
CrashTest said:
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but between 1990 - 2000, average home prices in Maryland fell 1.1%.

I think it's unrealistic to think homes are going to once again become everyone's personal winning lotto ticket.
Click to expand...

Winning loto ticket, no. However, ones home, something you bought and paid for, most people over 15-30 years, the core of ones adult life, is supposed to be your future security, the piece of the American pie that you own.

Whatever someone does or does not do, being able to live your life as you see fit and buy and pay for and own that piece of property is the ultimate symbol of being free of having accomplished a fundamental thing and having taken care of your personal business, having been a good and successful citizen over time.

It is incumbent on government to protect and preserve this most American of
ideas as the cornerstone promotion of the general welfare.

It is a crime of local, state and federal government when this is not a core value, a principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top