Dear folks who wish you owned your own home

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
I'd hate to differ - but because of life circumstances I have rented for the last two years. Both places I have rented for well under what a mortgage for owning the same home would've cost me.

On that note I just became a home owner again in November so I'm not "all for" renting - I just wanted to put that out there.
You had a great deal. That is definitely not the norm. Rental rates have not decreased in fact, they've increased. I mean think about it, who would rent their house for less than their mortgage (unless they were one who overpaid for their house)?
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
:bs: You must be renting a 1 BR apt. Housing rentals were the same or higher than mortgages! I could easily rent my house for MORE than my mortgage payment.

Not quite, I had a nice 2Br apt for $850 a month and then bought a house and my payments are about $1800 a month.
 

somdrenter

Sorry, I'm not Patch...
You're stuck on stupid.

If you do not want to buy a home and want to continue renting, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But this phobia you have about *others* buying a home is just too much. Even your user name points to your obsession.
Sorry vrail, but somehow you’ve glanced over the facts, deemed they don’t apply, and then continue with straw man comments.

I’m all for home ownership. Heck, don’t stop at one, buy several. Throw in a few vacation homes to boot. :yahoo:But as the last few years has shown, there have been better alternatives financially and it’s generally accepted that prices were propped up significantly by artificial measures.

So, go forth, purchase thine home of thy dream. Just keep in mind the consequences of ignoring historic fundamentals and don’t look to tax payers for a bailout if things go awry.
 

somdrenter

Sorry, I'm not Patch...
You had a great deal. That is definitely not the norm. Rental rates have not decreased in fact, they've increased. I mean think about it, who would rent their house for less than their mortgage (unless they were one who overpaid for their house)?



Where's housing headed? Follow rents
By Shawn Tully, senior editor at largeFebruary 12, 2010: 2:49 PM ET

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- It may not be the most widespread measure of housing prices, but if you want to follow a powerful driver, look at rents.

Specifically, it's the rents Americans pay on condos, apartments or houses that are about the same size, and share the same neighborhood as your ranch or colonial, that in the end determine what your house is worth.

"If you look at the trend in rents to see where housing prices are headed, you're looking at the right measure," says Yale economist Robert Shiller...

….In normal times, people won't pay much less to lease a house than to own it. After all, if you're paying rent instead of a mortgage and taxes, you still get to enjoy the same rec room, chef's kitchen, and casita for visiting grandparents. So the surest sign of a frenzy appears when owning becomes far more expensive than renting. That's precisely what happened during the last bubble....

...And the surest sign that prices have fully adjusted arrives when the ratio of what people pay in rent versus what owners spend on the same property returns to its historic average…..

….On average, DB found that families across America were spending about 87% as much to rent as to own in 1999. Hence, they were traditionally willing to pay a premium as homeowners, though not a big one…

….But by mid-2006, with the craze in full swing, the figure fell below 60%. At that point, Americans were spending an incredible 66% more to own than to rent…..

…..So how did that happen? During the bubble, rents -- the real engine that drives values -- were inching along at more or less their usual pace. From 1999 to 2007, apartment rents increased only 32%. But home prices jumped more than three times as fast, around 105%......

…..DB reckoned that housing prices are more or less reasonable when the ratio returns to its 1999 level. Why 1999? Because the ratio was relatively stable throughout the 1990s, and it was the year the steep rise in prices began in earnest….

….What does that mean for future prices?

Given that analysis, it's likely that prices will fall another 5% or so nationwide. The drop could even be slightly greater. One reason: Rents, the force that govern housing prices, are still falling….
To gauge housing prices, look to rents - Feb. 12, 2010
 

oldman

Lobster Land
I'd hate to differ - but because of life circumstances I have rented for the last two years. Both places I have rented for well under what a mortgage for owning the same home would've cost me.

On that note I just became a home owner again in November so I'm not "all for" renting - I just wanted to put that out there.

I'm not anti home ownership either but I've been renting for over 10 years for $450 a month. You can't beat that. It's not a palace but far from a dump. To each their own I guess.
 

Two-er

Member
So you’re saying 3.9x income is a little too much? That was the "norm" just a few years ago…

I think the rule #'s vary. Many use the 28/36 rule which is based on gross income.

Housing cost not over 28% of gross
Total monthly bills not over 36% of gross

I think using gross is better because many folks put a ton into their 401K which makes it look like they're poor when looking just at net income.
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
You bought a 2 BR house the same size as your apt. and pay more than double? Why? :confused:

No I moved from a 2br apt to a 3br house on a half acre. Saying it costs as much to rent as it does to buy is just plain wrong.

On another note commercial properties are often collecting less in rent than their mortgage at first because they know that the rent they can charge will raise over time but their payments don't increase. If I had to move I wouldn't have any qualms about renting out my place for less then my mortgage payment. The problems I have are with the hassles of renting out in general.
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
No I moved from a 2br apt to a 3br house on a half acre. Saying it costs as much to rent as it does to buy is just plain wrong.

On another note commercial properties are often collecting less in rent than their mortgage at first because they know that the rent they can charge will raise over time but their payments don't increase. If I had to move I wouldn't have any qualms about renting out my place for less then my mortgage payment. The problems I have are with the hassles of renting out in general.
See you're comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare the rent of a 2 BR apt. to a 3 BR house with half an acre. You could easily rent your house for $1,800.00/mth.
 

nomoney

....
See you're comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare the rent of a 2 BR apt. to a 3 BR house with half an acre. You could easily rent your house for $1,800.00/mth.


alright, how bout dis - House # 1 I rented for $1250/mo - 3 acres, on the water with my own private pier - 3 car garage, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, all wood floors. House #2 I rented for 1500$/mo. 3 bedrooms, 3 full baths, 3000+ square feet, right on the water with my back deck walking out on my own private pier, covered parking for 3 cars, wood throughout, granite counter tops the whole lot - basically a million dollar home. I buy a house for 280k, its basically a rambler on a finished basement and my mortgage is 1800$ /mo.

Now like I said, I'm all for owning and not renting cause now I get to do what I want when I want plus I love my tax refund:yahoo:. Buuuttt.....the argument that you're trying to prove here isn't exactly right on. Go to realto.rcom and see how much house you can get now for what you're paying in a mortgage. Theres TONS out there and there's some really really nice ones for not that much $.

Not everyone gets exactly what they're paying in mortgage out of rent - lots do it as an investment and can actually take a loss on the rent so as to get a sweet write off for taxes. Others have owned the house and the rent is just money in the bank. I'm pretty sure no one would rent my house for what I pay for a mortgage payment; not with all the awesome homes out there right now for less.
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
alright, how bout dis - House # 1 I rented for $1250/mo - 3 acres, on the water with my own private pier - 3 car garage, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, all wood floors. House #2 I rented for 1500$/mo. 3 bedrooms, 3 full baths, 3000+ square feet, right on the water with my back deck walking out on my own private pier, covered parking for 3 cars, wood throughout, granite counter tops the whole lot - basically a million dollar home. I buy a house for 280k, its basically a rambler on a finished basement and my mortgage is 1800$ /mo.

Now like I said, I'm all for owning and not renting cause now I get to do what I want when I want plus I love my tax refund:yahoo:. Buuuttt.....the argument that you're trying to prove here isn't exactly right on. Go to realto.rcom and see how much house you can get now for what you're paying in a mortgage. Theres TONS out there and there's some really really nice ones for not that much $.

Not everyone gets exactly what they're paying in mortgage out of rent - lots do it as an investment and can actually take a loss on the rent so as to get a sweet write off for taxes. Others have owned the house and the rent is just money in the bank. I'm pretty sure no one would rent my house for what I pay for a mortgage payment; not with all the awesome homes out there right now for less.
I think you have to admit that you had a hell of a deal renting that much water front for that little amount. I don't believe that is real world. If that's the case everyone would be on waterfront property. I'll rent it and rent my house out. :lmao:
 

BadGirl

I am so very blessed
alright, how bout dis - House # 1 I rented for $1250/mo - 3 acres, on the water with my own private pier - 3 car garage, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, all wood floors. House #2 I rented for 1500$/mo. 3 bedrooms, 3 full baths, 3000+ square feet, right on the water with my back deck walking out on my own private pier, covered parking for 3 cars, wood throughout, granite counter tops the whole lot - basically a million dollar home. I buy a house for 280k, its basically a rambler on a finished basement and my mortgage is 1800$ /mo.

Now like I said, I'm all for owning and not renting cause now I get to do what I want when I want plus I love my tax refund:yahoo:. Buuuttt.....the argument that you're trying to prove here isn't exactly right on. Go to realto.rcom and see how much house you can get now for what you're paying in a mortgage. Theres TONS out there and there's some really really nice ones for not that much $.

Not everyone gets exactly what they're paying in mortgage out of rent - lots do it as an investment and can actually take a loss on the rent so as to get a sweet write off for taxes. Others have owned the house and the rent is just money in the bank. I'm pretty sure no one would rent my house for what I pay for a mortgage payment; not with all the awesome homes out there right now for less.
One thing to put things in to perspective, tho, is to remember that with House #1, you were living in a home that was built in the early 40's, right? And recall that the electricity bills were routinely very high, as compared to what other people were paying. So...you had a somewhat low rent, but the electricity bills were very high, and the long commute and the lack of close-by shopping is what made the rent so reasonable.

House #2 had the same deficiencies (high electricity bills, long commute, no close-by shopping), but the house was at least beautiful and new. The lower rent reflected that that home would not appeal to a really wide audience of renters/buyers.

:shrug:
 

somdrenter

Sorry, I'm not Patch...
:bs: You must be renting a 1 BR apt. Housing rentals were the same or higher than mortgages! I could easily rent my house for MORE than my mortgage payment.
See you're comparing apples to oranges.

Another good apples to oranges comparison, is comparing a ~$700 pre-bubble mortgage payment with average mortgage payments during the bubble years.
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
See you're comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare the rent of a 2 BR apt. to a 3 BR house with half an acre. You could easily rent your house for $1,800.00/mth.

Actually I could expect about $1200/month from what I have seen people rent their comparable houses out for.
 

somdrenter

Sorry, I'm not Patch...
One thing to put things in to perspective, tho, is to remember that with House #1, you were living in a home that was built in the early 40's, right? And recall that the electricity bills were routinely very high, as compared to what other people were paying. So...you had a somewhat low rent, but the electricity bills were very high, and the long commute and the lack of close-by shopping is what made the rent so reasonable.

House #2 had the same deficiencies (high electricity bills, long commute, no close-by shopping), but the house was at least beautiful and new. The lower rent reflected that that home would not appeal to a really wide audience of renters/buyers.

:shrug:
But we’re talking comps here. At some price point, the cost of purchasing House #X in addition to the high electricity bills, when you could rent a comparable house instead (at a much lower cost) makes purchasing not as financially attractive.
 

somdrenter

Sorry, I'm not Patch...
I think the rule #'s vary. Many use the 28/36 rule which is based on gross income.

Housing cost not over 28% of gross
Total monthly bills not over 36% of gross

I think using gross is better because many folks put a ton into their 401K which makes it look like they're poor when looking just at net income.
That's 3.9X for mortgage alone.....not total bills...that I was refering too.
 

somdrenter

Sorry, I'm not Patch...
Good Find
Bad News

I wonder if the below stat is based on "original" list price or "final" list price.

Avg Sale Price as a percentage of Avg List Price: 92.41 %
It should be original price, but it’s the price at the time of sale. In other words, it does not follow the market down. Keep in mind, all this data is skewed for the better for the seller (i.e. sellers agent). When the bubble first started showing its cracks, it was not uncommon to see the list price changed to the selling price; making this percentage for that particular house 100%. Also, these prices do not account for seller subsidies (and neither does the tax man for that matter). If the price is $290k with $10k in seller subsidies, $290k gets reported and that is what is taxed.

Bad news? Hardly. This is how the housing “problem” gets “fixed”. A return to fundamentals, namely incomes. Not propped up by loose lending, toxic mortgages or federal subsidies.
 

Two-er

Member
Bad news? Hardly. This is how the housing “problem” gets “fixed”. A return to fundamentals, namely incomes. Not propped up by loose lending, toxic mortgages or federal subsidies.

Yep - good news for those who want to restore sanity and the status quo back to the housing marking.

Bad news for those who only a few years ago thought their house was equivalent to a winning lotto ticket.

On the downside, I guess if new buyers know that prices haven't even hit bottom yet, then that could slow recovery even more and just have a snowball effect. What a mess.
 
Top