patrick.net

MtViewRenter,

I've managed to keep my ROA at right around .5 to 1%. It's not always easy, but it can be done. Your appraisal of the different service platforms is spot on though. One way I've found to keep the balance (and not have to sleep in a mini-van) is to discount one side of the trade when necessary.

I wonder how firms like Ameriprise etc. will contend w/this. A lot of those guys are in their independent distribution channel and likely don't have the assets to go RIA. Have these guys really thought this through?

GC,

My great grandfather was the photographer's assistant, o.k? How do you think I know this stuff? :)

All I was really trying to do was a play on FAB's Chronicle article and Randy H's follow up. Here we have all this fantastic technology and what do we get from our ROI?

Somehow I don't believe having "Gina and her friends in Orlando" doing shots and engaging in mock lesbian sex on MySpace is what the inventors of the internet envisioned?

Bulgaria actually, but HEY guys like that know how to get around. He also invented the "groupie".

Forsakencraft guy (John) did a webcast or web-based radio show and what did he get for his efforts? Death threats. The Cartel (TM) sux.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/06/news/economy/jobs_march1/index.htm?postversion=2007040612

as investors bet the strong numbers significantly reduced the chance that the Federal Reserve would cut interest rates later this year.

"The inflation barometers are all exceeding their comfort zone, but they're not upending the economy," he said.

No immediate rate cuts --yeah!!

Somehow I don’t believe having “Gina and her friends in Orlando” doing shots and engaging in mock lesbian sex on MySpace is what the inventors of the internet envisioned?

Considering that the inventors of the Internet were a bunch of nerds working government research jobs in grungy back rooms, I bet many of them are pleased with the result.

The Net gives people a platform. Like the author of that article stated, now everyone can feel like they're the center of attention all the time.

Brand Says:

> Hey, does anybody know how to get prior mortgage
> information on an REO? There’s one in town that
> interests me, and I’d like to know which lender owns it.

If the REO was recent I may still have access to the old lender information on title (I have access to three national databases). Sent me the full address (including city, state and COUNTY) and I’ll see if I show the previous loan amount.

FAB: The REO address is: 415 S. Loomis, Fort Collins, CO 80521, Larimer County

I can't say for sure but without any intent he may have really ruffled some feathers. Forsaken was down in the Temecula CA area and as we've all heard it was an absolute hotbed of fraud. Something like 500 homes, thousands of investors and millions of dollars.

All the guy wanted to do was report on his area's bubble and he gets blindsided like that. What a shame. I spoke with him on the phone and he was a real nice guy.

"The Net gives people a platform"

From what? From which to hang themselves from?

Peter P, I'm surprised at you, usually you're all over that stuff! :)

Peter P, I’m surprised at you, usually you’re all over that stuff!

Huh?

Somehow I don’t believe having “Gina and her friends in Orlando” doing shots and engaging in mock lesbian sex on MySpace is what the inventors of the internet envisioned?

Inventors of the Internet envisioned a big nuclear war, after which the USSR would be a communicationless anarchy and the US would be an interconnected, functioning government.

Next the opened it up to university researchers.

Next people started writing salacious sex murder fantasies on alt.sex.twisted

Next AOL plugged in

Next there were sock puppets

Next there were people buying cartoon real estate so they could build cartoon houses in which they could have cartoon salacious sex murder fantasies to the background of streamed, pirated MP3s.

Brand Says:

FAB: The REO address is: 415 S. Loomis, Fort Collins, CO 80521, Larimer County

415 S Loomis Ave. is owned by Greenpoint Mtg Funding Inc.

Title records show that they took title to the 1,344 sf home (on a 9,583 sf lot) built in 1915 way back in 1994 via a Warrantee Deed with a recorded sale price of $94,000 (less than a friend just paid for his new Cayenne Turbo)…

About the link lunapark posted.

It is indeed amazing that the RE cartel is admitting to the problems with the median. Hopefully it will be in MSM and people stop talking, "But it is still going up". The truth is plain and simple. Prices are going down.

And hey ... a few threads back it was only myself, skibum, EBGuy and DinOR arguing about the BA market is not as strong as the median indicates. So we want to claim credit for this great insight ;-)

Randy H,

Thanks for clearing that up.

theotherside

You are assuming two things which are not always true:

1) Mortgages optimize tax deductibility. In my case two things make this false. a) I will not ever buy with 20% down because I don't want a home that expensive. My last home had 70% equity. b) I pay AMT at the level which erodes mortgage tax shield.

2) People always trade up at a dollar-equivalent level. Just like in (1), most people don't sell a $1,000,000 with 50% down and immediately go buy a $2,500,000 house putting all $500,000 back in. The relationship between price and personal utility is not a linear one. Most (but not all) people find that a $1,800,000 house will suit them as well as a $2,300,000 house. Also most people will reinvest most of their equity back in, not just 20% and hold back the rest.

I will not ever buy with 20% down because I don’t want a home that expensive.

It is like gloating without gloating. Good work, Randy!

Thanks, FAB. Hmm. And they're putting it back on the market at $188K? Zillow shows the sale you mentioned on 10/01/1994: $94,800, but then a second SOLD 12/15/2006: $197,696.

Would the second sale be the foreclosure? I guess maybe the owners could have HELOC'ed their poor vintage bungalow into the dirt. Normally REO takes a while to come back on the market, so it would be consistent that Greenpoint foreclosed in December and is offering in April. I doubt somebody could have bought it and gone into default that fast.

From the Greenpoint web site:

GreenPoint Mortgage, a national mortgage banking company headquartered in Novato, California, is a leading national lender in residential mortgages, specializing in no-documentation and "Alternative A" mortgage loans. GreenPoint Mortgage is a subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation.

Ask me if I'm shedding a tear for a no-doc, Alt-A lender taking one back. Especially since they are a subsidiary of a big company that should know better, who is holding the toxic stuff at arm's length...

theotherside

The EXACT calculation of the implied finances in your example $1,000,000 with $800,000 notional mortgage @6.5%, using NAR published averages for closing costs, other costs maintenance & repairs.

Home Purchase Price: $1,000,000
Down Payment: $200,000
Closing Costs: -$50,000
Other Costs: -$10,000
Net amount financed: $860,000

Marginal tax rate 33%

Mortgage Term 30yr, 6.5%APR, fixed, simple, no penalty
State & Local property tax (before fed deductibility): 1.4%
Insurance, maint, repairs 0.5%
10 year CPI expected: 2.5%
Selling costs: 4.00%
Opportunity costs (risk free 10-year T-Bill) 4.50%
Holding Period: 15 years
Rent equivalent = $3,500/mo

Yearly amortized loan & rent comparison:

YEAR 1:
---------
Pmt=$65,857
$9,957 Principal, $55,900 Interest
$14,000 Taxes
$5,000 Insurance

Tax Deduction = $18,447
$66,410 Nominal cost of ownership

$42,000 Nominal alternative rent cost

*** Nominal alternative PV of renting in Year 1 = $48,329

YEAR 15
----------
Pmt=$65,857
$24,044 Principal, $24,044 Interest
$14,000 Taxes {note, taxes would be higher, assuming 0 tax growth}
$5,000 Insurance {note insurance would be higher, assuming 0 ins growth}

Tax Deduction = $13,798
$71,058 Nominal cost of ownership

$59,345 Nominal alternative rent cost

*** Nominal alternative PV of renting in Year 15 = $11,714

---

Note, I have inflated Rent costs, yet not property taxes or insurance, just so those figures can't become red herrings. Even so, the gap between ownership versus rent falls very slowly, due to the fact that even while rent rises, tax deductibility falls.

theotherside is omitting important terms from her equations which level the opportunity costs. Running a sensitivity analysis reveals that the PRICE paid for the home determines about 72% of the result. Tax deductibility is the next highest, at 8% sensitivity.

That means that 72 cents of every dollar are determined by your initial purchase price, while only 8 cents of every dollar are determined by your tax shield.

For this reason, mortgage rates are also very low sensitivity (less than 2%). Because lower mortgage rates also lower tax shield effect, which is an iterative calculation. Also keep in mind the tax shield is front-loaded. Therefore, contrary to theotherside's claims that longer ownership periods yield better results, in fact the opposite is true from a financial perspective. The best results are based upon maximizing leverage + tax shield, usually by moving every 5-7 years.

Of course, I'm not advocating doing that, because a home is not a stock portfolio. And, even while maximizing leverage + tax shield, one is accumulating debt distress risks.

There is no free lunch. There is no easy money. There are no "it's always better to do X" pat answers. Ever.

Greenpoint doesn't list the Loomis property on its web site. If the owners got a HELOC from another firm, would that show up on the title report as well?

theotherside Says:

> 1- Let say an owner has a $1,000,000 house with a
> $800,000 mortgage (20% down). After a few years
> you have to sell due to relocation/new-job/divorce
> Scenario 1 (worst case) : RE is DOWN 25% (nominal
> prices)

Good to hear that 25% is “worst case”…

> You need to take $256,250 from your savings (painful)
> but your new mortgage is $600,000 (or exactly $200,000
> less than your previous situation).

For the ~1% of Americans that have over a quarter of a million in cash this may work, but what do you suggest for the ~99% of Americans who don’t have $256K in cash sitting around?

FAB knows what he's talking about, or so I've heard from theotherside.

I thought he was also going to point out that the marginal value of the tax deductibility declines faster than the nominal deductible interest as a function of income.

Or in plainer language: The lower your tax rate, the less the tax shield helps you. It is a tax DEDUCTION, not a tax CREDIT.

GC Says:

> FAB, 1/4 mil in addition to the dwelling which is owned outright?

I don't have the exact numbers, but not many (I would take the bet that it is under 1 in 100) Americans have $256K in cash savings...

FAB: Are you including people who could liquidate portfolios to generate a quarter million in cash? I'm not sure why you'd have that much green sitting around earning nothing.

tOS's worst case scenario is exactly why I don't want to buy right now. I can squeeze out a 200k downpayment, but I doubt I'll be able to squeeze out another one in 3-5 years.

And really... that scenario implies I've now spend 480k to own 20% of an 800k house. (plus expenses! Not counting opportunity costs!)

Tits to that! Margaritas all around!

I'll agree that buying a different house in the same area code (or larger subset that makes sense) is pretty much a wash regardless of the overall market being up or down.

I will not ever buy with 20% down because I don’t want a home that expensive.

I nominate this to be considered as The First Koan of Patrick.net !

GC:

"The only people who benefit from a rising RE market are those who can sell and downsize."

True, but you can also sell and rent.

So the punch line, which I coincidentally said before, is that you buy when you need a house. Forget about sitting and the anguish that I’ve seen on this board.

To be frank with you, I sense a fair amount of greed amongst the fence sitters. This I have already pointed out on several occasions.

To be quite frank with you, I think you're either full of shit or baiting us.

Exactly how does recognizing the reality that I --and virtually everyone I know-- can't afford 99% of the housing stock in my state using a conventional (non-toxic) loan somehow make me full of "greed" or "anguish"?

Oh, and for the record, a 25% drop is a *very* "big deal" if it happens to wipe out your entire net worth. Maybe buying right now as a primary residence can make sense IF you can afford conventional loan payments AND intend to stay put for a very long time, sure. But what happens if life suddenly throws you a curveball at exactly the wrong moment and you HAVE to sell long before your "intended" 15-20 year time horizon?

Something like 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and sometimes people get sick. Or, they lose their jobs and can't find another one that pays as well. It sucks, but these things are hardly rare occurrences.

Hi_there,

Did you cut-and-paste your post from a two-bit real estate investment seminar transcript?

Something like 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and sometimes people get sick. Or, they lose their jobs and can’t find another one that pays as well. It sucks, but these things are hardly rare occurrences.

...other times there is a big huge colosal bubble is about to explode and you see no point in buying before that happens!

"25% drop in RE is no big deal if you intend to live in a house for a long time (15-20 years) and can afford the mortage"

What a silly statement. First off we will see a drop and flatness maybe for long time to come. This may take decades. Demographics be damned. Second why pay the premium... buying at the peak is a premium to seller... People are so vain.

At the end you look look like a fool holding Yahoo shares at $350/sh
maybe in 150 years it will be worth $350/shares again. I dont expect to
see NAS getting anywhere near 5000 for many decades...

Thats a bubble folks... Japan RE is a glowing reminder the peaks may never ever come back.

Allahs three commandments of real estate:

1) Wait for the crash.
2) Buy.
3) Be Merry.

By following these 3 very simple rules, you will survive as a mortal.

"1- Let say an owner has a $1,000,000 house with a $800,000 mortgage (20% down)."

Many homes listed today at $1M were only worth around $300K or so to beging with... with med income being 85K today those 10 year ago prices remain supported while $1M is unsupported.... that why we call it a bubble.

I dont see the point even discussing financing using $1M when these prices will decline downward by more than 50%.

Thats a bubble folks… Japan RE is a glowing reminder the peaks may never ever come back.

Even if the peaks come back 20 years from now, that's like stuffing all that money into a mattress for those 20 years. Inflation will make $1M feel like $10K after 20 years, maybe even less!

TOS (and Randy as an aside),

You keep spewing your calculations, but it misses the forest through the trees. If one doesn't need to immediately buy for utility reasons, why buy now at clearly the top of the cycle? So what if the numbers turn out to not be so bad in the long term? If waiting a year or two gets me a better house for less money, that's worth it to me. So what if GC calls me a greedy fence sitter. So be it!

You got that right allah!

I dont see the point even discussing financing using $1M when these prices will decline downward by more than 50%.

TOS wants you to buy her $1M $hitboxes.

"TOS wants you to buy her $1M $hitboxes. "

BAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!

Watching CNBC midday... topic...

Why are more expensive employees being fired for cheaper new hires.
All about Circuit City. First off Best Buy was paying less than CC. No news there like Google is overpaying for its employees. one day they will pay the price like SGI did with overspending.

"Hey its cheaper!" Was what one analyst said.

It will take a very long time for salaries to even come close to support todays prices...