patrick.net

How could that be? Actually you only need to predict accurately 1 day or even 1 hour ahead, and you can be king!

Leverage still needs to be optimized. Otherwise, one can still get wiped out by the intraday market swings.

One only needs $500 to control more than $50K of stocks during the day. However, a 1% swing will complete wipe out the margin if one gets too greedy. :)

Can't recall the author is, but this is apt:

Anyone who bought right at the bottom and sold right at the top is a liar.

Or,

I'd rather sell a year too early than a month too late.

Too greedy indeed! However it does contradict the premise that he could see into the future.

It depends on whether you can see the future history. :)

There is a 99.99% probability that society will degenerate into a Mad Max post-apocalyptic future, where housing have-nots roam the endless wasteland and struggle for survival against a horde of deranged, cannibalistic REavers.

The margin of error is +/- 99.98%

I would readily concede that those who can predict 99% accurately would be more likely to be wiped out than those who can only predict 30%.

Only if they invested everything than owned each time.

There is a 99.99% probability that society will degenerate into a Mad Max post-apocalyptic future, where housing have-nots roam the endless wasteland and struggle for survival against a horde of deranged, cannibalistic REavers.

:lol: When they come across a house they want......two men will enter, but one will leave.

I would readily concede that those who can predict 99% accurately would be more likely to be wiped out than those who can only predict 30%.

Very true... assuming that they know their accuracy numbers...

Those who know they can predict with 30% accuracy will spend more effort in controlling risks and sizing bets.

all the members of Threadville
will offer
a plate of sushi,
3 lobsters,
and a cold frosty mug ‘o beer
for the $hitbox.

I will offer the rice in the sushi, 3 lobster shells and a cold frosty mug ‘o beer for the shitbox. :)

It depends on whether you can see the future history.

And in this case of RE, studing very recent history could have provided some clues.
The Bay Area has about a 5-year memory.

buyer beware!
Reduce that offer!

A plate,
3 lobster shells,
and a cold frosty mug.

One grain of rice
Three lobster legs
One spoon of beer froth

One grain of rice
Three lobster legs
One spoon of beer froth

I really dislike these bidding wars:

My bid: the stray molecules rising from that finished plate of lobster/sushi.

Market efficiency theory does not assume that people are unpredictable. It just says people who are smarter than you, or more experienced than you, or with more inside information than you already acted to take advantage of things that can be taken advantage of, therefore what is left in the price action is just noise.

Trading has very little to do with information. It is mostly about psychology.

I think the market efficiency theory would be valid on Vulcan.

Success breeds over-confidence. 99% is so close to 100% that one might just confuse the two. It is a lot easier for a lousy 30% to see his limits.

Excellent insight!

Beware of strategies that boast 80%+ accuracy... (e.g. selling naked, front-month, far OTM options). They usually surprise you with large losses once in a while.

Psychology is also information.

Psychology is disinformation. So long as it is powerful enough to impede rational decisions, it will erase market efficiency.

Christmas present for Hoss:

http://tinyurl.com/crrh6

He can wear this like Hester Prynne had to wear the Scarlet Letter. :-))

BayQT~

All bears are not equal. Some (Teddy) are more reasonable than others (Polar). I like Teddy bears better.

I heard that bear paws is a delicacy.

Food is probably the best investment you can make. Once you eat it, it becomes a part of you.

I do hope that much of it comes out though... or I will be 300 pound in no time...

And you are not already 300 pounds?

Very funny.

Glad you saw it that way. My weak attempt at being humorous.

You are quite humorous. :)

Then I wished I had a finance, or even better, math double major, since then I could create my own market models.

See http://tinyurl.com/bclev

Hubris begets nemesis. Always.

Pip pip,
prat

Jason Says:
Our actions are generally driven by fear and the desire to survive, then greed and the desire to be better off then our peers. Put simply, the desire to live long and prosper drives much of our actions. Knowing our motivations, how is it that we are not able to predict the future?

I think it's because as soon you have figured out how other people are going to behave, you can bet against the whole thing and make money. Plus, there will be folks who will now bet against you.

So, what is my advice, Harm? Well, my advice is to get a real estate license. Hey, I’ve read several people on this very website make fun of how easy and cheap it is. C’mon, it’s home-study and open-book tests! Well, if it’s so easy, why don’t you do it?

There is no longer a market for RE agents....there are NO buyers and too many agents.

Buy a house to live in it. I keep saying that, and I wonder if anyone hears me. Buy a house to live in it. Think of your house as a capital savings account. Build equity, minimize expenses. As you live in your house, invest in real estate, not to live in but to convert from a liability (an expense) into an asset (income). If you start at age 40 and buy 1 rent house a year (20% down, 15-year note), then stop at age 50, when you’re 65 you will have free and clear title to ownership of 10 rent properties, and enjoy a passive revenue stream of over $60,000 a year. And you still have your house which you live in that has long since been paid for. You’re sitting on total equity + appreciation, in addition to enjoying a passive revenue stream.

That’s real estate, sports fans.

Thanks for the pep talk....will come in handy after the market corrects.

ScottC says:
If you start at age 40 and buy 1 rent house a year (20% down, 15-year note), then stop at age 50, when you’re 65 you will have free and clear title to ownership of 10 rent properties, and enjoy a passive revenue stream of over $60,000 a year.

Ok, let's see.
A modest rental house in a ok neighbourhood = $700,000.
20% down payment = $140,000 cash (+ closing costs, but screw that)
Mortgage payment = 15yr fixed @ 5.9% for $540,000 = $55,776 p.a.
Property Tax @ 1.25% = $8,750 p.a.
Lost Interest Income on $140,000 @ 4.6% = $6,440 p.a.
Maintenance = $0 because we buy only well built houses
Total Outlay per year = $70,966

That sounds great, dude.
Now if I only knew how to come up with the $140,000 per year to be able to play that game, and how to find a tenant who's going to pay me $6,000 rent per month so I can break even. :-)

I'm sure the math works better in Texas, though.

Katie Says:
I believe prices are at a top and had the nerve to put my house on the market.
If they are higher next year I will be bummed.

Yeah.
Either your buyer pays big bucks for the mortgage for the next 30 years and will not be able to spend money that would have created jobs for your kids.
Or, the guy defaults and someone's gotta foot the bill for that. My guess: your children, this way or another.
Or, inflation will eat your gains (which would have been your children's only way out of that rathole).

I'd be bummed too if I'd be stealing from my own children.

But congratulations on your decision, and good luck with the sale.

Girgl,

you shouldn't include the forgone interest because that is only needed for justifying your purchase, not a post-purchase cashflow-sensitive item (what is spent is already spent). Your other calculations are valid. it comes down to $64,526 per year, $5,377 a month. Wait, you need to pay tax on rental income!

OK, the cumulative interest for the first year at 5.9% for 540K is 25,308, and only that amount can be deduced against your income, any rental income above that needs to be taxed. (That only applies to your second home, not your 3rd, 4th, nth home).

So, now, in order to achieve an after-tax cashflow of $64,526, after deducting interest of 25,308, assuming 30% marginal tax rate, you will need $81,333.

Anyone out there who wants to pay me $6,777 monthly rent for a $700K home? Anyone? Hello?

I’m sure the math works better in Texas, though.

But, donchaknow?, everything's bigger in texas.

And I say that with a deep reverence for Prof. Wagoner (http://tinyurl.com/cqhoa)

It was like watching Ross Perot give lectures on differential equations.

Cheers,
prat

Darn, people are cheap here in the Bay Area. All I am seeing is the most renters are willing to pay is $1,600 monthly on a $700,000 home.

Any financial genius out there who'd like to show me how to breakeven? I will pay, I swear.

Interesting article about the observation that distracting people makes them less able to see through false arguments:
http://www.investorsinsight.com/otb_va.aspx?EditionID=225

Now, does that mean the ultimate reason for the housing bubble is that we're building and using more and more distracting technology?
Dude. I think I must drop my Blackberry in the trash can.

I wrote:
I’m sure the math works better in Texas, though.

Oops. Let me clarify to prevent misunderstanding. I meant:
I’m sure the math works better in Texas because of the relatively lower real estate prices.

Owneroccupier Says:
you shouldn’t include the forgone interest because that is only needed for justifying your purchase, not a post-purchase cashflow-sensitive item (what is spent is already spent).

Wait. I don't understand. What about the $536.66 interest that now cease to show up on my account every month as soon as I put the $140,000 into the house?!
I'm not sure why this would not be a cash flow negative.

Thanks for the info on the tax situation!

Market is efficient almost by definition.

Market is efficient if you try to define it. :)

ScottC Says:
It’s all about money. You’re either working for money and paying expenses, and making money work for you and accumulating assets. The market is going to go up or down either way, in the short-run, but that’s why real estate investment is only for the long-term. At the end of the race, would you rather be running on the inside track or the outside?

You're absolutely right. However, these days, prices have gotten so out of whack that society as a whole is now effectively cut off from building wealth in this way because buying these assets now will lose you money for a long time to come, either through declining prices or through negative cash flow.

In other words: All the wealth that was to be built through real estate from 2000 to 2020 has been built already. Buying into the market today will build you wealth in the long run as it always has, but you will also slowly pay off someone else's gains that they realized in 2005.

Will you be able to build wealth more effectively with another instrument that does not require you to pay off 2005's real estate excesses? I do think so.

The excesses will either be wound down quickly with probably rather dramatic consequences, or slowly, which will prolong the timeframe in which we'll all be cut off from this usually rather safe and easy way to build wealth.

Girgl,

when you are weighing buying vs renting, then you should take into considerations of cashflow generated in both decisions (I am not going to dwelve into DCF because it is too assumption-sensitive).

You start with one colume called buy, and list all the cashflow there and a colume named rent, and list all the cashflow associated, and then compare one against another.

However, when you have decided to buy, you simply look at the cashflow associated with purchase. Forgone interest is a concept of opportunity cost, not a cashflow. The forgone interest shows up as a positive cashflow item under the "rent" scenario, and since you decide not to rent, that entire colume is tossed outta the window.

H.Z., thanks for the explanation of DCF!
You write:
The GDP grows at about 3% so to match a reasonable stock market return you need 21,000 net rent.

Am I right in assuming that since the current interest rates are still relatively low, these figures will change a lot when interest rates go up by a percentage point?

Now back to the example:
Let's say we get $2,000 per month in rent, makes $24,000 p.a.
Property tax is 1.25% or $8,750 p.a., which takes us down to $15,250.
What is a realistic number for maintenance? Does the figure include depreciation (i.e. the cash you'll have to have when you need to renovate the property 20 years down the line to maintain it's value)?

ScottC,

Thanks for responding to my questions about exclusive buyer's vs. seller's agents. Though I am not looking to buy anytime soon, it'll be nice to have this information when the time comes.

I know that you were being tongue-in-cheek when you said to go get a real estate license. Actually, I believe you may have something here. In about 5-6 years, when all the speculators & flippers who didn't get out early have long gone belly up (along with many an overleveraged FTB), rents are generating positive cash flow even in Cali, and Time magazine is running a cover story called "Real Estate: Why It's Never Coming Back!", THEN will be the time to start RE investing in a big way.

I think Girgl sadi it best:
"these days, prices have gotten so out of whack that society as a whole is now effectively cut off from building wealth in this way because buying these assets now will lose you money for a long time to come, either through declining prices or through negative cash flow."

"In other words: All the wealth that was to be built through real estate from 2000 to 2020 has been built already. Buying into the market today will build you wealth in the long run as it always has, but you will also slowly pay off someone else’s gains that they realized in 2005."

Scott, I think you were right on the money about viewing your house as a forced savings and/or long-term investment vehicle and not using exotic loan products just to "get into the market". Unfortunately, right now any new buyer, no matter how conservative s/he may be, is competing in a three-ring credit mania circus at historically uber-high valuations. I do not want my REAL hard-earned money and good credit rating competing directly against some idiot's no-doc interst-only monopoly money. Again WE ARE NOT IN A NORMAL MARKET.

Anyhow, thanks for your advice and for giving us a unique "insider" perspective on the RE game. Btw, I hope your current clients don't dump you just because you were honest on the appraisals. Pretty screwed deal right now for honest appraisers.

I do not want my REAL hard-earned money and good credit rating competing directly against some idiot’s no-doc interest-only monopoly money.

Case in point:
"Home Buyers often faced by overstretching income"
presstelegram.com/news/ci_3209850

Newlyweds Darcy and Matt Woodworth have tried to balance the financial pressures of homeownership with their eagerness to own.

"Lynn Edmonds and his wife, Sebnem, could barely wait to sign on the dotted line back in May when they committed themselves to pay $796,000 for a three-floor townhouse under construction in Alexandria's Cameron Station.

But since May, the sales prices for the development have fallen -- and units like the one the Edmonds bought are now being sold for $699,900. The Edmonds are facing the prospect of a $100,000 loss in value before they even walk through the front door.

"We blithely stepped into the contract, thinking it would hold its value -- but that's not the case," said Edmonds, 46, a program analyst and Air Force veteran. "I feel so stupid putting myself into it. It's real estate -- I knew on a theoretical basis that it might go up and it might go down, but now I know it on a practical level."

Read the rest at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111002241.html

"Homes are investments"

Personally, I'm not sure if homes are actually "assets" or simply long-term expenses that hold value. I think people's memories are rather short to the prospect that double-digit appreciation will not be a long-term historical certainty.

The way I see it, an $800K home over 20 years (20% down, 6% fixed) costs the buyer $1.1M in principal and interest. Adding on taxes, and a modest amount of improvements, you'd have to sell the home for around $1.7M in 20 years to break even. (I left out insurance costs) Meanwhile, all that cash is parked in a home, which may be invested far better elsewhere, especially if your home needs frequent repairs (or someone demands constant remodeling)

Of course, if we can expect the stratospheric appreciation to continue for years to come, then homes are truly amazing money machines. I don't buy this assertion, and fear many people will have little to show for dumping all their savings into shelter.

"...you’d have to sell the home for around $1.7M in 20 years to break even."

I should add that I figured in a conservative (and historical) long-term annual appreciation of 4%.