patrick.net

Patrick says

I've been pretty happy renting the whole time I've had this site, and the savings from renting in CA allowed me to retire 10 years early.

It never occured to me you were a renter. I figured you had bought in the late 1990s or something, when prices weren't quite so out of control.

Calculating "savings from renting" is a tricky one. I suppose you figure that the money you save every month is invested in the stock market or something, instead of being "invested" in your home. For my situation, I bought a shack in February 2002, which is now worth about 3x as much.
However, the S&P 500 has gone up about 4x in that same time. The house has taxes and maintenance, but it also means I don't have to rent a place. Buying and selling the house has much higher commission than the $7 my stock broker charges. If I paid outright for the house in 2002 verses putting the full house price into the stock market, I'm guessing the stock market would be somewhat ahead.

But I didn't have all the cash at the time, so a complicating investment factor is the cheap mortgage rate for the house that isn't available when I buy stocks on margin. So I'm getting a 3x increase on the full purchase price of the house minus the interest I paid on the mortgage verses the S&P 500 gain I would realize by dollar-cost-averaging stock purchase over the last 20 years. With that comparison, the government-promoted mortgage wins out and, I'm thinking that all the stars aligned to make the house the somewhat better deal.

One big downside of the house, though, is lack of flexibility. Change jobs and that nice 3 mile commute (sometime on foot!) becomes a 20 mile commute or costly relocation of selling and buying a different house closer to work.

SunnyvaleCA says

So I'm getting a 3x increase on the full purchase price of the house minus the interest I paid on the mortgage verses the S&P 500 gain I would realize by dollar-cost-averaging stock purchase over the last 20 years.

Yes.

It is not a simple back of the envelope transaction-calculation because the "cost" is the downpayment and the PITI (and maintenance) over time. To determine the ROI the stream of payments should be discounted by the amount of rent that would have been paid for the duration. It's too complicated for me. (* tangential comment at end)

There's another factor that folks overlook involving the commute cost. I had so many coworkers in the SF Bay Area who were super commuters from faraway places like Stockton, Modesto, Hollister, Los Banos, etc. It was all about getting a larger house for less money. Whenever they talked about "how much house they got" for what they spent/borrowed, I wanted to tell them that their super-high commute cost (fuel, wear and tear and rapid depreciation on their vehicles) was part of that "cheap housing" cost (this is to say nothing about the 4-5 hours of their lives wasted sitting in their car, - a lot of collateral damage to their families including some divorces). But I never said it because there's already too much Snark and Preachiness in our Left Coast Enclave. Instead I kept my thoughts to myself.

(*) Patrick and others have pointed out on this thread and others about the massive "ownership premium" folks will pay who buy now, for the "privilege" of owning a crapshack in our region. It's insane. I see it on the real estate websites like Zillow all the time. The monthly cost for buying a 50-60 year old crap shack at present will be nearly 2x what they say it would collect for rent. This is insane.

Booger says

Yeah, but the housing market has got to be pretty close to it's peak right now.

Yeah, like in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, now, 2023, etc
It has to crash....any day now....why wont you crash

NuttBoxer says

Save_Ukraine says

WOW. I am sry. My house bought in 2020 appreciated by 400K already. Imagine the equity gain if you'd bought in 2011 in the greater SD area.

I don't consider bubbles investments. And I adjust for inflation.

Did you sell and collect the $400k?

When will you admit you're Logan?

Okay, so equity gains in your house doesnt mean anything to you because its not money in the bank?
Sell? Hell no, I dont sell my house just because it appreciated by 400k in 2 years. I like to see my net worth going up but thats about it. We love our house. I dont think I will ever sell, just rent it out in the future, make money with it and live in an even nicer house at some point.

NuttBoxer says

As long as it's cheaper. My rent was $1375 back then, and it's $1600 now. If I bought would have been around $1900 plus maintenance.

Are you jealous that I've saved money and been able to enjoy my life without committing to a huge debt? Or maybe stories like mine are bad for your bottom line... Logan.

Alright, lets see if we get a meaningful conversation going. I kinda doubt it but I'll give it a shot.

Your rent was 1375 in 2011? Location? What type of rental, bedrooms, sqft?
Its now 1600? Same criteria as above or different?
Your mortgage in 2011 would have been 1900? Where, with what DP, what house, details pls.

How does the word jealous even fit into this situation: that you chose not to buy a house in 2011 and missed out during the most epic RE bull run in history?! buddy.....but lets wait for your answers.

B.A.C.A.H. says

(*) Patrick and others have pointed out on this thread and others about the massive "ownership premium" folks will pay who buy now, for the "privilege" of owning a crapshack in our region. It's insane. I see it on the real estate websites like Zillow all the time. The monthly cost for buying a 50-60 year old crap shack at present will be nearly 2x what they say it would collect for rent. This is insane.

Look at rentals sometime. People that paid that much are trying to collect on it, but they won't. Out east of the city where I live I'm seeing places listed for $4,000 - $5,000 a month. Nice enough looking places, some even have pools, but who the fuck is gonna pay La Jolla and Del Mar prices to live out here? From how long I've seen them listed, no one. They'll end up selling at a loss, best case scenario.

I kinda suspected NuttBoxer wont give us any cogent answers :)

Zillow just increased the 'value' of my crap shack by $200K in the past month. Methinks people will take a twenty percent loss on real estate to offset a fifty percent loss on currency and money value.

Ceffer says

Zillow just increased the 'value' of my crap shack by $200K in the past month

I get your point, but not really Zillow. The "value" was increased by the Greater Fools who overpaid for comparables in the neighborhood.

Save_Ukraine says

I kinda suspected NuttBoxer wont give us any cogent answers :)

This isn't my thread, and no one was asking me a question. If you want to be taken seriously, at least admit who you are.

B.A.C.A.H. says

(*) Patrick and others have pointed out on this thread and others about the massive "ownership premium" folks will pay who buy now, for the "privilege" of owning a crapshack in our region. It's insane. I see it on the real estate websites like Zillow all the time. The monthly cost for buying a 50-60 year old crap shack at present will be nearly 2x what they say it would collect for rent. This is insane.

For years I was paying less in rent than my landlord was paying in PITI+HOA. And HOA was not trivial because it was a condo, not SFH. One year the HOA management company was replaced by different one which "found shortfall" and promptly jacked up monthly HOA fee by $400 (not to $400, by $400!). I, of course, didn't chip in a single red cent.

Eric Holder says

For years I was paying less in rent than my landlord was paying in PITI+HOA. And HOA was not trivial because it was a condo, not SFH. One year the HOA management company was replaced by different one which "found shortfall" and promptly jacked up monthly HOA fee by $400 (not to $400, by $400!). I, of course, didn't chip in a single red cent.

Thank you, landlord, for the Housing Subsidy.

Personally, the #1 decision to make is whether or not you're willing to jab your kids. EVERYTHING else revolves around that. Let us know when you've made that decision.

B.A.C.A.H. says

super commuters from faraway places like Stockton, Modesto, Hollister, Los Banos ... commute cost ... hours wasted

I know a few of these people. Car or train costs are probably drops in the bucket compared to the "savings" of the cheaper house. But the time and aggravation of the commute has to be brutal. If you're actually really "working" at your job, that's 50 or 60 hours a week. Add another 10 to 20 hours of commute and you're basically doing nothing but work and sleep for 5 days a week.

Another problem is that those far-away locations tend to crash hard if the housing market goes down. Massive defaulting during the 2009 housing downturn. I suspect the brand new residential neighborhoods are nice enough, but the older downtowns are probably horrible.

Eric Holder says

For years I was paying less in rent than my landlord was paying in PITI+HOA.

I think there are two types of landlords in that situation:

(1) Some landlords believe that real estate is the path to easy riches and being a landlord is great passive income. This could certainly work in some parts of the country, but you can't follow that advise blindly. If you buy a house and the taxes and mortgage interest exceed the cost of renting, you're "throwing away" more money than you would with rent. The main gamble is in home appreciation. If I'm gambling on appreciation, I'd rather choose some stocks. The maintenance and repairs on a 60 year old shack are nothing to sneeze at, either; especially so if not owner-occupied.

(2) Some landlords fall for the sunk cost fallacy or are under the spell of other bad economic models. In my neighborhood, there are a bunch of rentals owned by retired people who moved away 2 or more decades ago. It's not like they are keeping the house because they plan to move back. I suspect that the thinking here is that since they only paid $27k for the house (!!!) in the 1960s, they are making a windfall investment profit by collecting $50k/year (minus $10k/year expenses). Sure, but how much could $2MM investments make every year? Couldn't you find a stock that pays a 1% dividend? The benefits of remaining a landlord is that you don't take a huge long-term capital gain by selling and that Prop 13 means your property taxes are very very low. But you're still only making 1% (at best) on the current value of your shack!

I think "Save_Ukraine" is in category (1). It seems to be working for him so far. Great! If he sells right now he'll lose much/most of his gains to real estate cartel fees. If he holds 10 years, he'll be getting less benefit from this short-term price spurt. Let's check back in 10 years.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Eric Holder says

For years I was paying less in rent than my landlord was paying in PITI+HOA. And HOA was not trivial because it was a condo, not SFH. One year the HOA management company was replaced by different one which "found shortfall" and promptly jacked up monthly HOA fee by $400 (not to $400, by $400!). I, of course, didn't chip in a single red cent.

Thank you, landlord, for the Housing Subsidy.

I remembered what the toal HOA fee has become after $400 increase: $750.

Save_Ukraine says

NuttBoxer says

As long as it's cheaper. My rent was $1375 back then, and it's $1600 now. If I bought would have been around $1900 plus maintenance.

Are you jealous that I've saved money and been able to enjoy my life without committing to a huge debt? Or maybe stories like mine are bad for your bottom line... Logan.

Alright, lets see if we get a meaningful conversation going. I kinda doubt it but I'll give it a shot.

Your rent was 1375 in 2011? Location? What type of rental, bedrooms, sqft?
Its now 1600? Same criteria as above or different?
Your mortgage in 2011 would have been 1900? Where, with what DP, what house, details pls.

How does the word jealous even fit into this situation: that you chose not to buy a house in 2011 and missed out during the most epic RE bull run in history?! buddy.....but lets wait for your answers.

Still no cogent answer @NuttBoxer ?
Takes a while to "craft" answers?

WineHorror1 says

Personally, the #1 decision to make is whether or not you're willing to jab your kids. EVERYTHING else revolves around that. Let us know when you've made that decision.

I’m not willing. Ever.

With regards to RE, you are relatively cushioned from price fluctuations if you own outright AND prices move in synchrony across the USA. The price of your home drops 30%. So does the place you are looking to move to. Prices do not move in synchrony in the real world. When I lived on the east side of Seattle, everyone thought we dodged the 2007 meltdown for a while.

If you don’t own outright, but have a mortgage, up until your equity becomes zero in a meltdown, you are OK if you are looking to move. The home you bought for $750,000 that was Zillowed to be worth $1,000,000 is back down to $750,000, but so is that $1,000,000 home you were looking to buy in Tejas. You’ve basically been renting your home from the bank.

But if that home you got a 30-year fixed mortgage on that you bought for $750,000, putting $150,000 down drops to $500,000, rut-roh.

The renter who has kept powder dry can watch and try to market time the falling knife purchase.

porkchopexpress says

WineHorror1 says

Personally, the #1 decision to make is whether or not you're willing to jab your kids. EVERYTHING else revolves around that. Let us know when you've made that decision.

I’m not willing. Ever.

Than 100% you are moving to Nashville. Now, buy or rent. Someone above mentioned living well beneath your means. Plan to stay in the home you purchase for 10 years and even if housing goes down, it sounds like you could absorb a loss. See, easy peazy.../sarc

As I see it the move to Nashville gives you a change of scene, which reading between the lines, is needed. To paraphrase Hamlet... "To buy or not to buy? That is the question."

Your kids are high school aged now, so in the next decade they should be on their own.

So ask yourself, how long would you reasonably live there? Until the kids are out of high school? Out of college / trade school? Until you and your wife retire?

If this is a short term thing (live in Nashville for a while, enjoy the scene, get your kids through high-school, then move somewhere else) then buying would have more downside risk, because if prices start to decline, you may be "stuck" in a house you can't unload right away.

Conversly if this is a longer term move (as best you can tell) then settling down isn't a bad thing, but I'd still wait at least a few months to get the lay of the land.... but that's just me.

I don't think saying "a bunch of people on the internet said we shouldn't buy right away" will win you the argument but saying... "let's wait six months just to be sure we like the area as much as we think we will" may do the trick. Prices may go up a bit if you wait, but they won't double in the next six months. Besides that will allow you to get a better handle on your budget, since the cost of living is completely different in that part of the world as compared to SoCal.

Good luck.

I'm not at the stage in life with high schoolers, but if you've got them in local schools for 4 years or less, I'd get a townhome. 3 Bed, 3 bath with den/office. I prefer and have suggested rural, but why not get something mostly maintenance free and enjoy the remaining years your kids will be with you? If you like the place stay or rent it out if it's a desirable area and you no longer want to stay after the kids are out. Easier to sell a townhome if you don't like the area. Higher "floor" as far as possible losses with a townhome as well. 10% drop on $1.2M home is different than a 10% drop on a $500k townhome. Visiting is different that living there so who knows.

Either way the time will fly and next thing you know you're sitting in a $1.5M big house with just your spouse. With under 4 years left with kids in the house (unless they boomerang) I'd be super hesitant in dropping that much in a new area. I'd get a newish townhome and then a 1-2 bed in the Caribbean or FL. When it gets cold(ish) fly down for a week or so.

My folks would go to FL for 2 weeks often once I had my DL. 16-18 years old I had a 3,500sf house to myself for a month at least every year once my sister went off to college.

Whatever you may buy, just don't make it an anchor would be additional advice given your timeline. I'd go as modest as the wife is chill with, save some money and then reevaluate once the kids are out. I'd still buy though. CA is unique, but most areas it just makes more sense to buy without prop 13 type legislation.

Go further out, gets cheaper. We are not going to expensive area, suburb about 40 min from city. That’s what I’d recommend.

We are leaving CA too, will be gone in a few month. No more gay shit pushed onto kids, no tranny shit pushed by militant left wing teachers, no vaccine mandates, less taxes. We will miss good friends too, but we had to make these sacrifices for our children.

Fortwaynemobile says

Go further out, gets cheaper. We are not going to expensive area, suburb about 40 min from city. That’s what I’d recommend.

We are leaving CA too, will be gone in a few month. No more gay shit pushed onto kids, no tranny shit pushed by militant left wing teachers, no vaccine mandates, less taxes. We will miss good friends too, but we had to make these sacrifices for our children.

Where did you end up picking?

I was born in Memphis and lived there till I was seven. My aunt and uncle lived in Nashville and we would visit them a lot of summers. Great times. Tennesee is still pretty deep south. If you haven't lived around Southerners, it'll be an adjustment. But a nice one :)
Nashville is full-on woke central now. Consider other places like Knoxville, Memphis or up towards the KY border.

WookieMan says

Either way the time will fly and next thing you know you're sitting in a $1.5M big house with just your spouse.

He can rent it out or sell it for nice profit.

10% appreciation on a 1.5M is 150k versus 50k on a 500k townhouse. Or just re-finance, pull money out, rent it out and buy the townhome later. I am all for accumulating houses and building a rental investment portfolio.

Also, having a large house is fun....entertainment for family, friends, hosting out of towners, etc.

RC2006 says

Fortwaynemobile says

Go further out, gets cheaper. We are not going to expensive area, suburb about 40 min from city. That’s what I’d recommend.

We are leaving CA too, will be gone in a few month. No more gay shit pushed onto kids, no tranny shit pushed by militant left wing teachers, no vaccine mandates, less taxes. We will miss good friends too, but we had to make these sacrifices for our children.

Where did you end up picking?

Idaho, life we understand better. Florida was nice too, but cities reminded me too much of CA

WookieMan says

I'm not at the stage in life with high schoolers, but if you've got them in local schools for 4 years or less, I'd get a townhome. 3 Bed, 3 bath with den/office. I prefer and have suggested rural, but why not get something mostly maintenance free and enjoy the remaining years your kids will be with you? If you like the place stay or rent it out if it's a desirable area and you no longer want to stay after the kids are out. Easier to sell a townhome if you don't like the area. Higher "floor" as far as possible losses with a townhome as well. 10% drop on $1.2M home is different than a 10% drop on a $500k townhome. Visiting is different that living there so who knows.

Either way the time will fly and next thing you know you're sitting in a $1.5M big house with just your spouse. With under 4 years left with kids in the house (unless they boomerang) I'd be super hesitant in dropping that much in a new area. I'd get a newish townhome and then a 1-2 bed in the Caribbean or ...

Good advice. Thanks.

SunnyvaleCA says

So I'm getting a 3x increase on the full purchase price of the house minus the interest I paid on the mortgage verses the S&P 500 gain I would realize by dollar-cost-averaging stock purchase over the last 20 years.

There's something else to be added to this: past performance is not an indicator of the future performance. This applies to both housing and S&P500. Ideally you'd have both, somewhat evenly matched in value. Because diversification.

porkchopexpress says

Good advice. Thanks.

I’d advise against a townhome, unless fully detached. You are really rolling the dice on having a decent neighbor or not. Even if you meet the neighbors before you buy and they seem decent, they can move or turn out to be A holes. A house on your own plot is less risky.

Yes, a friend of my dad's said that the only house he would buy is one where he can walk entirely around the house. At the time it sounded odd to me, but now I understand.

Patrick says

the only house he would buy is one where he can walk entirely around the house.

I'll one up you. I was looking (and found) a house where I can walk around it in the buff. I have enough woods as a buffer that I can't see my neighbors in the summer

Patrick says

Yes, a friend of my dad's said that the only house he would buy is one where he can walk entirely around the house. At the time it sounded odd to me, but now I understand.

That’s what we got in Idaho. Land of potatoes. Moving in summer after school year ends.

Well, after many frustrating attempts to bid on houses and seeing how expensive and overpriced homes are, I finally have my wife convinced to rent a house if it's relatively nice. So, I've made good progress over here and I'm so glad we don't have to buy right now.

Thanks again for all your advice and validate that I'm not going too crazy.

Fortwaynemobile says

That’s what we got in Idaho

According to Benjamin Fulford, when the Biden regime finally implodes on itself and falls apart from internal corruptions and the US Corporation is laid to rest decisively, and the foreign occupied foreign city state of Washington DC is flushed, then Idaho may become the location of the new capital of the re-constituted USA, because heartland rather than slave of Euro conspiracies. He also thinks there is a chance of Canada or large segments thereof and Mexico joining a union. The British Commonwealth has expired, and even Australia may eventually join a union.

This all sounds a bit dodgy hopium to me, but no more strange than the actual unwinding events of the last couple of years.

I'm sorry I didn't weigh in PCE but I don't think I have any advice to offer on a 1.5 million dollar spread.
Eventually I would like to get the hell out of Florida, I would have been gone by now, if not for DeSantis. I don't think I'll ever be able to pull the wife out of here.
She has her Sisters here, and our three adult daughters live here. I would like to buy a rural spread and give our two young boys a farm upbringing.
I may keep the SF house, and move between the two. Snowbird in SF perhaps.

Tenpoundbass says

I'm sorry I didn't weigh in PCE but I don't think I have any advice to offer on a 1.5 million dollar spread.
Eventually I would like to get the hell out of Florida, I would have been gone by now, if not for DeSantis. I don't think I'll ever be able to pull the wife out of here.
She has her Sisters here, and our three adult daughters live here. I would like to buy a rural spread and give our two young boys a farm upbringing.
I may keep the SF house, and move between the two. Snowbird in SF perhaps.

Thanks TPB. Just curious...why do you hate FL?

It's too flat, but not Florida mostly South Florida. But it's changing politically to some degree.

I would like to get some land in the Carolina mountains somewhere.

Ceffer says

Fortwaynemobile says

That’s what we got in Idaho

According to Benjamin Fulford, when the Biden regime finally implodes on itself and falls apart from internal corruptions and the US Corporation is laid to rest decisively, and the foreign occupied foreign city state of Washington DC is flushed, then Idaho may become the location of the new capital of the re-constituted USA, because heartland rather than slave of Euro conspiracies. He also thinks there is a chance of Canada or large segments thereof and Mexico joining a union. The British Commonwealth has expired, and even Australia may eventually join a union.

This all sounds a bit dodgy hopium to me, but no more strange than the actual unwinding events of the last couple of years.

I don't see it happening. This place is too rural. A lot of new construction, but most of it is sold prior to being built even, mostly to people leaving CA. There are still no major industries here, it's a great place to do construction work or own a farm. Apparently big name here is the guy who sells potatoes to McDonalds from the day they started. Was a neat history lesson there.