Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you considered the worst case scenario of losing a mortgage property only a risk to the debt holder you are foolish. Myself I recognize the impact to a business or personal situation of a credit hit, the loss of capital and so forth. If you think leverage does zero to change the risk of an investment you are foolish despite your claimed experience
Actually I did. Damage to a business or personal financial situation from a foreclosed or credit compromise isn't nothing. Additionally your loss on capital invested is magnafied. I guess actually business sense isn't a requirement to understand this but it's pretty common sense
If I choze to do so, I could 'rent' out the other three for $800.00 a month each.
(I have been asked.)
That is $2,400 a month while paying a $640.00 mortgage!
Try That with a rental.
(I don't think the landlord would approve)
Also buying isn't some big money maker that so many make it out to be. Few people would ever see 100% appreciation in 2 years as an example was given in this thread and even more most homeowners won't see 100% over the entire time they own a residence. Additionally the tax benefit is often over played as nearly half of mortgage holders don't itemize so they receive no benefit there and people most often buy more than they rent it really throws off these comparisons. Buying ties you up a good deal due to transaction cost and it shouldn't be pushed as much as it is
I've had my value double within about 2 years for my purchases in the last 5 decades. Pretty much EVERYONE in that market saw the same appreciation. This was also in 3 different states.
Some people don't see this because they fail to realize that real estate is an investment and make poor investment choices. Transaction costs have NOTHING to do with the appreciation and the tax benefit is an additional benefit. It is not what makes a good deal a good deal. Even people that buy POOR deals can avail themselves of the tax benefits.
Actually I did. Damage to a business or personal financial situation from a foreclosed or credit compromise isn't nothing. Additionally your loss on capital invested is magnafied. I guess actually business sense isn't a requirement to understand this but it's pretty common sense
Can you give a factual example instead of just saying something is so?
Can you give a factual example instead of just saying something is so?
What I stated was factual not just because I said so. You really aren't a real estate investor are you? If you were you'd understand how basic this really is
What I stated was factual not just because I said so. You really aren't a real estate investor are you? If you were you'd understand how basic this really is
No you are just repeating a statement with no factual support and attacking me because you cannot support your false claim.
I've had my value double within about 2 years for my purchases in the last 5 decades. Pretty much EVERYONE in that market saw the same appreciation. This was also in 3 different states.
Most home buyers will never see this. You repeating it doesn't make it factualmfor most
Quote:
Some people don't see this because they fail to realize that real estate is an investment and make poor investment choices.
You do understand you are in a thread about buying vs renting correct? Which really has nothing to do with investing in real estate or not
Quote:
Transaction costs have NOTHING to do with the appreciation
No it actually does. If you have to buy and sell the cost of doing so comes out of any appreciation which impacts the bottom line.
Quote:
and the tax benefit is an additional benefit.
It's a possible benefit
Quote:
It is not what makes a good deal a good deal. Even people that buy POOR deals can avail themselves of the tax benefits.
Actually you can't just avail yourself to tax benefits even in real estate. Certain criteria needs to be met. Clearly you are clueless about this
No you are just repeating a statement with no factual support and attacking me because you cannot support your false claim.
You weren't attacked so you can put your hurt feelings back in their box. Your return on capital is impacted by leverage and such your risk on said investment is also impacted. Additionally your attempt to push the risk off to the lender without acknowledging the risks to a borrower in the event of default is disingenuous at best
Most home buyers will never see this. You repeating it doesn't make it factualmfor most
Please share any appreciation rates that support this statement.
[/quote]
You do understand you are in a thread about buying vs renting correct? Which really has nothing to do with investing in real estate or not [/quote] I maintain that any real property asset purchase should be considered an investment.
[/quote]
No it actually does. If you have to buy and sell the cost of doing so comes out of any appreciation which impacts the bottom line.
[/quote]You are confusing appreciation with profit. Sad.[/quote]
It's a possible benefit
[/quote] Use it or lose it.
[/quote]
Actually you can't just avail yourself to tax benefits even in real estate. Certain criteria needs to be met. Clearly you are clueless about this[/quote] Please clarify
Last edited by honobob; 01-18-2017 at 05:11 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
