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.
This market is definitely bubbly, and driven by unsustainable factors that will gradually (or suddenly) evaporate, leaving prices unsupported.
Besides, buying immovable property in a failed state is certainly risky.
The exposure to downside is massive.
The upside is theoretically unlimited, if you are immortal.
Funny money is worth less every year, so every year, things will always cost more. Doesn't matter if its homes or cars or metal....or even if the supply and demand ratios don't change at all.
But there are a lot of Realtors (TM) clamoring for people to play musical chairs with property, because guess what - they get paid whether you get hosed or not.
Skip buying property, and start brokering it to suckers and dreamers - then it doesn't matter which way the wind blows.
This market is definitely bubbly, and driven by unsustainable factors that will gradually (or suddenly) evaporate, leaving prices unsupported.
Besides, buying immovable property in a failed state is certainly risky.
The exposure to downside is massive.
The upside is theoretically unlimited, if you are immortal.
Funny money is worth less every year, so every year, things will always cost more. Doesn't matter if its homes or cars or metal....or even if the supply and demand ratios don't change at all.
But there are a lot of Realtors (TM) clamoring for people to play musical chairs with property, because guess what - they get paid whether you get hosed or not.
Skip buying property, and start brokering it to suckers and dreamers - then it doesn't matter which way the wind blows.
LOL Christ, these economic theories. "Immovable property"? So, don't buy stock either unless you can physically relocate the corporation yourself? The downside is in fact so massive that my coworker recently sold her home and walked with $240K equity, now invested in owning several national franchise businesses that I will not name. There's risk in everything. Real estate is the safest of all investment but government bonds and it's a basic foundation of any retirement plan. That's a fact. Any person that knows basic economic concepts will tell you that in CA especially, if you hold for at least 10 years you're basically guaranteed to make a decent return. The bottom line is, buy if you want to own a home. Don't try to be an investor that buys and sells property unless you have the knowledge, experience and capital to make that happen.
LOL Christ, these economic theories. "Immovable property"? So, don't buy stock either unless you can physically relocate the corporation yourself? The downside is in fact so massive that my coworker recently sold her home and walked with $240K equity, now invested in owning several national franchise businesses that I will not name. There's risk in everything. Real estate is the safest of all investment but government bonds and it's a basic foundation of any retirement plan. That's a fact. Any person that knows basic economic concepts will tell you that in CA especially, if you hold for at least 10 years you're basically guaranteed to make a decent return. The bottom line is, buy if you want to own a home. Don't try to be an investor that buys and sells property unless you have the knowledge, experience and capital to make that happen.
Yah, immovable property, stuff that can't be moved. You're not really suggesting that a stock is immovable, are you? The profits generated by public companies don't rely on a single taxing jurisdiction. If they did, then companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google would have all gone **** up a long time ago, because CA taxes would have put them out of business.
Real estate is all about location. And you better time the market perfectly so that you're not selling in a crash. If you can wait around decades, you can even make a good return . Not as good as what stocks would have done, but good nonetheless. Ten years of RE appreciation in CA, depending on the zip code, might not even keep up with inflation. It didn't for large swaths of the Bay Area in various ten year periods in the last 20 years. So you were saying?
BTW what kind of crummy franchise can you buy multiple units of for 250K? A hot dog stand?
Yah, immovable property, stuff that can't be moved. You're not really suggesting that a stock is immovable, are you? The profits generated by public companies don't rely on a single taxing jurisdiction. If they did, then companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google would have all gone **** up a long time ago, because CA taxes would have put them out of business.
Real estate is all about location. And you better time the market perfectly so that you're not selling in a crash. If you can wait around decades, you can even make a good return . Not as good as what stocks would have done, but good nonetheless. Ten years of RE appreciation in CA, depending on the zip code, might not even keep up with inflation. It didn't for large swaths of the Bay Area in various ten year periods in the last 20 years. So you were saying?
BTW what kind of crummy franchise can you buy multiple units of for 250K? A hot dog stand?
LOL.
Stock is an intangible asset. When you buy in say, .0002% of a company, you own an interest in that entity. It's "moveable" in the sense that you can sell it to someone in a different location (say, out of state), but that's also true of real estate, which is often owned by investors who live several states away. That's just semantics. And regardless, you didn't relate that concept to anything that proves it's better than ownership of real estate. Your argument should have been that stock has far lower transaction costs than real estate and it can be transferred much quicker (often, in seconds) as opposed to real property, which can take months to close a sale. Don't backtrack now though and claim that's what you meant by the advantage created by owning a "moveable" asset LOL.
You're confusing two concepts on tax law. The business the corporation does and the stock held by its owners are two separate things. The corporation pays tax to different states based upon a ratio that takes into account the proportion of business it conducts in those states. That has nothing to do with with whether you consider the stock moveable or not.
Time the market perfectly? Successful investors don't do this. They purchase based upon expected changes to an area, to its infrastructure, to the market, expected changes in employment, etc. Many different factors. You're again confusing real estate with some quick get in get out turnaround that's more akin to day trading of stock than real estate.
Not trying to be insulting, but $250K is chump change to you? Buys a "crappy" franchise? $250K is a hell of a lot of money to a low roller like myself - especially for selling a home. And it'd buy a Subway, a Pappa Murpheys, a Jamba Juice, etc. Those are good businesses with an established name. I'd take it.
Stock is an intangible asset. When you buy in say, .0002% of a company, you own an interest in that entity. It's "moveable" in the sense that you can sell it to someone in a different location (say, out of state), but that's also true of real estate, which is often owned by investors who live several states away. That's just semantics. And regardless, you didn't relate that concept to anything that proves it's better than ownership of real estate. Your argument should have been that stock has far lower transaction costs than real estate and it can be transferred much quicker (often, in seconds) as opposed to real property, which can take months to close a sale. Don't backtrack now though and claim that's what you meant by the advantage created by owning a "moveable" asset LOL.
Wait, you're claiming RE is a moveable asset because the owner might live elsewhere? What the crap? Are you high right now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacite
You're confusing two concepts on tax law. The business the corporation does and the stock held by its owners are two separate things. The corporation pays tax to different states based upon a ratio that takes into account the proportion of business it conducts in those states. That has nothing to do with with whether you consider the stock moveable or not.
Yah, that has nothing to do with what I said. I'm just talking about the fact that a publicly traded company, generally, is not deriving revenue from a single tax jurisdiction, thus does not have the exposure to wackadoodle failed states like CA that might decide to ramp up its rent-seeking schemes. Unlike your immovable property, ie, real estate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacite
Time the market perfectly? Successful investors don't do this. They purchase based upon expected changes to an area, to its infrastructure, to the market, expected changes in employment, etc. Many different factors. You're again confusing real estate with some quick get in get out turnaround that's more akin to day trading of stock than real estate.
No I am NOT confusing it with anything. You're merely trying to provide a justification for a RE investment that simply doesn't exist, painting a major disadvantage as a benefit. It isn't a benefit...its a risk, and a liability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacite
Not trying to be insulting, but $250K is chump change to you? Buys a "crappy" franchise? $250K is a hell of a lot of money to a low roller like myself - especially for selling a home. And it'd buy a Subway, a Pappa Murpheys, a Jamba Juice, etc. Those are good businesses with an established name. I'd take it.
First of all, 250K would get you ONE unit of Subway in a second tier market/location. How much do you think a Subway goes for? So multiple units for that same amount, its gotta be something crappy. Even Subway isn't all that great. You're never gonna get rich on a Subway. Ten stores, yah, now you're onto something - but one store, you'll be lucky to work 60 hours a week and net 50K.
Some of the people I know are selling. Most sell to buy another house. Some are banking the equity gain. One couple sold a $400K house to buy a $500K house 10 minutes away. What's up with that? Another couple bought in 2011 and now selling to live in an apartment because two of their three kids are away for college. I have heard more than a few people -- with the benefit of hindsight -- wishing that they had bought low, sold high and moved to an apartment to live off the gain and wait for the next opportunity to buy low. Is there any logic to this thinking?
Some of the people I know are selling. Most sell to buy another house. Some are banking the equity gain. One couple sold a $400K house to buy a $500K house 10 minutes away. What's up with that? Another couple bought in 2011 and now selling to live in an apartment because two of their three kids are away for college. I have heard more than a few people -- with the benefit of hindsight -- wishing that they had bought low, sold high and moved to an apartment to live off the gain and wait for the next opportunity to buy low. Is there any logic to this thinking?
There's no shortage of "shoulda, coulda, whoulda" people in the world to entertain the rest of us who are grateful for all our blessings.
Some of the people I know are selling. Most sell to buy another house. Some are banking the equity gain. One couple sold a $400K house to buy a $500K house 10 minutes away. What's up with that? Another couple bought in 2011 and now selling to live in an apartment because two of their three kids are away for college. I have heard more than a few people -- with the benefit of hindsight -- wishing that they had bought low, sold high and moved to an apartment to live off the gain and wait for the next opportunity to buy low. Is there any logic to this thinking?
People buy and sell for all kinds of different reason. Selling a $400k house and buying a $500k is pretty common, just like selling a $200k house to buy a $300k house. Many people move up or down as their needs change.
As for selling and buying in an apartment it really depends on the person. Apartments aren't cheap unless you are in a less desirable neighborhood. So if they sold their home and are now renting a $1800/m apartment that's $21,000 a year getting wasted. No one knows what home prices are going to do in the future but that $21,000 could have been put to lower their mortgage (guessing about $6-8k towards principal) .
Wait, you're claiming RE is a moveable asset because the owner might live elsewhere? What the crap? Are you high right now?
Yah, that has nothing to do with what I said. I'm just talking about the fact that a publicly traded company, generally, is not deriving revenue from a single tax jurisdiction, thus does not have the exposure to wackadoodle failed states like CA that might decide to ramp up its rent-seeking schemes. Unlike your immovable property, ie, real estate.
No I am NOT confusing it with anything. You're merely trying to provide a justification for a RE investment that simply doesn't exist, painting a major disadvantage as a benefit. It isn't a benefit...its a risk, and a liability.
First of all, 250K would get you ONE unit of Subway in a second tier market/location. How much do you think a Subway goes for? So multiple units for that same amount, its gotta be something crappy. Even Subway isn't all that great. You're never gonna get rich on a Subway. Ten stores, yah, now you're onto something - but one store, you'll be lucky to work 60 hours a week and net 50K.
You're not "moving" jack dude. When you sell stock you don't physically transfer a piece of paper to prove your ownership like George Baily in "It's a wonderful life". These nothing moving at all but your fingers over a keyboard. Which can be done in the same exact manner with real estate. You don't have to live in it to own it or even be in the same state. I can tell you have no clue about anything related to even basic business terms from the 2nd sentence on......so I'll bow out of this now.
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.
