All Encompassing Mortgage and Real Estate Thread

[Incredulity 11682]

26 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

The idea is that the housing shortage will create a pool of decent demand for long term tenants for parents who want to send their kids to decent schools but can't get into a house.

There will always be demand for rental housing.  

If you can get emotionally unattached to the property and stern, but fair with the tenant it will very likely work in the long term.  

There can and will be blood in the short term.  Short term can mean immediately or for a period in the future.

[Wulaw Horn 19147]

And, just like that the market is down 65 bips today and the average 30 year mortgage went north of 7% again to 7.05%

Fun stuff.  Anyone got a gun? or a garden hose to stick in my tailpipe while I sit in the garage with the car running?  Asking for a friend.  

[jimmyjazz 46099]

I read yesterday that home prices are seeing very modest month-over-month gains, although still down year-over-year.  The Case Schiller 20 City price index seems to confirm, showing its peak in June 2022 with a slide until January 2023, and then a slow rebound in progress.  I'm curious what those who are in this business are seeing?

[Captainant 27727]

20 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

The idea is that the housing shortage will create a pool of decent demand for long term tenants for parents who want to send their kids to decent schools but can't get into a house.

It's not really a housing shortage if sufficiently wealthy folks can buy second and third properties to then rent out to less wealthy people. That's creating a problem and selling a solution lol

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

[SydneyCarton 48150]

55 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's not really a housing shortage if sufficiently wealthy folks can buy second and third properties to then rent out to less wealthy people. That's creating a problem and selling a solution lol

I sense more than just a tinge of criticism at me here, for contemplating how to make money to invest so I can have a retirement. I was not the corporations who didn't consistently continue to build houses for the past 10-15 years because they didn't like the profit margins. I'm not the large corporations that are swooping in to buy hundreds of these homes as a foundation for future profiteering. I'm not even a guy who is interested in making a ton of cash in the short term. Are people who manage multiple properties as their living evil? I'm not worth 7 figures, man. But I feel like if I don't get there in the next 10-15 years, I won't be able to retire without passing the burden onto my son, so yeah, I'm looking at options. 

[Royalfan5 2355]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I sense more than just a tinge of criticism at me here, for contemplating how to make money to invest so I can have a retirement. I was not the corporations who didn't consistently continue to build houses for the past 10-15 years because they didn't like the profit margins. I'm not the large corporations that are swooping in to buy hundreds of these homes as a foundation for future profiteering. I'm not even a guy who is interested in making a ton of cash in the short term. Are people who manage multiple properties as their living evil? I'm not worth 7 figures, man. But I feel like if I don't get there in the next 10-15 years, I won't be able to retire without passing the burden onto my son, so yeah, I'm looking at options. 

Also at a certain point, we need a variety of rental properties available for a variety of reasons. It's not like owner only market is something that can happen, or would even be desirable. 

[bluto 4942]

Dark storm clouds looming unless the rate pressure valve gets released soon. Even the old reliable Texas multi fam sector is in the crosshairs. Totally lines up with what we’ve said on here and only hearing more daily from colleagues. 
 

https://www.bisnow.com/dallas-ft-worth/news/multifamily/tides-looming-cash-calls-could-fall-heaviest-on-texas-119622?utm_source=outbound_pub_15&utm_campaign=outbound_issue_68602&utm_content=outbound_link_1&utm_medium=email

[SydneyCarton 48150]

12 minutes ago, bluto said:

Dark storm clouds looming unless the rate pressure valve gets released soon. Even the old reliable Texas multi fam sector is in the crosshairs. Totally lines up with what we’ve said on here and only hearing more daily from colleagues. 
 

https://www.bisnow.com/dallas-ft-worth/news/multifamily/tides-looming-cash-calls-could-fall-heaviest-on-texas-119622?utm_source=outbound_pub_15&utm_campaign=outbound_issue_68602&utm_content=outbound_link_1&utm_medium=email

So they bet big, and now their risk looks like it was a mistake? I'm a fucking dunce on this topic what reasons should I have for feeling bad for that company?

[Captainant 27727]

19 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I sense more than just a tinge of criticism at me here, for contemplating how to make money to invest so I can have a retirement. I was not the corporations who didn't consistently continue to build houses for the past 10-15 years because they didn't like the profit margins. I'm not the large corporations that are swooping in to buy hundreds of these homes as a foundation for future profiteering. I'm not even a guy who is interested in making a ton of cash in the short term. Are people who manage multiple properties as their living evil? I'm not worth 7 figures, man. But I feel like if I don't get there in the next 10-15 years, I won't be able to retire without passing the burden onto my son, so yeah, I'm looking at options. 

You didn't choose to create the market conditions that were in, but you do have a choice as to how you participate in that system and affect others on a microeconomic scale. My wife and I are also trying to figure out what the best option is for long-term wealth growth - and you're not wrong that owning houses is a great way to do that. But when YOU buy a house purely as an investment and then charge rents that are just paying off your mortgage to build your equity, YOU are doing the same thing those corporate landlords are doing. 

We are in a position where we could rent our current home and buy a second home to live in, but I honestly wouldn't feel right to be building equity in place of someone else just because I am fortunate enough to be able to scrape together a down payment and they can't.

I just don't think it's right to use a HOME that someone lives in and has a life around as a fat asset on a balance sheet. Homes aren't meant to be financial instruments. They're a place where a family can build it's future. But if you're stuck with renting, then you're stuck building someone else's future instead of your own.

[SydneyCarton 48150]

19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You didn't choose to create the market conditions that were in, but you do have a choice as to how you participate in that system and affect others on a microeconomic scale. My wife and I are also trying to figure out what the best option is for long-term wealth growth - and you're not wrong that owning houses is a great way to do that. But when YOU buy a house purely as an investment and then charge rents that are just paying off your mortgage to build your equity, YOU are doing the same thing those corporate landlords are doing. 

We are in a position where we could rent our current home and buy a second home to live in, but I honestly wouldn't feel right to be building equity in place of someone else just because I am fortunate enough to be able to scrape together a down payment and they can't.

I just don't think it's right to use a HOME that someone lives in and has a life around as a fat asset on a balance sheet. Homes aren't meant to be financial instruments. They're a place where a family can build it's future. But if you're stuck with renting, then you're stuck building someone else's future instead of your own.

I mean, I understand where you're coming from here, but the world isn't fucking perfect, and the system we have here is a hell of a lot better than the systems in place in most other areas in the world. And I can support the construction of more housing through other political methods, as much as anyone can in this country.

And while I can admire your moral stance, I don't personally subscribe to it, because by my passing on doing this simply means that someone else behind me might do the same thing, or worse, a corporation swoops in and buys that property with the exact same outcomem, except it's owned by an uncaring monolith, as opposed to at least me being a person with ears and feelings and potential sympathy. 

And I reject the fucking laugh out loud notion that a HOME isn't a financial instrument. Home/Property ownership has been THE #1 method of generational wealth building since basically the entire country. It's the main fucking reason so many people in Gen Z are freaked the fuck out by their inability to acquire one. So to sit there and pretend it's something other than that to fit your idealism, as opposed to actually facing reality, is fucking absurd. Would it make you feel better if we changed HOME to HOUSE? But lets be clear, the inability of younger people to afford a home isn't just one fucking thing, it's a dozen things such as jobs/salaries, debt, inventory, and a ton of other shit. It's not just becuase someone bought a rental property. 

Let me ask you some questions.

Would you refuse a higher interest rate on a savings account becuase you're willing to park more money in there than someone with less money?
Would you a refuse a substantially higher cash offer on your home versus a lower contingency offer if that higher cash offer was from a company?
Would you refuse an investment opportunity with a good rate of return because you can raise the funds and someone of lesser means cannot?
Would you prefer a homeowner attempting to move and sell their home have zero options/offers or take a huge less becuase the best offers come from companies or investment buyers?

You can have a worldview, and maybe it's admirable, and I'm glad you have principles. But it's unrealistic in this society, and you can take your condescension and shove it right up your fucking ass. I shouldn't do worse for my family and son becuase it would make you feel better. And I'm pretty sure I won't have any problems sleeping at night by offering someone a rental house at a market rate. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146960942/how-buying-a-home-became-a-key-way-to-build-wealth-in-america
https://www.habitat.org/our-work/impact/research-series-how-does-homeownership-contribute-to-wealth-building
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2022/08/03/three-ways-homeownership-can-build-wealth/?sh=7176fa8423e5
 

Edited June 30, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[LCHorn 2629]

22 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Homes aren't meant to be financial instruments.

Sydney touched on a lot of my sentiments here already, but this moral high ground in which you stake your claim is a little silly and inconsistent with federal housing policy, a consensus of economists, and urban planners who focus on the needs of the working class. 

If you want to put your money where your mouth is, buy a second home, lease it but keep the rents low enough where you're not building equity.  That would appear consistent with your ethical preferences AND provide housing to someone who needs it at presumably below market rents.  Plus you can choose to be a great landlord and that's worth something a little more difficult to quantify. 

[Captainant 27727]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Would you refuse a higher interest rate on a savings account becuase you're willing to park more money in there than someone with less money?

No, and this is a poor comparison because if YOU own a house, you are preventing someone else from owning it. You opening a savings account does not preclude that bank from taking other customers. Unless you and I bank at VERY different banks

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Would you a refuse a substantially higher cash offer on your home versus a lower contingency offer if that higher cash offer was from a company?

Define substantially? But yes if I'm selling my house, given the choice between getting an easy deal via a corporate buyer or a less ideal deal from a poor, I would be leaning against giving the corporation more assets. This is a tough one to answer, but if it were a question of $10-20k then yeah I think my answer is the same.

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Would you refuse an investment opportunity with a good rate of return because you can raise the funds and someone of lesser means cannot?

This is another very vague and hard to compare question, but in the context of a zero-sum game that has significant public interest like residential housing I don't think it's sustainable long-term to concentrate ownership and opportunity to a more and more exclusive group.

12 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Would you prefer a homeowner attempting to move and sell their home have zero options/offers or take a huge less becuase the best offers come from companies or investment buyers?

I don't think it's a healthy dynamic to allow any entity to swoop in and deny housing ownership opportunities to actual breathing human people that don't have shareholders. I don't think it should be open season for turning houses into pure investment vehicles. 

7 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Sydney touched on a lot of my sentiments here already, but this moral high ground in which you stake your claim is a little silly and inconsistent with federal housing policy, a consensus of economists, and urban planners who focus on the needs of the working class. 

You are taking federal housing policy explicitly designed for single family home ownership and for fighting wealth inequality and applying it to corporate and investor ownership. I don't think LBJ was trying to build a machine for corporate profits and mortgage bonds by pushing banks and builders to target low income housing. But then again, LBJ wasn't trying to boost corporate profits - he was trying to help PEOPLE.

11 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

If you want to put your money where your mouth is, buy a second home, lease it but keep the rents low enough where you're not building equity.  That would appear consistent with your ethical preferences AND provide housing to someone who needs it at presumably below market rents.  Plus you can choose to be a great landlord and that's worth something a little more difficult to quantify. 

"If you want to put your money where your mouth is, do the thing you said you disagree with" lolwut?

I don't WANT to be a landlord. If I did, I would invest in a fucking apartment complex. 

[Wulaw Horn 19147]

The idea that buying homes for rent as a middle class investor is in some way predatory is so laugh out stupid that it should be mocked and ridiculed and people should all stand around and point and laugh. Tales should be told decades later by any who witness it, as in “remember that dude that motherfucked @SydneyCartonbecause he wanted to be a homeowner?  Yeah. What a tool.”
the idea that everyone should own a house is nonsense, and there is literally nobody in the world who extols the value of homeownership more than myself. 
but some people only want to be somewhere for a short time, some don’t want to put down roots, some people are just awful train wrecks financially, and some want the flexibility to be able to pack up and go at a moments notice. If nobody was a non owner occupant on a home then nobody would ever have the ability to rent a house and this world would be a much much worse place. 
Also- the zoomers that act like homeownership is unattainable are wrong and entitled in a lot of ways.  I’ve worked with plenty of them that are buying houses while they make 34k a year. You can’t buy the house your parents lived in, but

you can sure as shit get a 900 square foot 3/2 or 2/1 and plant your flag and make your mark. Maybe not everyone can afford to live in California or have their dream home at 23 years old, but if you want to do it so be it. 
I would personally be in favor of 0% down programs like the VA or USDA runs for anyone under 30 or buying their first and having that home be 75% or something like that of median price. Maybe even up to 100%. Guess what- that would also incent builders to build those kind of houses. 
but the idea that it’s immoral to own an investment vehicle in the housing sector is absurd. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Wulaw Horn

[Captainant 27727]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

but the idea that it’s immoral to own an investment vehicle in the housing sector is absurd. 

I didn't say it's immoral - I said it's not sustainable and will absolutely lead to worsening inequality. And given our current situation of a MASSIVE housing shortage, I just don't think it's terribly socially responsible to contribute to that dynamic.

 

Yall are the ones getting all sensitive about my opinion lol, dial it back dudes! It's a holiday weekend!

[bluto 4942]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

So they bet big, and now their risk looks like it was a mistake? I'm a fucking dunce on this topic what reasons should I have for feeling bad for that company?

In a nutshell they probably could have locked in insanely low historical fixed rates but instead gambled on floating rates to shave off a point in the near term and really boost returns. Nonetheless they would still have to pay the piper and refi into todays rates when the fixed rate loans came due. 

[LCHorn 2629]

19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You are taking federal housing policy explicitly designed for single family home ownership and for fighting wealth inequality and applying it to corporate and investor ownership. I don't think LBJ was trying to build a machine for corporate profits and mortgage bonds by pushing banks and builders to target low income housing. But then again, LBJ wasn't trying to boost corporate profits - he was trying to help PEOPLE.

I think you're confused on your points--you wrote that homes aren't meant to be used as financial instruments, then point to a link in legislation is discussed where private capital invests in public housing (i.e., the federal government is helping subsidize the profit that private capital is forgoing by building low-income housing). 

That's very much in the spirit with what I propose you do. 

Also, not to pick nits but you and I must have a very different understanding of LBJ.  He was the Brown brothers man in Congress and created generational wealth for himself by steering radio licenses to Ladybird.  For the most part, when he favored helping people it was very much "one for me, one for you" at best. 

[Captainant 27727]

1 minute ago, LCHorn said:

I think you're confused on your points--you wrote that homes aren't meant to be used as financial instruments, then point to a link in legislation is discussed where private capital invests in public housing (i.e., the federal government is helping subsidize the profit that private capital is forgoing by building low-income housing). 

That's very much in the spirit with what I propose you do. 

Also, not to pick nits but you and I must have a very different understanding of LBJ.  He was the Brown brothers man in Congress and created generational wealth for himself by steering radio licenses to Ladybird.  For the most part, when he favored helping people it was very much "one for me, one for you" at best. 

I think we're missing eachother on the multi-home ownership detail: I 100% agree that home ownership is one of the best - if not the best way - to build familial and individual wealth. I'm saying that the one-to-many ownership model where you're seeking out and acquiring houses purely to seek rents on them is taking the opportunity to build wealth away from your tenants and keeping it for yourself or your shareholders. 

We should be seeking ways to make more people homeowners, not ways to make people own more homes.

[Incredulity 11682]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The idea that buying homes for rent as a middle class investor is in some way predatory is so laugh out stupid that it should be mocked and ridiculed and people should all stand around and point and laugh

[Incredulity 11682]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

but the idea that it’s immoral to own an investment vehicle in the housing sector is absurd

It’s worse than that.  ZERO percent chance that less investment in a sector leads to more (badly needed) development.

 

[SydneyCarton 48150]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

No, and this is a poor comparison because if YOU own a house, you are preventing someone else from owning it. You opening a savings account does not preclude that bank from taking other customers. Unless you and I bank at VERY different banks

This part of your post is absolute fucking horseshit. Me owning a home isn't preventing someone else from owning a home. Someone else not having enough money to own a home is preventing them from owning a home. If so, they could buy it instead of me. There isn't some magical fucking queue of 100 homes and me gobbling up one means someone else doesn't get it. This is an absurd oversimplification, and a wildly flawed one at that, which in no way reflects reality. Me eating at a steakhouse doesn't mean that I took a ribeye that could have gone to a homeless person. 

I bought my first home, a townhome, at 33. I scraped and scratched and clawed just enough money to get an FHA loan with 5% down, and had to pay PMI. Other people can buy homes. 

 

Quote

Define substantially? But yes if I'm selling my house, given the choice between getting an easy deal via a corporate buyer or a less ideal deal from a poor, I would be leaning against giving the corporation more assets. This is a tough one to answer, but if it were a question of $10-20k then yeah I think my answer is the same.

This is another very vague and hard to compare question, but in the context of a zero-sum game that has significant public interest like residential housing I don't think it's sustainable long-term to concentrate ownership and opportunity to a more and more exclusive group.

I don't think it's a healthy dynamic to allow any entity to swoop in and deny housing ownership opportunities to actual breathing human people that don't have shareholders. I don't think it should be open season for turning houses into pure investment vehicles. 

You are taking federal housing policy explicitly designed for single family home ownership and for fighting wealth inequality and applying it to corporate and investor ownership. I don't think LBJ was trying to build a machine for corporate profits and mortgage bonds by pushing banks and builders to target low income housing. But then again, LBJ wasn't trying to boost corporate profits - he was trying to help PEOPLE.

"If you want to put your money where your mouth is, do the thing you said you disagree with" lolwut?

I don't WANT to be a landlord. If I did, I would invest in a fucking apartment complex. 

The rest of your shit is hemming and hawing. There are programs for residential housing, and I think there should be more programs for residential housing, but the government was never swooping in to buy existing homes and rent them at lower rates. You're living in fatnasyland. And you already admitted that, well, you DO have a price for your ehtical stance depending on how much higher an offer on your home might be from a corporate interest. Which is EXACTLY what is happening in America right now. So basically you're ehical stance goes out the window for the right dollar amount. I guess now we're just haggling about price, as the saying goes. 
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/home-buying-investors-legislature-bills/
https://www.tpr.org/business/2022-06-14/investors-bought-nearly-a-third-of-all-homes-in-texas-last-year

Houses have been investment deals for decades, centuries. Pretending like this is some new thing or outrage is absurd. My grandparents had invesmtent properties in other cities, before they lost it all. Just cut the shit and admit that what you really are advocating here is metrial, massive societal reform of some sort.

And finally, I'll ask, if you don't want to be a landlord, and you find rental properties to individuals unethical, why exactly are you monitoring and chiming in on the real estate thread?

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I think we're missing eachother on the multi-home ownership detail: I 100% agree that home ownership is one of the best - if not the best way - to build familial and individual wealth. I'm saying that the one-to-many ownership model where you're seeking out and acquiring houses purely to seek rents on them is taking the opportunity to build wealth away from your tenants and keeping it for yourself or your shareholders. 

We should be seeking ways to make more people homeowners, not ways to make people own more homes.

It can be both. 

[BabaYaga 15305]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I would personally be in favor of 0% down programs like the VA or USDA runs for anyone under 30 or buying their first and having that home be 75% or something like that of median price. Maybe even up to 100%. Guess what- that would also incent builders to build those kind of houses. 

With decent credit there are still 80/20 options out there and DPA/DPS programs that can help from 2-6% of the DP.  At the end of the day, if you are unable to afford a 3.5% DP, you can't afford a house.  Even if you can cover the out of pocket closing costs, there is recurring maintenance, upkeep, and most importantly taxes.  Then you layer on up front MIP and monthly MI costs, are the payments are further elevated.  These are of course included because historically, higher LTV loans have higher default rates, especially in the face of future adverse events that impact the borrowers ability to pay (limited default remedies)

 

[BabaYaga 15305]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

This part of your post is absolute fucking horseshit. Me owning a home isn't preventing someone else from owning a home. Someone else not having enough money to own a home is preventing them from owning a home. If so, they could buy it instead of me. There isn't some magical fucking queue of 100 homes and me gobbling up one means someone else doesn't get it. This is an absurd oversimplification, and a wildly flawed one at that, which in no way reflects reality. Me eating at a steakhouse doesn't mean that I took a ribeye that could have gone to a homeless person. 

I bought my first home, a townhome, at 33. I scraped and scratched and clawed just enough money to get an FHA loan with 5% down, and had to pay PMI. Other people can buy homes. 

 

The rest of your shit is hemming and hawing. There are programs for residential housing, and I think there should be more programs for residential housing, but the government was never swooping in to buy existing homes and rent them at lower rates. You're living in fatnasyland. And you already admitted that, well, you DO have a price for your ehtical stance depending on how much higher an offer on your home might be from a corporate interest. Which is EXACTLY what is happening in America right now. So basically you're ehical stance goes out the window for the right dollar amount. I guess now we're just haggling about price, as the saying goes. 
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/home-buying-investors-legislature-bills/
https://www.tpr.org/business/2022-06-14/investors-bought-nearly-a-third-of-all-homes-in-texas-last-year

Houses have been investment deals for decades, centuries. Pretending like this is some new thing or outrage is absurd. My grandparents had invesmtent properties in other cities, before they lost it all. Just cut the shit and admit that what you really are advocating here is metrial, massive societal reform of some sort.

And finally, I'll ask, if you don't want to be a landlord, and you find rental properties to individuals unethical, why exactly are you monitoring and chiming in on the real estate thread?

It can be both. 

[Captainant 27727]

14 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

The rest of your shit is hemming and hawing. There are programs for residential housing, and I think there should be more programs for residential housing, but the government was never swooping in to buy existing homes and rent them at lower rates. You're living in fatnasyland. And you already admitted that, well, you DO have a price for your ehtical stance depending on how much higher an offer on your home might be from a corporate interest. Which is EXACTLY what is happening in America right now. So basically you're ehical stance goes out the window for the right dollar amount. I guess now we're just haggling about price, as the saying goes. 

Lulz you're jumping up my asshole over a bunch of hypotheticals and trying to bring a number to a conversation and reply in good faith - methinks the investor doth protest too much

14 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Just cut the shit and admit that what you really are advocating here is metrial, massive societal reform of some sort.

I mean, we've already seen quite a bit of metrial societal reform lately, but I don't think that's what you meant to say

 

17 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

And finally, I'll ask, if you don't want to be a landlord, and you find rental properties to individuals unethical, why exactly are you monitoring and chiming in on the real estate thread?

Because I too am a home owner and looking to move to a different home as my family grows and changes, and it's useful to know what the market and mortgage trends are? I didn't realize you'd get so bent out of shape over suggesting that you buying an extra home for profit means that there's one fewer home for someone to live in and grow wealth with themselves.

And to your last comment - I'm not saying that it couldn't be both, but the trend for my entire adult life has empirically been individual entities buying more houses (concentration), rather than more people buying A home

[Dbeasy 15085]

Captainant, I worry about the increasingly concentrated ownership of real estate by the wealthy probably more than just about anyone. I’ve been banging that drum for more than 15 years, ever since I learned Ted Turner owned some ridiculous percentage of New Mexico. So in spirit I understand your view. 

However, your viewpoint also basically violates the laws of economics and asks the little guy to stop buying real estate so that the ultra wealthy can just continue to concentrate more and more wealth. Your viewpoint is ridiculous. It is absurd, and you look extremely naive. 

Now, if this country really wants to do something, it needs new laws that limit ownership by various type of interests: corporations, foreigners, etc Iuntil this happens, which will be never because the rich won’t allow it, the little guy has no choice but to chase financial interests in real estate before we are all serfs outside of castles, plowing fields  

 

[SydneyCarton 48150]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lulz you're jumping up my asshole over a bunch of hypotheticals and trying to bring a number to a conversation and reply in good faith - methinks the investor doth protest too much

I mean, I’m responding to your hypothetical “one family, one home” agenda that you think is realistic or possible. If they offered you 30k over asking? You admit there is a number. You’ve rendered your ethical stance as fungible. And Im not an investor. I’m asking questions. But even though it’s a flawed system, im more capitalist than communist. Houses for all!
 

Quote

I mean, we've already seen quite a bit of metrial societal reform lately, but I don't think that's what you meant to say

 

Material. 
 

Quote

Because I too am a home owner and looking to move to a different home as my family grows and changes, and it's useful to know what the market and mortgage trends are? I didn't realize you'd get so bent out of shape over suggesting that you buying an extra home for profit means that there's one fewer home for someone to live in and grow wealth with themselves.

And to your last comment - I'm not saying that it couldn't be both, but the trend for my entire adult life has empirically been individual entities buying more houses (concentration), rather than more people buying A home

Don’t let my profanity indicate I’m bent out of shape. And for a guy who’s just here to understand the market trends, you were the first one to hop in here unsolicited and respond in an arrogant, condescending tone because someone else’s worldview doesn’t align with yours. I wasn’t the only one to peg your tone that way, and now you’re getting upset people respond to you in a manner you find excessive? Well that’s ironic. 
 

Yeah, it’s almost like owning property is a good vehicle for accumulating wealth. Which almost all of America is trying to do at an individual level. 
 

There may be a housing shortage, but it’s not a zero sum game. And markets correct themselves all the time. Get over yourself. 

[Captainant 27727]

6 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

However, your viewpoint also basically violates the laws of economics and asks the little guy to stop buying real estate so that the ultra wealthy can just continue to concentrate more and more wealth. Your viewpoint is ridiculous. It is absurd, and you look extremely naive. 

This is exactly opposite of what I am saying. 

7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Now, if this country really wants to do something, it needs new laws that limit ownership by various type of interests: corporations, foreigners, etc Iuntil this happens, which will be never because the rich won’t allow it, the little guy has no choice but to chase financial interests in real estate before we are all serfs outside of castles, plowing fields  

This is what I am trying to say, and I'm not sure how you think I disagree with you or any of this

[Wulaw Horn 19147]

50 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

With decent credit there are still 80/20 options out there and DPA/DPS programs that can help from 2-6% of the DP.  At the end of the day, if you are unable to afford a 3.5% DP, you can't afford a house.  Even if you can cover the out of pocket closing costs, there is recurring maintenance, upkeep, and most importantly taxes.  Then you layer on up front MIP and monthly MI costs, are the payments are further elevated.  These are of course included because historically, higher LTV loans have higher default rates, especially in the face of future adverse events that impact the borrowers ability to pay (limited default remedies)

 

Dude, this is my day job I’m aware of all that. I don’t think it matters. The fabric of our society is built on homeownership. If the government has to backstop a couple deals that go wrong that’s a small price to pay for the stability and buy in that would come. 

[SydneyCarton 48150]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This is exactly opposite of what I am saying. 

This is what I am trying to say, and I'm not sure how you think I disagree with you or any of this

Probably because your first post on this topic was criticizing a little guy potential individual investor who is neither ultra rich, a corporation, or a foreign national. And then you confide down that path this entire page. 
 

for the record I’m also in favor of outlawing all of the things listed above. 

[Captainant 27727]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Probably because your first post on this topic was criticizing a little guy potential individual investor who is neither ultra rich, a corporation, or a foreign national. And then you confide down that path this entire page. 

That's not my first post on the topic, and I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings and tried to answer your vague hypotheticals earnestly. My bad for expressing an opinion against multihome ownership in a period of massive housing shortages.

[SydneyCarton 48150]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That's not my first post on the topic, and I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings and tried to answer your vague hypotheticals earnestly. My bad for expressing an opinion against multihome ownership in a period of massive housing shortages.

You haven’t hurt my feelings. You’ve just shown your ass. Your take here isn’t exactly a popular one, if you haven’t noticed. Perhaps you should take it up in the cloakroom, since it’s more political than practical. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[Neonmoon 38130]

Just now, Captainant said:

That's not my first post on the topic, and I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings and tried to answer your vague hypotheticals earnestly. My bad for expressing an opinion against multihome ownership in a period of massive housing shortages.

You're being a cunt. 

You're blaming the little guy for societal issues. 

 

[Dbeasy 15085]

17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This is exactly opposite of what I am saying. 

This is what I am trying to say, and I'm not sure how you think I disagree with you or any of this

Because you are chastising people for buying real estate  

[BabaYaga 15305]

15 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Dude, this is my day job I’m aware of all that. I don’t think it matters. The fabric of our society is built on homeownership. If the government has to backstop a couple deals that go wrong that’s a small price to pay for the stability and buy in that would come. 

As long as they fully qualify and we don't see a repeat of 2007

[BabaYaga 15305]

24 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

There may be a housing shortage

Even this is stupid.  Are we filtering by home price?  Geo?  In many markets the supply is just fine.  Same with market prices.

[Captainant 27727]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Even this is stupid.  Are we filtering by home price?  Geo?  In many markets the supply is just fine.  Same with market prices.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/08/shortage-of-affordable-houses-real-estate-market-hits-some-hardest.html

There is plenty of supply (depending on the geo), but at a price that's out of reach for non-investment/residential buyers. My point in posting earlier was that the trend of pumping more and investment capital into housing is only going to keep pushing that gap out farther and farther.

Plenty of inventory. At double the price it was less than a decade ago.

[BabaYaga 15305]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/08/shortage-of-affordable-houses-real-estate-market-hits-some-hardest.html

There is plenty of supply (depending on the geo), but at a price that's out of reach for non-investment/residential buyers. My point in posting earlier was that the trend of pumping more and investment capital into housing is only going to keep pushing that gap out farther and farther.

Plenty of inventory. At double the price it was less than a decade ago.

It's called supply & demand

What you want is for people to act against their own self interests to help support the greater good.  There's a name for that as well.  

[MAUFRAIS 6633]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

[jimmyjazz 46099]

This thread is TL;DR but I have to say, if I'm concerned about predatory landlords, I'm probably gonna place my bet on a single rental homeowner like @SydneyCarton than a giant corporate entity that has demonstrably zero concern for anything but the bottom line.  I mean, the dude who owns his house and one other is going to be pretty committed to keeping that other house rented out.  It doesn't mean he might not be a shithead, but a few months of "empty" is brutal for a guy like that.

[LTtxfan 49332]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

I think we're missing eachother on the multi-home ownership detail: I 100% agree that home ownership is one of the best - if not the best way - to build familial and individual wealth. I'm saying that the one-to-many ownership model where you're seeking out and acquiring houses purely to seek rents on them is taking the opportunity to build wealth away from your tenants and keeping it for yourself or your shareholders. 

We should be seeking ways to make more people homeowners, not ways to make people own more homes.

 

[Hefeweizen 5328]

Interesting data point… first developer that I know of recently that bought a deal and the prices have climbed too far so that they are actually going to sell the land at a slight loss and walk it.  Central Tx between Austin and SA.  Fully entitled and ready to break ground, and it doesn’t pencil.  That’s really bad.
 

I don’t think the full effects of price inflation and current housing market conditions have been felt yet.  There is still plenty of room downwards in this market.

[Wulaw Horn 19147]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

As long as they fully qualify and we don't see a repeat of 2007

Really they just need to not securitize that shit. VA loans have the lowest default in the sector. FHA MI premiums were turning a huge profit. Deleverage that shit and backstop it with the government and it’s not even close to something that can wreck the economy. 
it would be worth it. Homeowners are better citizens and better members of the community. More reliable. More tied into making neighborhoods better. 

[We’reTexas 1473]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Even this is stupid.  Are we filtering by home price?  Geo?  In many markets the supply is just fine.  Same with market prices.

You serious Clark? Yes, there is a housing shortage. Denying that is like climate change denial at this point. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

There are around like 1.08M units right now. Probably close to 1/3 of that is under contract. These are historical lows, especially considering the population has increased over time 

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

1 hour ago, We’reTexas said:

You serious Clark? Yes, there is a housing shortage. Denying that is like climate change denial at this point. 

Do you know who you are arguing with?

[KYHorn 17134]

On 6/29/2023 at 11:51 AM, Wulaw Horn said:

I'd do it at a price points slightly below median in the area.

 

On 6/29/2023 at 11:51 AM, Wulaw Horn said:

Edit to add- don't do it unless you are fine with being a landlord, don't mind having dipshits control property you own (because you will run into at least a couple renters in that situation that are dipshits)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Wulaw. Only thing I'd add from my experience is that slightly above median might help cut out the lower quality renters and give you more responsible tenants. This could lower maintenance costs and hassle, even if it's not truly the best bang for your buck like the heralded duplex model. We just got some renters locked in to a 2 year lease who might have higher incomes then us. They're moving from Boston and settling into a bit of a slower-paced lifestyle and were impressed with how far their rent dollars could go in Lexington, KY. 

 

On 6/29/2023 at 11:56 AM, SydneyCarton said:

Then potetially use that asset to leverage a 2nd home, etc etc. 

Leverage it through the income stream? I wonder how long you have to demonstrate income from renting the property to do this.

Edited July 1, 2023 by KYHorn

[SydneyCarton 48150]

2 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Wulaw. Only thing I'd add from my experience is that slightly above median might help cut out the lower quality renters and give you more responsible tenants. This could lower maintenance costs and hassle, even if it's not truly the best bang for your buck like the heralded duplex model. We just got some renters locked in to a 2 year lease who might have higher incomes then us. They're moving from Boston and settling into a bit of a slower-paced lifestyle and were impressed with how far their rent dollars could go in Lexington, KY. 

 

Leverage it good the income stream? I wonder how long you have to demonstrate income from renting the property to do this.

I was thinking more of collateral if it’s paid for kind of thing…

[Incredulity 11682]

50 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

Wulaw. Only thing I'd add from my experience is that slightly above median might help cut out the lower quality renters and give you more responsible tenants

 

you really do NOT want to be a so called slumlord.

[Neonmoon 38130]

48 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

Leverage it through the income stream? I wonder how long you have to demonstrate income from renting the property to do this.

1 year history of rental income on Schedule E of Tax Returns, can use full amount as qualifying income 

Less than 1 year history, can only use rental income to offset PITIA of subject property 

[BabaYaga 15305]

20 hours ago, We’reTexas said:

You serious Clark? Yes, there is a housing shortage. Denying that is like climate change denial at this point. 

Nobody is denying there is not a national housing shortage - what I'm saying certain smaller markets do not.  Not complicated