Moderator: Komissar
Nata Ivanova wrote:А как вам нравится "распродажа" со скидкой 150к?
http://www.sacramento12hoursale.com/12hoursale.html
CBETA* wrote:Eman N. Azi-Nagro wrote:Света, законы экономики (а также математики и физики) в других странах и в Америке, конечно же, совершенно другие....
Давайте не будем начинать мерятся дипломами и степенями.
Ваши рассуждения верны только в приложении к "горе" инвесторам/лендлордам/бизнесменам. Поверьте, их далеко не подавляющее большинство, хоть и значительный процент.
Eman N. Azi-Nagro wrote:"горе инвесторы" - это норма, это большинство, посмотрите хотя бы статистику по новым бизнесам
а среди инвесторов-любителей, которые активно управляют своими активами, - абсолютное большинство
- "горе инвесторов" - их всегда большинство, вне зависимости от состояния рынка.
Nata Ivanova wrote:А как вам нравится "распродажа" со скидкой 150к?
http://www.sacramento12hoursale.com/12hoursale.html
Nata Ivanova wrote:Хорошо сейчас лэндлордам, говорите...
Итак, свежая статистика:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ ... stt11.html
...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ ... ttab5.html
This shift to intangibles looks all the more remarkable when we look a bit further back. P&G, for example, has boosted its spending on R&D, which doesn't count as investment in the GDP statistics, by 39% since 1996.
Factoring in the knowledge economy also helps us understand why the recession of 2001 seemed worse than the official statistics showed -- and why the recovery was so slow. According to the published numbers, the six-month recession of 2001 was so mild the business sector actually grew at a modest 0.4% pace that year. By 2003, however, more than 3 million private sector jobs had disappeared.
One reason for this disconnect is simple: Corporations hacked back their budgets for R&D, advertising, training, and so forth. Yes, that canceled out a ton of high-paying jobs, but had no direct effect on GDP. Remember that R&D and other intangible business investments are not currently counted as national output. Therefore, when a company laid off an engineer doing long-term product development but kept selling the same number of its old products, GDP stayed the same. Productivity even went up, because fewer workers were producing the same amount of output. And if that laid-off engineer went to work, say, building houses? National output might even have risen.
Komissar wrote: На самом деле, никаких 150К там нету, а реально предлагают 3-4К скидки в обмен на использование CTXMortgage (их же сентексовская внутреняя мортгиджная контора).
This 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom "house" in Santa Barbara is currently listed at $1,095,000. Question: do you think that the oil drum is included in the price? Perhaps the seller with include the bush that currently obstructs the door. Here is another question that I want to throw out there. If you had a spare million dollars, would you choose a Californian shack or a Washington DC crackhouse? Personally, I would go with the crackhouse.
The realtor describes it as a "cute starter"; I call it a garden shed. This million dollar slum has 870 square feet, and currently priced at $998,000. The property also boasts "newer windows", what ever that means.
We also have a photo of the interior. Haven't you always dreamed of a kitchen just like this one. You can cook your meal and wash your cloth without moving.
The only reason that this house was listed at $1,125,000 and not at $125,000 was because of the local school district. But why condemn you kids to living in a poke? Why not save half the money, buy a nicer house for $600,000 and send your kids to private school. What does private school cost? In DC, its about $20,000 per child a year. If you don't have $20,000 to send you kids to private school, then you don't have the cash to buy this house. The school district math underlying the valuation of this house just doesn't add up.
Lets face it - this school distict issue is yet another realtor scam to push up prices. Therefore, this property goes into the school district scammer category.
There was a time when mobsters used to burn these types of buildings for insurance scams. Today, the scam has changed. Now, realtors send out flyers describing these properties as "investments". Nevertheless, the principle is still the same - parting a fool from his money.
This property has 8 bedrooms, and one toilet. It is situated in the "up-and-coming" district of NE Washington DC. Judging by the photos posted on www.ziprealty.com, the building is derelict and the utilities have been disconnected. Undeterred by reality, The realtor write-up claims that this building is a "great investment opportunity". The realtor also claims that the seller is "motivated". Obviously, he is motivated to take some hapless buyer to the cleaners. And the Price for this crackhouse? A gob-smacking $899,000.
Location, Location Location - how many times have you heard that from realtors. Well, the location for this overvalued piece of real estate is NE Washington DC, formerly the Crack Capital of the USA. Thoughtfully, the investor who refurbished this house, left the bars on the windows and the doors.
However, he is having some difficulty selling. The property has been on the market for 82 days, and the price has already been reduced by $10,000. Did I mention the price - the owner wants $419,000 for this two bedroom house.
Indeed, it seems as though everyone decided to sell at once. The number of homes for sale in Palm Beach County nearly tripled in the past two years, from about 7,800 two years ago to more than 20,000 today.
Any economist will tell you that a spike in supply is bad news for prices.
Of course, the rising inventory of homes is good news for buyers, who are enjoying some newfound bargaining room.
More than 3,200 metro Milwaukee homes sprouted "for sale" signs last month, over three times the number reported sold, a Friday industry report shows.
That new inventory was 43% higher than January 2005 and 66% higher than January 2004, Metro Multiple Listing Service figures show. The Wauwatosa market-tracking firm reported 936 January sales, a 10.2% slide from 1,042 a year earlier.
Assume you're renting a house for $1,500 a month. Now let's say you stay put for 30 years, during which the landlord increases the rent by 5% a year. Over those 30 years, you will hand over a total of nearly $1.2 million in rent payments -- and at the end, you'll have nothing to show for it except a bunch of cancelled checks. To add insult to injury, you'll now be paying $6,174 a month in rent!
Now let's imagine that instead of continuing to rent, you buy the same home for $200,000. Initially, your costs as a homeowner are likely to total around the same $1,500 a month you would've paid in rent. But these costs won't balloon over the years the way rent would. That's because your regular mortgage payment, which represents the lion's share of your monthly outlay, is fixed (or, if you have an adjustable-rate mortgage, at least capped).
ShuraK wrote:А этот хлопец остается оптимистичным. Мол неважно как если у вас дом вы будете богаты. Но неубедительно как-то. Что народ скажет?Assume you're renting a house for $1,500 a month. Now let's say you stay put for 30 years, during which the landlord increases the rent by 5% a year. Over those 30 years, you will hand over a total of nearly $1.2 million in rent payments -- and at the end, you'll have nothing to show for it except a bunch of cancelled checks. To add insult to injury, you'll now be paying $6,174 a month in rent!
Now let's imagine that instead of continuing to rent, you buy the same home for $200,000. Initially, your costs as a homeowner are likely to total around the same $1,500 a month you would've paid in rent. But these costs won't balloon over the years the way rent would. That's because your regular mortgage payment, which represents the lion's share of your monthly outlay, is fixed (or, if you have an adjustable-rate mortgage, at least capped).
ShuraK wrote:А этот хлопец остается оптимистичным. Мол неважно как если у вас дом вы будете богаты. Но неубедительно как-то. Что народ скажет?
Лукавит твой хлопец - в пример берёт отрезок с 2001 по 2005 год. Наверное никогда не слышал о фразе "Past performance is no guarantee of future results". Все выкладки - один-в-один как из рекламного буклета реалторов и безо всякого соприкосновения с реалиями.From 2001 to 2005, the average homeowner saw the value of his or her house jump by more than 50 percent. Many homeowners doubled, tripled, and in some cases even quadrupled their wealth in just five years because of exploding real estate values.
ax3816 wrote:А казачёк-то засланый
Komissar wrote:Но! Эти 6 лет мы бы жили в просторном красивом доме с гаражом и бэкярдом, а не ютились бы на 700 кв ног с карпортом на улице.
Komissar wrote:Причем даже если бы дом рос в цене на жалкие 2% в год (ниже инфляции), после продажи и выплаты мортгиджа у меня бы все равно на руках остались 169К. Минус 104К, что были выплачены во время жизни в доме, это 65К прироста в деньгах - против 60К потерянных в ренте.
