c*****g
发帖数: 12 | 1 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/dowjones/20030121/bs_dowjones/2
00301210838000493
December U.S. Housing Starts Rose to 16-Year High
Tue Jan 21, 8:38 AM ET
By Jennifer Corbett Dooren
WASHINGTON -- Home building activity unexpectedly surged to a 16-year high in
December, showing that the housing sector continues to remain the strongest
part of the U.S. economy.
U.S. housing starts increased 5.0% last month to a seasonally-adjusted 1.835
million annual rate, the highest level since | b***y
发帖数: 23 | 2 realtor的话不知道该信多少。因为不能short房子，realtor在房价跌
的时候少赚钱，所以他们有拼命鼓动人现在就买房的动机。
因为我们这半年多一直在有事没事看房子，大概有个感觉。最近上市的
房子比前一段多了不少。象我说的那处，在市面上好像也有快一个月了
吧。早些时候，市面上房子少不说，这一带60-70万的都象快要run down
一样，根本找不到看的顺眼的。
另外附近公寓房很多for rent的标志。我们楼上的公寓空关了三四个
月了。要知道刚来nj的时候，可是排了长队等才轮得到搬进现在住的地
方。
买房淡季应该有一定影响。 | b****e
发帖数: 1275 | 3 有道理。我们这里好像房价终于也有点下降的势头了。报纸上谈房价
都是以median price作标准，其实不准的。我看了好一阵房子了，湾区
sunnyvale的房子去年，前年没有６０万以下的，现在很多high 500s.
在panderosa那块只有550K左右了甚至。
同时，房租也在跌。上个季度湾区apt rent下跌了3.8%而且空房还很多。
我是一颗红心，两手准备。刚做了pre-approval, 但是房价不跌到我的
理想价位决不进场。同时apt complex要是不同意降价我就搬家。
网上有很多rent vs. buy的计算器，我算来算去，assume rent increase
3%/yr, house value appreciates 1%/yr, 7 year target, 我还是rent
比buy合算。哎。。。。
real
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: realtor的话不知道该信多少。因为不能short房子，realtor在房价跌
: 的时候少赚钱，所以他们有拼命鼓动人现在就买房的动机。
: 因为我们这半年多一直在有事没事看房子，大概有个感觉。最近上市的
: 房子比前一段多了不少。象我说的那处，在市面上好像也有快一个月了
: 吧。早些时候，市面上房子少不说，这一带60-70万的都象快要run down
: 一样，根本找不到看的顺眼的。
: 另外附近公寓房很多for rent的标志。我们楼上的公寓空关了三四个
: 月了。要知道刚来nj的时候，可是排了长队等才轮得到搬进现在住的地
: 方。
: 买房淡季应该有一定影响。
| d***l
发帖数: 36 | 4
5% increase in interest rate may prevent many people from buying
houses, the low interest rate is the key reason why house price
still Ok for the last two years.
sure no one want sell an original 100K house for 70K, but what if
you need sell the house for whatever reason and the market price
is 70K? Although I am not sure the relationship between 5% and 30% :)
low interest rate may very effective low your monthly mortgage, this
is very important if you know you will live in the house for quite | f*l
发帖数: 22 | 5 Well, interest down so more people want to buy so housing price go up.
More importantly, people are willing to sell their houses because they can
make profit, and more people are able to afford new houses.
When interest go up, it normally means the economy is good, so still a lot
of people want houses (that's why bay area is super expensive), so housing
price still won't go down. Even if it goes down a little, your cost will be
even out by the high interest rate anyway. | f*l
发帖数: 22 | 6 I agree with what you said. For most americans, houses are necessity rather
than luxury, something people must have as long as they can afford. So housing
price will never go down very much as long as we are not in a deflate economy.
So the only thing that matters is your monthly cost. When interest rate is low
although housing price goes up, your monthly cost might be lower. So buying at
low interest makes perfect sense (with assumption that you will live in the
same house for a long period of
【在 d***l 的大作中提到】
:
: 5% increase in interest rate may prevent many people from buying
: houses, the low interest rate is the key reason why house price
: still Ok for the last two years.
: sure no one want sell an original 100K house for 70K, but what if
: you need sell the house for whatever reason and the market price
: is 70K? Although I am not sure the relationship between 5% and 30% :)
: low interest rate may very effective low your monthly mortgage, this
: is very important if you know you will live in the house for quite
| g****a
发帖数: 60 | 7 perhaps, what aya really means is baby boomer's parents are retiring soon?? :)
I recently read some articles about social secuity tax. it seems the social
security "found" is very likely in trouble around the begining of 2030s
because lots of baby boomers will retire at that time. So it implies two
things to me 1) this baby boom happens around 1970s (suppose avg retirement
age is about 60). 2) my social security tax will have been paid in vain.
bad. | r*****e
发帖数: 52 | 8 national realtor association统计说过去20年里，地产平均每年升值稍多
于3%。考虑到近几年的飞涨，也就是说在这之前的十几年房价基本是平的或
是下降的。另外他们统计的去年11月的seasonally adjusted existing
home sales（就是根据淡季旺季因素调整过的数字）比10月降了3.5%。在
northeast region，降了5.9%。12月的数字还没有出来。与此同时，统计局
的12月new house permit数字却比11月涨了8%。另外开造的新房数也是上升
的。这样不久之后供求关系应该会转过来了。
今天开车时听到bloomburg realtor talk show，觉得这帮人简直在insult
听众的智力水平，还在拼命找理由说房子会狠涨。说DC附近，过去的理由是
未来的homeland secuirty department，会雇一大批人。今天居然说因为移
民，光是移民的涌入就可以保证每年3.7%的涨幅。全然不顾移民方针的改变，
也对北维州20几%的办公用房空关的事实装不知道。虽然dc这里的失业率是
全国比较低的，可政府雇 | b***t
发帖数: 155 | 9 It is very unlikely to see a big inflation coming soon. In fact, inflation is
helpful for for house price.
Interest rate may stay low for very very long time. Without a deflation,
house price can go up for years to come.
Of course, silicon valley is exception due to poor economy. Most of
USA cities are not that bad in terms of economy.
My guess: low interest rate and higher house price and economy recovers,
just like 60's 70's . 1960's 70's were booming years for
real estate. | b****e
发帖数: 1275 | 10 is this always true? for argument's sake, if we assume
housing prices hold steady with no appreciation.
if you carry a 400k loan with 6% APR, the interest paid
annually is .. i don't know.. roughly 25k? property tax
and insurance on a 500k house.. 6k? if you are in 35%
bracket, you are net out 31k times 0.65 = 20.15k after tax
in contrast, if you rent a house, at 1500 a month after tax
you are out 1500 x 12 = 18k
of course you have equity in your house built up but that's
irrelevant here. we are | | | x******g
发帖数: 3952 | 11 There is one thing that you omitted. Inflation.
Your rent goes up every year. Your house payment will stay
the same for the next 30 years. Plus the interest on your
house' payment goes down every year.
If you happen to know somebody who bought a house around
20-30 years ago, ask what their payment is every month.
It might be even cheaper than your car payment now, let
alone rent.
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: is this always true? for argument's sake, if we assume
: housing prices hold steady with no appreciation.
: if you carry a 400k loan with 6% APR, the interest paid
: annually is .. i don't know.. roughly 25k? property tax
: and insurance on a 500k house.. 6k? if you are in 35%
: bracket, you are net out 31k times 0.65 = 20.15k after tax
: in contrast, if you rent a house, at 1500 a month after tax
: you are out 1500 x 12 = 18k
: of course you have equity in your house built up but that's
: irrelevant here. we are
| b****e
发帖数: 1275 | 12 because equity is meaningless in the calculation here. equity
is not tax deductible so it's just converting cash into part
of a house
and i used 35% bracket here. more likely the bracket is 30%.
in which case you pay even more by buying a house.
to reply mummy and others' questions about living in a house
vs. an apt, i agree. however, you can also rent a house for
1500 (renting an apt is 1300 or so here now) so i've already
taken into account there. rent vs. buy doesn't mean apt vs
house, it can | t****u
发帖数: 8614 | 13 Dude, House purchased with 400K loan is far far better
than house rented at $1500/mon. You igored the living
quality difference which sometimes is very important.
The equivelant rent range for a house purchased with
400K loan is around $2200 to $2400/mon, even rent went
down a lot.
And what if there is a big inflation? Rent, House value,
and interest will centainly all go up with inflation (I
mean a long term inflation. For short term, inflation
might pull down the house price, but for a long te
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: is this always true? for argument's sake, if we assume
: housing prices hold steady with no appreciation.
: if you carry a 400k loan with 6% APR, the interest paid
: annually is .. i don't know.. roughly 25k? property tax
: and insurance on a 500k house.. 6k? if you are in 35%
: bracket, you are net out 31k times 0.65 = 20.15k after tax
: in contrast, if you rent a house, at 1500 a month after tax
: you are out 1500 x 12 = 18k
: of course you have equity in your house built up but that's
: irrelevant here. we are
| t****u
发帖数: 8614 | 14 In a long run, 50% appreciation means nothing.
My ex-landload bought her house (a duplex) at $30K
in 1971. I rent one half of the duplex 3bd around
1100ft at $1700/mon for couple of years. I think the
whole duplex (plus the other half) worth around
$550K to $600K now. Let's say in 1972, the house
price double to $60K, and somebody bought it, from
a long run, does it mean a wrong decision? At that
moment, it might be.
Actually most people treat house is a basic necessary,
rather than an investmen
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: because equity is meaningless in the calculation here. equity
: is not tax deductible so it's just converting cash into part
: of a house
: and i used 35% bracket here. more likely the bracket is 30%.
: in which case you pay even more by buying a house.
: to reply mummy and others' questions about living in a house
: vs. an apt, i agree. however, you can also rent a house for
: 1500 (renting an apt is 1300 or so here now) so i've already
: taken into account there. rent vs. buy doesn't mean apt vs
: house, it can
| b****e
发帖数: 1275 | 15 if possible, nobody would lose money :) if housing prices,
or rent, ever went down, it will never be because the owners
landlords want it that way. it will just be because it's
not possible to find a buyer/renter at a price they want
actually i already know two folks selling houses now. one
at a price that's still higher than what he paid for in 99,
(no takers yet), and the other selling at purchase price just
9 months ago - and of course no takers either | b****e
发帖数: 1275 | 16 another thing i observed is that, at least in the bay
area, there are tons of emails going out by house-owners
trying to rent a room or two in his/her house for 400,
500 a month. well, if we assume this is the amount you
save by renting vs. buying, which would you rather do:
rent an apartment/house and have your own privacy, or
buying a house but have to share it with total strangers?
a lot of people talked about "quality of life", to me,
privacy ranks a lot higher than "living in a large
house
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: if possible, nobody would lose money :) if housing prices,
: or rent, ever went down, it will never be because the owners
: landlords want it that way. it will just be because it's
: not possible to find a buyer/renter at a price they want
: actually i already know two folks selling houses now. one
: at a price that's still higher than what he paid for in 99,
: (no takers yet), and the other selling at purchase price just
: 9 months ago - and of course no takers either
| b****e
发帖数: 1275 | 17 can you share some insight in that? it's always been puzzling
to me actually
people always talk about the tax benefit of carrying a mortgage,
but for every dollar you save in taxes, you pay 3 dollars to
the bank as interest. where's the gain? the only difference
is that you have a choice of paying $$$ to either uncle sam
or the loan shark. it's still net cash OUT. and OUT more to
the loan shark actually
i think your argument, that carrying a loan as long as opssible
is only beneficial when house | B*****R
发帖数: 1539 | 18 it's not only about the number. you can't do the calculation of if you do A,
then B years later you will have C $$ in bank, or you do D, then B years you
will have E $$ in bank.
interest? don't you earn interest by your cash? don't you think the cash flow
sometime is more important? not to mention the risk, paying interest of
mortgage is like paying the bank so that they took part of the risk. if you
cash it out, you are on your own.
this also brings you to the topic of rent vs. buy, for some ca
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: can you share some insight in that? it's always been puzzling
: to me actually
: people always talk about the tax benefit of carrying a mortgage,
: but for every dollar you save in taxes, you pay 3 dollars to
: the bank as interest. where's the gain? the only difference
: is that you have a choice of paying $$$ to either uncle sam
: or the loan shark. it's still net cash OUT. and OUT more to
: the loan shark actually
: i think your argument, that carrying a loan as long as opssible
: is only beneficial when house
| r*****e
发帖数: 52 | 19 no doubt prepay means less goes for banks, just consider the
fact there exist all kinds of prepay panelty. the issue is
how to get more for you.
say your mortgage is 6%, tax bracket 33%. you really save
4% for the money you prepaid. well, the general argument is:
1. if you put this money somewhere else, and it earns your
more than 4%, you win by not prepaying. certainly not the
recent years but if you believe that the stock market returns
8% on average, you would put the money somewhere else
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: can you share some insight in that? it's always been puzzling
: to me actually
: people always talk about the tax benefit of carrying a mortgage,
: but for every dollar you save in taxes, you pay 3 dollars to
: the bank as interest. where's the gain? the only difference
: is that you have a choice of paying $$$ to either uncle sam
: or the loan shark. it's still net cash OUT. and OUT more to
: the loan shark actually
: i think your argument, that carrying a loan as long as opssible
: is only beneficial when house
| t****u
发帖数: 8614 | 20 That's true, if I had enough money, I would pay off my loan
as soon as possible.
I have no doubt I could payoff my debt much shorter than
30 years. The secret is the inflation, the total money
I borrowed today looks a big number. But after 10 to 15
years, the total number might be just an insignificant
number.
So my strategy is, as long as I can manage my cash flow,
borrow as much as I can today at this low interest rate.
Then let the inflation and time do the rest thing for me.
For 30 fixed at
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: can you share some insight in that? it's always been puzzling
: to me actually
: people always talk about the tax benefit of carrying a mortgage,
: but for every dollar you save in taxes, you pay 3 dollars to
: the bank as interest. where's the gain? the only difference
: is that you have a choice of paying $$$ to either uncle sam
: or the loan shark. it's still net cash OUT. and OUT more to
: the loan shark actually
: i think your argument, that carrying a loan as long as opssible
: is only beneficial when house
| | | b***t
发帖数: 155 | 21 Breeze, you live in SV, rent is indeed better than buying.
However, that does not apply to other cities. In most
USA cities, buying is better than rent because rent is
higher than mortgage payment.
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: because equity is meaningless in the calculation here. equity
: is not tax deductible so it's just converting cash into part
: of a house
: and i used 35% bracket here. more likely the bracket is 30%.
: in which case you pay even more by buying a house.
: to reply mummy and others' questions about living in a house
: vs. an apt, i agree. however, you can also rent a house for
: 1500 (renting an apt is 1300 or so here now) so i've already
: taken into account there. rent vs. buy doesn't mean apt vs
: house, it can
| c********l
发帖数: 1 | 22 If we are talking about numbers, why not do an example?
For example, Joe's family (2 workers, no kids, in SV) has 100K cash in bank,
they earn 160K pre-tax a year
situation 1:
they buy a 600K house with 10% down, 6% APR loan, after 1 year the house
value remains the same, 600K. How much is their total asset (Cash +equity),
suppose the bank interest rate for saving account is 2%
situation 2:
they rent a apt at $1500 a month, after 1 year, the rent remains the same.
How much do they left (Cash)
th
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: can you share some insight in that? it's always been puzzling
: to me actually
: people always talk about the tax benefit of carrying a mortgage,
: but for every dollar you save in taxes, you pay 3 dollars to
: the bank as interest. where's the gain? the only difference
: is that you have a choice of paying $$$ to either uncle sam
: or the loan shark. it's still net cash OUT. and OUT more to
: the loan shark actually
: i think your argument, that carrying a loan as long as opssible
: is only beneficial when house
| l***g
发帖数: 162 | 23 true, rent drops all the way down in Seattle area the past two years.
Most high end condo are empty in downtown Seattle and Bellevue. Mid range
apt went down 20% in addition to huge incentives to lure limited tenants.
Think about the high unemployment rate in west coast states, and most people
who can affort a mortgage already bought their homes during the rate slide,
the buying power faded away very fast.
Before end of year, I'm looking forward to a great buyer's market. Rent will
definitely ou
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: can you share some insight in that? it's always been puzzling
: to me actually
: people always talk about the tax benefit of carrying a mortgage,
: but for every dollar you save in taxes, you pay 3 dollars to
: the bank as interest. where's the gain? the only difference
: is that you have a choice of paying $$$ to either uncle sam
: or the loan shark. it's still net cash OUT. and OUT more to
: the loan shark actually
: i think your argument, that carrying a loan as long as opssible
: is only beneficial when house
| l***g
发帖数: 162 | 24 Stop arguing Buy vs Rent, it's a life style rather than financial issue.
It's always good to pay down any debt, creditcard, car loan, mortgage, IF, a
big if, you can build some emergence fund and can afford.
I love Suze Orman's favorite word "People first, then things, then money"
enjoy life, folks. |
|
