NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
NOYB wrote:

There is one home (out of 31 for sale in my neighborhood) under 7
figures.
It's 1500 sq ft., was built in 1960, and is priced at $959k.


************

31 homes for sale in your "neighborhood"? Either its a big
neighborhood, or that full size Bush billboard in your front yard
has
everybody p-o'd. :-) (kidding)

Illustrating my point, exactly. Lets say you paid $500,000 for you
pad,
and it would now sell for
$1.3mm. If you sold your house for that price and needed to move to
another just as nice, it would cost you $1.3mm to buy an equivalent
home in the same area.

Here's the real life example:
I paid $825k for the current home on the water.
The last house to sell just like mine sold for $1.225m.
After realty and closing costs, I'd clear about $360k

I sold my old house for $560k last year (not on the water)
The last house to sell like my old one just sold for $625k.
If I bought the new house for $625k, after closing costs, I'd be in
it for
under $650.

So I would net a quarter of a million dollars if I sold my current
home and
bought my old one again.

That's profit, right?

I could always sell my house and move a little bit inland...and make
a huge
profit in the process. Or I could move to Lee County instead of
Collier
County.

This from a person who has an interest only loan because he's maxed
out.....

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
NOYB wrote:

Chuck is the first person that I've heard say that a home in a
rapidly
appreciating real estate market is *not* a good investment.

****************************

I'm seriously surprised.

Your house is a house. It's not an investment. Sky high and soaring
housing prices are only a good thing if you own other real estate
in
addition to your primary home. You can have your home, (which you
need), or the money tied up in it, but not both.

When you cash out an "investment" your options in life should
increase
substantially. When you cash out your house, you get to live in a
yurt.

But a really, really nice yurt.

Of course, I could retire to Snellville, buy an entire trailer park,
and
still put a million in my pocket.

Really? How many "trailer parks" are there in Snellville, GA? Do you
want the answer?

P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's the real life example:
I paid $825k for the current home on the water.
The last house to sell just like mine sold for $1.225m.
After realty and closing costs, I'd clear about $360k

I sold my old house for $560k last year (not on the water)
The last house to sell like my old one just sold for $625k.
If I bought the new house for $625k, after closing costs, I'd be
in it
for
under $650.


So I would net a quarter of a million dollars if I sold my current
home
and
bought my old one again.


That's profit, right?


*****************

No, it's merely the reorganization of numbers on the asset side of
your
balance sheet. Even if your house was in investment, you haven't
realized a gain until you sell it. Your neighbor's sale didn't put
any
money in your pocket. You need the house to live in. The amount of
money the house is worth is meaningless, as long as you are going
to
personally consume the asset by taking it for exclusive use.

The good news is that if the average income in Nipples doubles in
the
next couple of years, (is that likely?) your $1.2mm pad will be
"worth"
$2.4mm. The bad news is that if you sell the one you've got, and
don't
elect to lower your standard of housing, you'll simply have a
higher
number attached to an asset you don't have the flexiblity to sell.

Now, it you had purchased *two* or more homes for $825k and sold
oneof
more of them for $1.225, that $400k spread would indeed be gross
profit. You'd probably walk off with about $300k net after
commissions, cap gains taxes, local conveyance taxes, etc. Selling
your
personal house, and immediately replacing it with one costing as
much
or more, does not create "profit".



Round and round we go...where it stops nobody knows.

I wonder if he agrees with asslicker that schnapps is
whiskey...........it
make as much sense.

I wonder if you'll ever be man enough to quit acting like a spoiled
little ****ing child. What a pathetic crumb of **** you are.

P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's the real life example:
I paid $825k for the current home on the water.
The last house to sell just like mine sold for $1.225m.
After realty and closing costs, I'd clear about $360k

I sold my old house for $560k last year (not on the water)
The last house to sell like my old one just sold for $625k.
If I bought the new house for $625k, after closing costs, I'd be
in it
for
under $650.


So I would net a quarter of a million dollars if I sold my current
home
and
bought my old one again.


That's profit, right?


*****************

No, it's merely the reorganization of numbers on the asset side of
your
balance sheet. Even if your house was in investment, you haven't
realized a gain until you sell it. Your neighbor's sale didn't put
any
money in your pocket. You need the house to live in. The amount of
money the house is worth is meaningless, as long as you are going
to
personally consume the asset by taking it for exclusive use.

The good news is that if the average income in Nipples doubles in
the
next couple of years, (is that likely?) your $1.2mm pad will be
"worth"
$2.4mm. The bad news is that if you sell the one you've got, and
don't
elect to lower your standard of housing, you'll simply have a
higher
number attached to an asset you don't have the flexiblity to sell.

Now, it you had purchased *two* or more homes for $825k and sold
oneof
more of them for $1.225, that $400k spread would indeed be gross
profit. You'd probably walk off with about $300k net after
commissions, cap gains taxes, local conveyance taxes, etc. Selling
your
personal house, and immediately replacing it with one costing as
much
or more, does not create "profit".



Round and round we go...where it stops nobody knows.

I wonder if he agrees with asslicker that schnapps is
whiskey...........it
make as much sense.


I wonder if you'll ever answer my question to you, you low life scum
bag.

P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

I suppose, you could rent, if

...the Feds seized your home for growing marijuana.


I hope not, that would be seizing a liability as opposed to seizing
an
asset. ;-)

Well, smart ass, tell the group what you know. What type of house do I
live in? What is it worth? Where did you get this data? Have any
answers, or are you just wasting your cum stinking breath?

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's the real life example:
I paid $825k for the current home on the water.
The last house to sell just like mine sold for $1.225m.
After realty and closing costs, I'd clear about $360k

I sold my old house for $560k last year (not on the water)
The last house to sell like my old one just sold for $625k.
If I bought the new house for $625k, after closing costs, I'd be in
it
for
under $650.


So I would net a quarter of a million dollars if I sold my current
home
and
bought my old one again.


That's profit, right?


*****************

No, it's merely the reorganization of numbers on the asset side of
your
balance sheet. Even if your house was in investment, you haven't
realized a gain until you sell it. Your neighbor's sale didn't put
any
money in your pocket. You need the house to live in. The amount of
money the house is worth is meaningless, as long as you are going
to
personally consume the asset by taking it for exclusive use.

The good news is that if the average income in Nipples doubles in
the
next couple of years, (is that likely?) your $1.2mm pad will be
"worth"
$2.4mm. The bad news is that if you sell the one you've got, and
don't
elect to lower your standard of housing, you'll simply have a
higher
number attached to an asset you don't have the flexiblity to sell.

Now, it you had purchased *two* or more homes for $825k and sold
oneof
more of them for $1.225, that $400k spread would indeed be gross
profit. You'd probably walk off with about $300k net after
commissions, cap gains taxes, local conveyance taxes, etc. Selling
your
personal house, and immediately replacing it with one costing as
much
or more, does not create "profit".


Another example for the slow and/or stubborn:

Chuck has $100k. He buys a house not on the water for $500k, and
puts 20%
down. His mortgage is $400k. In one year, he sells the house for
$575k.
He pays off the mortgage and the realtor, and walks away with $135k.


NOYB has $100k. He buys a house on the water for $1m, and puts 10%
down.
His mortgage is $900k. In one year, he sells the house for $1.5m.
He pays
off the mortgage and the realtor, and walks away with $510k.

They both decide to buy a new home next to each other. The purchase
price
is $500k. Chuck puts $135k down, takes out a new loan for $365k.
NOYB pays
cash...and uses the extra $10k leftover to buy a trailer for his
boat...and
a new T-top, kicker motor, and fishfinder. The money that NOYB would

normally pay towards a mortgage on a home now goes towards buying a
second
home in the mountains.

Chuck says "How the hell did that happen!?!?"

Yeah, how DID that happen, when you've stated here that you have an
interest only mortgage? Not only did you NOT pay cash, you're not even
paying down the balance.


Appreciation you dimwit.

wrote in message
oups.com...
NOYB wrote:

(elementary level example of leverage deleted)

Your additional properties are investments. Your house is your home.
If you cannot grasp that very simple concept, you likely do not realize
that hyper accelerated real estate markets in many parts of the country
(Calif being a frequent example) are not always one way streets.

When your house that you're choosing not to sell for $1.2 million
possibly corrects to a value of $975k, (and you hold the $1mm mortgage
you mentioned elsewhere in the thread), it won't be Chuck wondering
"How the hell did that happen?" Chuck knows.

BTW, I could write the book on leverage. You don't want or need to know
the details, but write it I could.

And I could write the preface.

(I did notice how you didn't address the facts though)

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's the real life example:
I paid $825k for the current home on the water.
The last house to sell just like mine sold for $1.225m.
After realty and closing costs, I'd clear about $360k

I sold my old house for $560k last year (not on the water)
The last house to sell like my old one just sold for $625k.
If I bought the new house for $625k, after closing costs, I'd be in
it
for
under $650.


So I would net a quarter of a million dollars if I sold my current
home
and
bought my old one again.


That's profit, right?


*****************

No, it's merely the reorganization of numbers on the asset side of
your
balance sheet. Even if your house was in investment, you haven't
realized a gain until you sell it. Your neighbor's sale didn't put
any
money in your pocket. You need the house to live in. The amount of
money the house is worth is meaningless, as long as you are going
to
personally consume the asset by taking it for exclusive use.

The good news is that if the average income in Nipples doubles in
the
next couple of years, (is that likely?) your $1.2mm pad will be
"worth"
$2.4mm. The bad news is that if you sell the one you've got, and
don't
elect to lower your standard of housing, you'll simply have a
higher
number attached to an asset you don't have the flexiblity to sell.

Now, it you had purchased *two* or more homes for $825k and sold
oneof
more of them for $1.225, that $400k spread would indeed be gross
profit. You'd probably walk off with about $300k net after
commissions, cap gains taxes, local conveyance taxes, etc. Selling
your
personal house, and immediately replacing it with one costing as
much
or more, does not create "profit".


Another example for the slow and/or stubborn:

Chuck has $100k. He buys a house not on the water for $500k, and
puts 20%
down. His mortgage is $400k. In one year, he sells the house for
$575k.
He pays off the mortgage and the realtor, and walks away with $135k.


NOYB has $100k. He buys a house on the water for $1m, and puts 10%
down.
His mortgage is $900k. In one year, he sells the house for $1.5m.
He pays
off the mortgage and the realtor, and walks away with $510k.

They both decide to buy a new home next to each other. The purchase
price
is $500k. Chuck puts $135k down, takes out a new loan for $365k.
NOYB pays
cash...and uses the extra $10k leftover to buy a trailer for his
boat...and
a new T-top, kicker motor, and fishfinder. The money that NOYB would

normally pay towards a mortgage on a home now goes towards buying a
second
home in the mountains.

Chuck says "How the hell did that happen!?!?"

Yeah, how DID that happen, when you've stated here that you have an
interest only mortgage? Not only did you NOT pay cash, you're not even
paying down the balance.


Appreciation you dimwit.

Dimwit? That is the understatement of the year.

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
NOYB wrote:

Chuck is the first person that I've heard say that a home in a
rapidly
appreciating real estate market is *not* a good investment.

****************************

I'm seriously surprised.

Your house is a house. It's not an investment. Sky high and soaring
housing prices are only a good thing if you own other real estate
in
addition to your primary home. You can have your home, (which you
need), or the money tied up in it, but not both.

When you cash out an "investment" your options in life should
increase
substantially. When you cash out your house, you get to live in a
yurt.

But a really, really nice yurt.

Of course, I could retire to Snellville, buy an entire trailer park,
and
still put a million in my pocket.

Really? How many "trailer parks" are there in Snellville, GA? Do you
want the answer?


Besides yours?

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
NOYB wrote:

Chuck is the first person that I've heard say that a home in a
rapidly
appreciating real estate market is *not* a good investment.

****************************

I'm seriously surprised.

Your house is a house. It's not an investment. Sky high and soaring
housing prices are only a good thing if you own other real estate
in
addition to your primary home. You can have your home, (which you
need), or the money tied up in it, but not both.

When you cash out an "investment" your options in life should
increase
substantially. When you cash out your house, you get to live in a
yurt.

But a really, really nice yurt.

Of course, I could retire to Snellville, buy an entire trailer park,
and
still put a million in my pocket.

Really? How many "trailer parks" are there in Snellville, GA? Do you
want the answer?


Besides yours?

You'd think that asslicker would be stuffed to the gills with all the dough
balls you've thrown him.