Toothpaste for Dinner

[B]

I've had enough of slimeball realtors slamming anything that seems to counterpoint the "buy now or be priced out forever" mental virus that still seems to float around in some circles (indeed, things always seem to boil down to that old, tired, disproven cliche).

Both JD, who sounds like a creep, honestly, and Synthetic, who seems to be wasting his breath trying to belabor points that are simply lost on kool-aid drinkers, are talking past each other.

JD, let's get straight down to it, champ. Muster all your honest, fiduciary Realtor(R) math skillz and head on over to the excellent NYT calculator.



Please reply with a set of numbers, EXACTLY as you entered them, that
make using a large amount of leverage worth it in the Seattle region.

Basically, state your assumptions instead of relying on bullshit hack arguments and slandering of people who choose to rent.

Many, many honest analysts with no personal axe to grind have proven and shown time and time again that renting is good for some people, buying is good for some people, but neither option is a no-brainer for all people, the way the realtor chicks make it sound. There is an incredible lack of intellectual honesty in anyone who will not disclose all the information.

So go ahead Captain Finance, tell me exactly which sets of numbers make sense. Because the smell that's wafting off your poorly proven arguments indicates that basically it only works out if it's a speculation play based on ASSUMING greater appreciation than inflation (a no-no, according to those in the know), and a play on massive leverage.

There's nothing wrong with massive leverage required to get normal household incomes into a house, provided they can otherwise crank out the payments and probably don't plan to move for 8-10 years. But as far as I can tell, unless you assume a level of appreciation that doesn't rely wholly on the rear-view mirror, the numbers just don't work.

[JD@Preview]

Slimeball? Creepy? I just ran a number of my transactions over the last 5 years through your calculator and every one of them came out as "better to buy". My most recent was a listing for a repeat client selling the house I found for them 3 years ago. $230,000 then, under contract and appraised at $437,000 now. Granted, that's a bit higher than the average appreciation but the *fact* remains that every one of my clients made money from day one. Even when appreciation rates are low, the pressure on rent increases (I know, I'm a landlord too) and you *still* make money buying. I don't what world you live in where all this sturm und drang exists but it's not a place where I take my clients. I'm inclined to wonder if you're reading the chart correctly. You do know that the dark grey "better to rent" portion is *below* the tan "better to buy" portion? The light grey above the tan isn't part of the data. If I'm a creepy slimeball for keeping my clients in the tan part of the graph, so be it, I'll wear the sobriquet proudly and drink all the Kool-aid I can get.

[mike2]

[JD@Preview]

[mike2]

[B]

[GetReal]

[uptown]

[george]

[GetReal]

[JD@Preview]

[JD@Preview]

[JD@Preview]

[mike2]

[GetReal]