Live data from Hacker News

Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

socketsite.com

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#101
post #98
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you claiming that landlords who purchased property in SF 15+ years ago aren't making extremely high profits off rent?

The point is they could make even more by selling and using the money to buy in places with higher rent/buy ratio. They've made more money from appreciation than from rising rents.

Can you please link me a list of cities with a better buy:rent ratio when comparing 2008-2011 SF to 2021 SF? Assuming you were to buy and rent now, since that's the conversation we're having. I have some friends who would be really interested. I just tried to find some on my own, and I could not.

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#102
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The systemic problem is that investors are buying up residential property inventory Are you assuming that it's somehow sensible to buy property and leave it empty? Owner vs rental doesn't change the number of homes available.

It's sensible in San Francisco because having an active renter makes a property worth significantly less. Why? You basically cannot kick evict a renter or raise their rent.

Sitting empty it's hemorrhaging cash, which isn't a great quality for investors.

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#103
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan doesn’t have this problem because they build housing sufficient to meet demand. Deciding not to build enough housing to meet demand so property owners make money: It’s the Anglo way.

> build housing sufficient to meet demand they also accept that in dense Tokyo metro areas, the sizes of places are tiny. I dont think the Anglo way works - you cannot have both dense, but big apartments.

Sure you can. The issues with the Anglo way is that they've gone all the way to the other end with flat, wide buildings. Increasing verticality is a simple way to get more density without sacrificing area. At some point, yes, you'll just have to shrink down to get further density, but the low hanging fruit haven't been picked yet.

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#104
post #87
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you not be able to keep a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 3% for the next 30 years? Hopefully you're making one extra payment a year to cut it down a few years... 7% long term stock average in the past doesn't mean the future 3 condos I bought in the 2007 downturn are appraised at double today, much higher rate of appreciation than inflation...

3% was left in favour of the house buying but unlikely because the last dozen years or so are very unusual In real estate, so I used middle of the road numbers. You may lock in 3% for 5 years now but nobody is giving you that for 30 - historical averages are all about double . Very good chance that happens again over that time period but of course we don’t know . Assuming it won’t would be irrational though . Of cour…

> You may lock in 3% for 5 years now but nobody is giving you that for 30

I literally just closed on a condo last month and got a 30 year fixed rate jumbo mortgage at 3%.

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bet on the inflation rates not being accurate, or at least not staying at "low inflation" levels. Personally I would take their side of the bet. I think that inflation rates are going to be extremely high over the next decade, exceeding the 1970s and potentially flirting with hyperinflation, and that folks who are betting on status-quo inflation are about to get screwed the same way folks who didn't see global…

I’m not saying that hyperinflation can’t happen. But if you really believe in that hypothesis, you’d do much better to buy deep OTM call options on TIPs and gold instead of real estate.

The TIP "inflation rate" is a total farce. Hedonic mumbo jumbo, etc.

Also, it is far from clear that TIPs would be honored in a hyperinflative scenario. I can easily imagine a "100% windfall profits tax" on TIP gains.

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#106
post #87
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you not be able to keep a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 3% for the next 30 years? Hopefully you're making one extra payment a year to cut it down a few years... 7% long term stock average in the past doesn't mean the future 3 condos I bought in the 2007 downturn are appraised at double today, much higher rate of appreciation than inflation...

3% was left in favour of the house buying but unlikely because the last dozen years or so are very unusual In real estate, so I used middle of the road numbers. You may lock in 3% for 5 years now but nobody is giving you that for 30 - historical averages are all about double . Very good chance that happens again over that time period but of course we don’t know . Assuming it won’t would be irrational though . Of cour…

Based on the spelling of favour I am assuming you are not from the US. In the US, fixed rate mortgages for between 15-30 years are very much the norm, with 30 year mortgages much more common than 15. You can absolutely get a 30 year loan up to $550k ($820k in California) for well under 3% these days.

A 5/1 ARM that changes rates after 5 years is a product you can buy, but it would only be used in niche scenarios.

I understand it is not like that in most other countries and I'm not 100% sure why. Something to do with the federal government backstopping most mortgages I think.

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bet on the inflation rates not being accurate, or at least not staying at "low inflation" levels. Personally I would take their side of the bet. I think that inflation rates are going to be extremely high over the next decade, exceeding the 1970s and potentially flirting with hyperinflation, and that folks who are betting on status-quo inflation are about to get screwed the same way folks who didn't see global…

I’m not saying that hyperinflation can’t happen. But if you really believe in that hypothesis, you’d do much better to buy deep OTM call options on TIPs and gold instead of real estate.

Yeah, as someone else mentioned, TIPS are terrible investments for actual hyperinflation. In other instances of hyperinflation, "official" inflation estimates (which is what TIPS are benchmarked on) seriously lag the actual inflation rate on the ground. Most layperson financial assets aren't secure investments in this case, because their value depends only on what you can sell them for and it's far from guaranteed that you'll be able to sell them for anything in a crisis.

Your strategy for preparing for hyperinflation is to lever up on debt and then buy controlling interests in real assets that people need to live - real estate, food suppliers, weapon/ammunition suppliers, energy, utilities. When hyperinflation hits the debt inflates away to nothing and then you can name your price in the black market that inevitably ensues. Then you use the profits from your control over essential supplies to hire mercenaries to protect and enforce your rights to them, because hyperinflation is very frequently followed with a collapse of state control along with lawlessness, anarchy, and civil disorder. (See eg. Russian oligarchs.)

Note that folks who are buying up real estate with debt are following part of this playbook. Folks buying up gold and Bitcoin are following another part of it: their buyers expect that those will be the currencies of choice in the black market. I have no intel on whether gun & ammunition manufacturers are also getting bought up for outsize prices, but would be extremely curious if they are.

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#108
post #87
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you not be able to keep a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 3% for the next 30 years? Hopefully you're making one extra payment a year to cut it down a few years... 7% long term stock average in the past doesn't mean the future 3 condos I bought in the 2007 downturn are appraised at double today, much higher rate of appreciation than inflation...

3% was left in favour of the house buying but unlikely because the last dozen years or so are very unusual In real estate, so I used middle of the road numbers. You may lock in 3% for 5 years now but nobody is giving you that for 30 - historical averages are all about double . Very good chance that happens again over that time period but of course we don’t know . Assuming it won’t would be irrational though . Of cour…

I dunno. I just refinanced at 2.35%.... fixed 30 year.

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#109
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm paying $2500/month mortgage for a home valued at $1.1m. For the extra $500/month, I get: mortgage interest tax deduction, a house after 30 years, the freedom to modify my home the way I like, the security of knowing I'm not at the mercy of the landlord. Personally, I think for the extra $500/month, buying is a better choice than renting; at least for me.

> Personally, I think for the extra $500/month, buying is a better choice than renting; at least for me. Let's do the math. Nobody is getting a 1.1million mortgage for 3k/mo, so let's pick something conservative but more realistic. According to zillow, for a 3k/mo payment you can get a 520k loan with a 20% (130k) downpayment, 30 years with an average 3%. You'll be lucky to keep it to 3% for the next 30 years but we'l…

30 year fixed mortgage rates for good credit is 2.5%

Re: Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm paying $2500/month mortgage for a home valued at $1.1m. For the extra $500/month, I get: mortgage interest tax deduction, a house after 30 years, the freedom to modify my home the way I like, the security of knowing I'm not at the mercy of the landlord. Personally, I think for the extra $500/month, buying is a better choice than renting; at least for me.

This is super deceptive. If you had actually needed to pay $1.1M in principal even at 0% interest over 30 years you'd be paying $2777 a month. Your comment comes across as basically suggesting it is other people's fault for not buying a house when it cost half as much as it does now versus renting a house now. I bet you bought that house fifteen years ago at least right?

You get there by refinancing to extend the loan and lower interest. It's not deceptive at all.
Post reply on HN