Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

socketsite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 131 posts

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

#61

Post by smnrchrds »

jcims wrote: post #21
SadCanadian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live here in Toronto and it’s an absolute dumpster fire. The country is increasingly becoming hollowed out and residential investments are increasing as a % of total investments. In addition, there is no plan for prosperity. GDP per capita has been stagnant or negative and the productivity numbers are weak. The housing sector is becoming a giant leech sucking the life of out of productive investment. Engineers have…

I live about four hours due south of you and loved visiting Toronto as a kid. I had seen similar commentary recently about the real-estate market and thought folks were exaggerating. From what I could see, they weren't. Just now I was going to make a joke about the long game being in Nunavut but checked my work first and, uhh, nope. That's some crazy shit. $600k for a (nice) 5br on a half acre in the tundra? No thank…

Unlike in the south, high property prices in the territories are due to the cost of shipping building materials, not the price of land.

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

#62

Post by ryandrake »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #40
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming your property taxes are not $0?? I don't know where you live but in Texas property taxes on a $1.1 million home are about $2,300 a month

In the U.S. at least, property taxes are normally treated as part of the mortgage payment. They're not technically part of the mortgage payment, but they're a line-item in your monthly payment to the lender.

Not that I’ve seen. Maybe it’s regional. I’ve always paid my property taxes directly to the county. Once a year when I was in FL, two installments in CA. The lender just takes principal and interest in its payment.

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

#63

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

ska wrote: post #56
thanhhaimai wrote: post #31

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…

You totally left out property taxes! $1.1 million house in SF has about $6,050 in year property tax, which is another $182k over the life of the mortgage (assuming rates don't change).

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

#64

Post by ska »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #63
ska wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You totally left out property taxes! $1.1 million house in SF has about $6,050 in year property tax, which is another $182k over the life of the mortgage (assuming rates don't change).

No I didn't, see the comment that the property tax was rolled into the 3k payment. I've added "property" to make that clearer.

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

#65

Post by dukeyukey »

barry-cotter wrote: post #37
rodgerd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The systemic problem is that investors are buying up residential property inventory, because there is a massive amount of near 0% cash available to a thin slice of the population. This is absolutely a global problem: New Zealand, Australia, parts of Canada, the UK, are all having the same issues.

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.

Not just Anglos: Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Hong Kong, all have at least pockets of insane property prices.

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

#66

Post by jacobolus »

swimfar wrote: post #57
mateo411 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that rents in SF are down. Housing prices are up. Anecdotally, almost everybody that I know that rents in the City has moved, because they were able to get a better deal.

I don't know about SF, but in the South Bay, house prices may be up, but condo prices are the lowest they've been in years. And that is despite record low interest rates.

This is a pandemic-specific phenomenon. I would expect it to return toward the previous price relationship over the next few years.

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

#67

Post by rasz »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #52
riazrizvi wrote: post #2

The systemic problem is that investors are buying up residential property inventory, because there is a massive amount of near 0% cash available to a thin slice of the population. So even though there are as many people as there were roughly a year ago, there are far fewer homes. Hence purchase prices are rocketing up and rental prices are drifting down. There is no strong political will to solve this problem, becaus…

Nah, in San Francisco, you have to be a landlord three decades ago to be able to do this, you can't break even on a rental building or condo today.

Why rent at all, you buy properties to safely park your cash.

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

#68

Post by neffy »

ska wrote: post #56
thanhhaimai wrote: post #31

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…

You forgot that the rent is increasing with inflation, but the mortgage is not.

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

#69

Post by figers »

ska wrote: post #56
thanhhaimai wrote: post #31

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…

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...

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

#70

Post by neltnerb »

thanhhaimai wrote: post #31
bcrosby95 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less of a problem because you can opt out of buying a home by renting. This is what happened back in the 00s and I know a lot of people that rented to opt out of the purchase market. Speaking personally, I rented a 3 bedroom home in Los Gatos for $2k/month, which was "valued" at around $1 million. The difference this time is its on top of huge increases in home prices and rents. So I think you wouldn't see that…

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?

Post reply on HN