Live data from Hacker News

Asking rents in San Francisco continue to slip, but…

socketsite.com

81–90 of 131 posts

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

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Escrow for property tax is (usually) _optional_ on a mortgage. I don't have escrow on mine because I heard horror stories from coworkers about payments getting screwed up when the mortgage was resold.

From the lender point of view, property tax escrow is slightly less risky than leaving it up to the borrower.

If you work with a mortgage broker and get quotes, ask for the rates with and without escrow. It’s pretty common that there is a slight reduction in rate if you include escrow.

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

#82
post #68
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 forgot that the rent is increasing with inflation, but the mortgage is not.

Yes but wages are too , so you keep the delta. And the mortgage payment goes up with interest rates. Which aren’t exactly independent events.

It’s not perfect but it’s reasonable. It may free up some other money in the house case , which you could use to make up some of the difference. Or that might get eaten by rates.

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

#83
post #72
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 forgot to include tax on your investment, which in California I hear might be around 30% at the top income bracket.

Cap gains in both cases but treated differently depending where you live .... as I said ymmv

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

#84
post #4

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…

Is it better to buy a home for investment than it is to buy stocks?

Nine times out of ten, I'd say stocks for the long run. But I think at today's mortgage rates, it's pretty compelling. Let me just run through a toy example.

Say, you're buying a $500 thousand property with 20% down at a 3% mortgage rate. You're paying $1500 a month on your mortgage, and generously round it up to $2500 for taxes, insurance, HOA, and maintenance. There are very few places in America, where a half million dollar property would rent for less than $2000/month. Let's generously round that down to $1500/month for vacancies, turnover, evictions, etc. (And if it's your primary residence, you still "collect rent" by avoiding the expenditure of renting from someone else).

On the face of it, this seems like a terrible deal. Cashflow wise, you're losing $12 thousand a year. However take a closer look at that mortgage payment. Starting from day one, $10k/year is going to principal pay down, which directly increases home equity. Another tailwind: price appreciation. Historically real estate tends to increase at the rate of inflation (currently forecast at 2.3% in the TIPs market). That's another $11.5k/year in home equity appreciation. (This assumes a base case, zero appreciation above inflation. It doesn't even scratch the surface of our current housing shortage and the fact that houses have been appreciating 2-3% above inflation.)

In terms of accounting profits, you're actually making $9.5k/year. It's true you're flushing cash down the toilet, but you're building up home equity to counter it. Then in 5-10 years, you get your money out by either flipping for a big profit, or doing a cash-out refi.

The ROE on that $80,000 down payment is 11.9% annualized. Historically the stock market has averaged 8-10%. And today's CAPE ratios are near historical highs, which would suggest lower long-term returns. This doesn't even get into the tax advantages on the real estate.

All in all, real estate looks pretty compelling from an investment standpoint today. Now, I'm normally an efficient markets guy, so I don't say this lightly. But I believe the major driver is the lopsided nature of the cashflow vs. equity division of real estate returns in a near zero rate environment.

The vast majority of real estate investors think in pure cash flow terms. The idea of buying a negative cash flow property seems ludicrous. So, right now I think the market's leaving a ton of attractive real estate investments underpriced.

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

#85

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

I thought NJ was bad! I pay $18k a year for a 1.1 million house (assessed at $950k though). Sending three kids to public school though so I make out and then I’m outta here!

In fairness Texas property taxes are high because there is no state income tax.

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

#86
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…

>Historically house appreciation is about the same as inflation

If that's your investing thesis then obviously the expensive coastal metros make no sense. These prices reflect a history of excellent returns. It costs a lot more to own than to rent - people are paying to be landlords! Clearly they're doing this in the expectation that appreciation will make up for their losses.

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

#87
post #69
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…

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 course past doesn’t imply the future will be the same , but I used long run averages for both stock market and housing market , so it’s fair .

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

#88

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.

That's not really true. I've had mortgages for most of my adult life and have never paid property tax escrow. Most lenders only require it if you put little down. Not to mention there are some popular tax strategies (e.g. pay taxes for two years in a single calendar year, then nothing for the next year) that make paying escrow a bad idea.

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

#89
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…

>Historically house appreciation is about the same as inflation If that's your investing thesis then obviously the expensive coastal metros make no sense. These prices reflect a history of excellent returns. It costs a lot more to own than to rent - people are paying to be landlords! Clearly they're doing this in the expectation that appreciation will make up for their losses.

That’s just the historical data.

Look obviously the details matter - we can cherry pick cases in either direction that “won” or “lose”.

The point is more that the sentiment in OP is common but wrong, it’s not obvious. One thing I didn’t get into is US specific but often it’s the mortgage tax credit that makes it worthwhile but again, it depends ....

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

#90
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even still, landlords fear legal repercussions so much that they're willing to let a lot slide. When I moved out of my SF apartment, a plant I had had damaged the floor and my landlord was willing to eat the cost provided we moved out swiftly. Replacing the floors probably set him back a couple grand, but evicting tenants could be far more expensive.

From what I've seen of SF rentals and landlords, that's potentially the most money he had spent on maintenance & renovations in a decade, while collecting some of the most profitable rent in the country.

With a price to rent ratio of 53, San Francisco has the least profitable rent in the country.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-50-large...

Post reply on HN