43% of home purchases are all cash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't understand why people are bragging about paying off their homes. That is one of the least advantageous ways to invest your money.

Having a paid for house with enough land to feed ones family is a lesson learned by my family during the 1930's. YMMV. Not every decision should be based on maximizing ones investment potential.

There's investment potential and diversification. If all or most of your savings is in your house, you are very vulnerable to the next real estate crash.

Or you live in a house that is underwater.

You can't be underwater in a house that's paid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't understand why people are bragging about paying off their homes. That is one of the least advantageous ways to invest your money.

Having a paid for house with enough land to feed ones family is a lesson learned by my family during the 1930's. YMMV. Not every decision should be based on maximizing ones investment potential.

There's investment potential and diversification. If all or most of your savings is in your house, you are very vulnerable to the next real estate crash.

Or you live in a house that is underwater.

You can't be underwater in a house that's paid off.

that's not what I meant. The PP said that having a house paid off would make them vulnerable during the next real estate crash. I would think having a house loan that is underwater would be worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't understand why people are bragging about paying off their homes. That is one of the least advantageous ways to invest your money.

Having a paid for house with enough land to feed ones family is a lesson learned by my family during the 1930's. YMMV. Not every decision should be based on maximizing ones investment potential.

There's investment potential and diversification. If all or most of your savings is in your house, you are very vulnerable to the next real estate crash.

Or you live in a house that is underwater.

You can't be underwater in a house that's paid off.

that's not what I meant. The PP said that having a house paid off would make them vulnerable during the next real estate crash. I would think having a house loan that is underwater would be worse.

with cash parked elsewhere? I doubt it

[Anonymous]

It's important to save pre-kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's important to save pre-kids.

No shit, Sherlock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't understand why people are bragging about paying off their homes. That is one of the least advantageous ways to invest your money.

Having a paid for house with enough land to feed ones family is a lesson learned by my family during the 1930's. YMMV. Not every decision should be based on maximizing ones investment potential.

There's investment potential and diversification. If all or most of your savings is in your house, you are very vulnerable to the next real estate crash.

Or you live in a house that is underwater.

You can't be underwater in a house that's paid off.

that's not what I meant. The PP said that having a house paid off would make them vulnerable during the next real estate crash. I would think having a house loan that is underwater would be worse.

Hardly. That's the point of using other people's money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's important to save pre-kids.

Plus, it's easy to save pre-kids. It won't be as easy on a $180K income once you have two kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone bother to read the article long enough to get to the part that the average cash buyer is paying slightly more than $200,000 for a home. That's about the same as putting 20 percent down on a $1 million home, not very different from what most people here do.

I found this key. Not many $200K homes in this area to be had.

[Anonymous]

NP and I am annoyed by all of you riding the 60% down poster. Good for them! And the poster doesn't seem if at all- rather, you guys come off as bitter. They have been smart in their choices, including holding off on having kids because that worked for them. Just because your life experiences have been different does't mean what that poster says is invalid.

The poster seems well aware of the costs of children, and based on their prior decisions, has lots of financially comfortable options when they choose to have kids.

Seriously, you all are a bitter, bitter bunch.

[Anonymous]

PP again...

Should read that the 60% down poster "doesn't seem smug at all, rather you guys seem bitter."

[Anonymous]

My parents paid cash for all of their homes, and Dad built a few of them himself.

We, however, are not in that category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only first time homebuyers put down just 20%!

On our second home we put down 60%. It's easy. Live your life on one income and save the other's income.

Yes, this is not smug. Only you silly first time homebuyers do thhhaaatttt....
It's eeeeaassssyyy to save 60%.... Just have the breaks we did (ie don't buy after the bubble nor have crippling student loan debt).

No, not smug or judgemental at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only first time homebuyers put down just 20%!

On our second home we put down 60%. It's easy. Live your life on one income and save the other's income.

Do you live in the DC metro? Or are you married to a law partner? or you are are old. B/c with daycare running $3k/month for two kids, mortgage for a basic starter home at $3k/month, you have to clear $200k to 'save the other's income'.

No. We make HHI 180k. We aren't Asian (although I do agree they are good savers). We don't have children yet, but considering our mortgage is only $1500 on our 700k house, it won't be such a struggle with daycare. We lived on one income since we got jobs and saved 60k a year. We still take great overseas vacations and don't feel pinched at all.

Come back when you have kids. You are really fortunate and I say congratulations, but you come across as smug. Not everyone makes as much as you nor have they been as fortunate.

Not smug one bit. Not even that proud about it. But I'm sick of everyone saying they can't do it. We haven't always made this much either.

Than how did you save $60k/year for at least 7 years to get your $400k downpayment?? That requires about $100k additional pre-tax salary, so where did savings come from? Any outside help or lucky investments (ie you bought before the last bubble?)

It was our second home... We did make money on the sale of 1st home, but we also put a lot of equity into it. We had a high mortgage.

You're speaking so far out of your ass at this point that you should really refrain from giving household savings tips to others. I say this as someone who shares your sentiment: too many people say it's too hard, too much of the time. That said, you've materially misrepresented your situation and left off -- and, here, as elsewhere I'll constrain myself to speaking from experience -- one major component of savings/consumption: children.

I'll break it down for you. In DC, daycare will run about 2k per month for the first 3 years (that's an average). It will decline by a few hundred dollars in subsequent years. **(See below.)

Once your child reaches school-age, you'll quickly realized that school hours are short, much shorter than working hours. So you'll need some care around the ends of the day. And in the summer. You'll either be looking at an au pair or some other arrangement costing about the same.

Next, with your income, you'll likely be hit by the AMT. That hurts. Factor in about 5k in additional taxes.

Finally, the child will really squeeze your day. Effectively, career-advancement is on-hold for a few years. This is the trade-off you should be cognizant of going-in, and acknowledge that you're fortunate enough to be in such a position. But, this does limit your income gains for at least a few years.

Oh, and start saving for college. But, honestly, on 180k, this will be tough. You're in the exact wrong spot for college: high enough income to not qualify for financial aid, but not high enough that you can comfortably swing the cost out-of-pocket. Yeah, this will suck, so start planning ahead now.

Signed,
Parent of 2, HHI @300k, mortgage around 900k.

**Yes, you can find cheaper daycare options. But, extrapolating from your HHI, you'll probably find the cheaper options not to your liking. A family daycare may be fine for most people (and I personally believe it is in no ways inferior), but you'll probably elect to go a more corporate route. Probably located nearer to your employment.

This sounds about right... The upper middle class folks are really getting squeezed. We have on one to blame but the baby boomers. The next decade will be interesting for the nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total housing bubble, led by investors this time and hot money fleeing QEs low rates. Definitely *different* than last credit bubble, much more similar to the tech bubble, which was also investor led.

Did you read the latest from the fed? They are concerned that values aren't going up fast enough.

Yes, because the Fed is trying to inflate our way out of the housing bubble. They want values to go up, and then have it push wages and overall inflation.

We are actually on the precipice of another depression, that's why the Fed is being so aggressive. They have succeeded to push up housing prices, but they have to exceed the past peak to stoke inflation like they want to.

^^This is what I see happening too. Japan is a learning lesson; let's hope it doesn't happen here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total housing bubble, led by investors this time and hot money fleeing QEs low rates. Definitely *different* than last credit bubble, much more similar to the tech bubble, which was also investor led.

Did you read the latest from the fed? They are concerned that values aren't going up fast enough.

Yes, because the Fed is trying to inflate our way out of the housing bubble. They want values to go up, and then have it push wages and overall inflation.

We are actually on the precipice of another depression, that's why the Fed is being so aggressive. They have succeeded to push up housing prices, but they have to exceed the past peak to stoke inflation like they want to.

^^This is what I see happening too. Japan is a learning lesson; let's hope it doesn't happen here.

Sadly, we are Japan except we are not civic minded and don't help our fellow man. Will be an awful couple of decades I'm afraid.

But your house prices will probably remain high in nominal dollars!