Display:
The Rule of Thumb: look at the monthly costs of purchase and rent of equivalent properties.  These should be roughly in line.  If not then something is out-of-whack.
by ATinNM on Wed Mar 21st, 2007 at 11:47:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We'd have to pay about 50% more for a mortgage than what we pay in rent where we live.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 21st, 2007 at 12:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Holy Fiscal Insanity, Batman.

Neighbors toot a lot coke, eh?

by ATinNM on Wed Mar 21st, 2007 at 03:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We'd have to pay like 2-3 (or more) times as much where we live.
by R343L (reverse qw/ten.cinos@l343r/) on Wed Mar 21st, 2007 at 08:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that even worth it?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 04:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I don't think so.
by R343L (reverse qw/ten.cinos@l343r/) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 03:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's just too simplistic (though it's how I have always looked at speculative real estate and hence have never bought any!)

Rents dont seem to cover the cost of ownership in places like California where there has been steady population growth pressure.  And I suspect rents way over compensate in places like Detroit where you have trouble finding a buyer.  In growth markets there always seems to be pressure to get in before it goes up leading to rents being below costs.

by HiD on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 06:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series