The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

BTW the calculation on whether it makes more financial sense to rent vs. buying is easy to make.

The "break even point" even absent appreciation is generally 4 to 8 years depending on rent and upkeep costs.

Almost anyone staying in their "domicile" more than 10 years will find it cheaper to own than to rent.
 
messy said:
Poor guy must have tried buying a house once and got “throwed out” by the dastardly bankers! So ever since he thinks the bank owns people’s houses. How’s that dust bowl era treating you, Iz? Not so great, huh?
Click to expand...
If you buy the standard 20% in equity at closing, its hard to get “throwed out” if youʻre making payments according to your amortization schedule.
 
Friesland said:
You're an idiot. I've been executor on estates. One does not list the "domicile" as a bank asset. I've had to sue folks who have used bankruptcy protection. The court does not require the bankrupt protected party to list "domicile" as a "bank asset."

There is "asset" - the "domicile."
And "Liability" - any mortgage/HELOC or other note secured by the "domicile."

But then again, you think the Fed owns a printing press, so, not surprising you don't understand how that works, shoeless lederhosen boi.
Click to expand...
The executor doesnʻt determine what an asset is. That is already done by those that designated you as an executor. Kek
 
messy said:
Ya know, home ownership isn’t for everyone. You seem not to like the deal that’s offered by banks (I.e. secured mortgages) as being too good for the bank and, I guess by extension, not good enough for you. So you should avoid it.
Click to expand...
Actually I do consider my liability to have unrealized value. You just call it an asset with value. Whatever works for you works even better for the bank. In case you havenʻt noticed.
 
Friesland said:
BTW the calculation on whether it makes more financial sense to rent vs. buying is easy to make.

The "break even point" even absent appreciation is generally 4 to 8 years depending on rent and upkeep costs.

Almost anyone staying in their "domicile" more than 10 years will find it cheaper to own than to rent.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he will understand that. He’s too fixated on the bank’s good deal. LOL.
 
messy said:
Whatever that means.
Click to expand...
1. It means that homes that you bought in the past would have had the same value whether you called them a liability or an asset. 2. A rental ,a.k.a an asset, might net you some monthly income too, prior to the sale. 3. A non-rental has unrealized value.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
1. It means that homes that you bought in the past would have had the same value whether you called them a liability or an asset. 2. A rental ,a.k.a an asset, might net you some monthly income too, prior to the sale. 3. A non-rental has unrealized value.
Click to expand...
1. So true! For that matter, whether you called them a chair or a table! They just happen to be assets. Valuable ones.
 
messy said:
I don’t think he will understand that. He’s too fixated on the bank’s good deal. LOL.
Click to expand...
You're paying the bank according to an amortization schedule so you don't have to pay rent. A savings you say? Not if the landlord is trying to net some income.
 
messy said:
1. So true! For that matter, whether you called them a chair or a table! They just happen to be assets. Valuable ones.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you had paid attention, either a chair and a chair or a table and a table. Like comparisons are always more accurate although they typically aren't financed unless they're made of gold, silver, platinum, or ivory or copper for that matter. And they don't have to be assets to be valuable. Right?
 
Bruddah IZ said:
I don't think Fries understood his point. So you know what that means.
Click to expand...
Actually he did. He simply compared the relative economic benefits of home ownership vs rental.
He did not include any values to the mortgage lender or the landlord, therefore you could not comprehend the comparison. As I had stated would be the case.

Let me ask you a question. If the bank were to sell my mortgage today and I were to sell my house, who would get more money, me or the bank? You know the assumptions.
Would the seller who gets more money in exchange have the more valuable asset?
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Actually, if you had paid attention, either a chair and a chair or a table and a table. Like comparisons are always more accurate although they typically aren't financed unless they're made of gold, silver, platinum, or ivory or copper for that matter. And they don't have to be assets to be valuable. Right?
Click to expand...
You’re losing the plot here. Speak English. “Like comparisons...aren’t financed...” What?
 
messy said:
Actually he did. He simply compared the relative economic benefits of home ownership vs rental.
He did not include any values to the mortgage lender or the landlord, therefore you could not comprehend the comparison. As I had stated would be the case.

Let me ask you a question. If the bank were to sell my mortgage today and I were to sell my house, who would get more money, me or the bank? You know the assumptions.
Would the seller who gets more money in exchange have the more valuable asset?
Click to expand...
Over the last 20 years you have given a bank 860k. More than you borrowed. That doesnʻt include your 20% downpayment or the home insurace, property tax, hoa, mello roos, etc. that you pay to other than the bank. They, doesnʻt matter which bank, immediately lent out your down payment and monthly payments for the last 20 years because your dollars were more valuable 20 years ago then they are today. The lender easily makes more than you over 20 years. But youʻre happy with what you make and that is all that matters.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Over the last 20 years you have given a bank 860k. More than you borrowed. That doesnʻt include your 20% downpayment or the home insurace, property tax, hoa, mello roos, etc. that you pay to other than the bank. They, doesnʻt matter which bank, immediately lent out your down payment and monthly payments for the last 20 years because your dollars were more valuable 20 years ago then they are today. The lender easily makes more than you over 20 years. But youʻre happy with what you make and that is all that matters.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, sailor. The bank didn’t get my down payment, did you not know that? They loaned 80% of the money for the purchase and the seller received 100%. Am I really having to explain this to you? You think the bank received the down payment to loan out???!!! And you can’t answer the question of whether the bank (which still owns my mortgage, by the way) or I currently have a more valuable asset to sell? Losing the plot, economical jenious.
 
messy said:
Wrong again, sailor. The bank didn’t get my down payment, did you not know that? They loaned 80% of the money for the purchase and the seller received 100%. Am I really having to explain this to you? You think the bank received the down payment to loan out???!!! And you can’t answer the question of whether the bank (which still owns my mortgage, by the way) or I currently have a more valuable asset to sell? Losing the plot, economical jenious.
Click to expand...
So you gave the 20% to other than the bank? I'm sure the bank was happy to have you pay PMI if that's the case. Or did espola negotiate a better deal amongst numerous options for you. Or maybe spigot boy gave you the Fed Funds rate after espola annualized an already annualized rate? The bank has been lending out your money for the last 20 years. Their asset has been consistently more valuable for 20 years thanks to your monthly interest payments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top