Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,522   Posts: 1,572,251   Online: 768
      
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3789101112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 143
  1. #121
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post

    I don't know about your country, here... I'll just use my house as an example, the 2 family I have, in a dilapidated neighborhood, (which means the rental prices are actually good for renters and bad for landlords) my house mortgage per month is $2,300 on a 30 year mortgage, that includes taxes and insurance cost. .. the downstairs rent is $1,000 and the upstairs rent is $1,600 which yields $2,600 - $2,300 = $300 profit per month = $3,600 per year - $2,000 average maintenance = $1,600 net profit... this covers the home cost and then a little extra. 20 years from now that will sell for at LEAST $500,000 if not more and I've only invested $5,000 total to buy, fix up, refinance, and rent.
    Sorry to continue the OT.

    I think the house market you live in is deeply distorted by some economic factors, which is probably law. It's not a normal market.

    You say that it is somehow natural that rent costs more than mortgage (we assume no down payment) because the rented house is usually bought on a mortgage and the owner uses the rent to pay the mortgage. This is, again, the result of a deeply distorted market.

    In a normal market, "rent" is the interest you pay on the capital you borrow (the house), while "mortgage" is the interest you pay on the capital you borrow (which you use to pay the house) PLUS restitution of the capital. In economic terms rent cannot be higher than mortgage unless there are factors which distort the normal behaviour of rational capital allocators.

    If you take your mortgage "plan" you see that for each instalment there are two parts: the quota capitale and the quota interessi, they correspond to the share of borrowed capital you are giving back with that instalment, and the interest on the residual capital you borrowed (initial capital minus the capital you gave back with previous mortgage instalment).

    If it were possible to buy a house with a mortgage and rent it for a sum equal to the mortgage instalment I would have no hesitation in doing it several times as this means that somebody (either the person renting or the bank lending) is giving me a house for free. Again in a normal market there is no free lunch and no free house.

    I know this was possible in the US before the crisis but this was the result of distorting factors which were unique to the US market (maybe something similar happened in the Spanish market).

    The idea that houses inevitably rise in value in the long run is at the origin of the last US house bubble and, like any idea behind any bubble, it is more based on wishful thinking and greed than sound economic theory and inevitably bursts leaving somebody with a hard lesson (and somebody else rich, naturally).
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #122
    georg16nik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    770
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Sorry to continue the OT.

    I think the house market you live in is deeply distorted by some economic factors, which is probably law. It's not a normal market. ..
    Amen brother, its not only the house market in US, its Leica that is distorted, completely and irreversibly
    Regards,
    Georg

  3. #123
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,072
    Images
    1
    The simple fact is, as originally stated, if one can afford a reasonable down payment and can qualify for a market rate 30 year fixed rate mortgage, then the mortgage payments on a single family detached house will be lower than what one would expect to pay to rent the exact same home. Case in point: my own home, a modest three bedroom, two baths 1500 square feet. Monthly mortgage payment is around $1500 (principal, interest property taxes). Were I to rent this house, I could easily rent it for $3000 per month...maybe more. The market here is such that I could also sell the house for more than double what I paid fifteen years ago.

  4. #124
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    The simple fact is, as originally stated, if one can afford a reasonable down payment and can qualify for a market rate 30 year fixed rate mortgage, then the mortgage payments on a single family detached house will be lower than what one would expect to pay to rent the exact same home. Case in point: my own home, a modest three bedroom, two baths 1500 square feet. Monthly mortgage payment is around $1500 (principal, interest property taxes). Were I to rent this house, I could easily rent it for $3000 per month...maybe more. The market here is such that I could also sell the house for more than double what I paid fifteen years ago.
    If that's the situation I don't understand what prevents you from renting your house for $3000/month and buy on mortgage another house for $1500/month.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  5. #125
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,072
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    If that's the situation I don't understand what prevents you from renting your house for $3000/month and buy on mortgage another house for $1500/month.
    simple...
    1) all of this is conditional upon having a reasonably large down payment
    2) although 10% is an entirely reasonable down payment for one's primary residence, 35% is more likely considered the minimum required for the down payment on a rental property
    3) I do not have a reasonable down payment for a rental property that I would consider living in (there is a subtlety here which is attributable to the California property tax code - the details of which I will spare you at this time).


    You have observed that the housing market is distorted. It is true. There are significant tax advantages pertaining to interest paid on the mortgage for the home you live in...However, that is not generally the case for the house you rent to another.
    Last edited by BradS; 01-07-2013 at 05:42 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: make thoughts a little more concise.

  6. #126
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,956
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    We've already lost Kodachrome, infra red and high speed colour negative films, and are reliant on a single manufacturer for transparency material.
    800 ISO CN film is still manufactured and available rebranded in types 135 and 127. (I know there once was even much faster film...)

    E-6 films are still made by two manufacturers. All available to consumers.

  7. #127
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,747
    Images
    225

    Is the Leica an "Investment?"

    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    800 ISO CN film is still manufactured and available rebranded in types 135 and 127. (I know there once was even much faster film...)

    E-6 films are still made by two manufacturers. All available to consumers.
    Question 1, who sells the 127

    Question 2, who sells E-6 besides Fuji?

    Links to shops with good pricing would be ideal if you don't mind sharing.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #128

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Question 1, who sells the 127

    Question 2, who sells E-6 besides Fuji?

    Links to shops with good pricing would be ideal if you don't mind sharing.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rollei Nightbird 800iso CN film is available in 127.

    Rollei also has Crossbird and Digibase E-6 film.

    All available from Freestyle Photo.

  9. #129
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,956
    That Nightbird in both formats has of course to be twisted and re-spooled for normal use. But still bettter than no such film at all.

  10. #130

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    That Nightbird in both formats has of course to be twisted and re-spooled for normal use. But still bettter than no such film at all.
    Not exactly over the counter consumer product then? The point I'm making, and this is no shrill doom-mongering as I'm an enthusiastic film user, is product lines are diminishing year on year and there is no commercial technological film research currently. I'm sure there were Leica users who used, say, Kodachrome exclusively and are no longer able to do so. What if Tri-X disappeared, what if Leica users were reliant on 200 ISO colour negative stock, or far-eastern 100 ISO monochrome? Would Leica investment values hold up at that point? It's hard to say, as even an ancient Leica 1 can theoretically shoot film currently but if they became purely museum objects..?

    Some hitherto mainstream film lines are becoming quirky, cult purchases provided by monopolies to maintain or drop at will. That's the reality against which historic camera investment takes place.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin