 |
bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
|
|
SPONSORED LINKS
Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com
YOUR AD HERE
|
|
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the
associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed
or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information
provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed.
As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against
multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed
belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sarum80
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 15
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paulie
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:58 am GMT Post subject: Re: A home is not a good investment |
 |
|
| Sarum80 wrote: | This was a very interesting read in the online WSJ today (3-12-07)
s_us_inside_today |
That's a pay site. No one is going to subscribe just to read one article.
Summarize if you have a point you want to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sarum80
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:43 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Ahhh... No trial option??
I'll work on a summary tonight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sarum80
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 15
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:58 am GMT Post subject: Wall Street journal |
|
|
Here is an excerpt from the article:
"And for the ants, economic studies have demonstrated over and over that houses (1) cost more than most people make when they sell and (2) rarely match the long-term returns of stocks or other investments."
Now maybe I am being a bit cynical, but would it be possible for the "Wall Street Journal" to come to a conclusion that real estate is a better bet than stocks? I am *shocked* that the WSJ would print such an article, just when people are beginning to wonder if the "long-term returns" of the stock market are going to be in the mid-single-digits going forward. My my...
Where does one go for unbiased advice nowadays? On one hand you have the David Lereahs, on the other hand you have Wall Street shills, it seems like one needs to adopt a very cynical outlook in order to make sense of any of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:27 am GMT Post subject: Re: Wall Street journal |
|
|
| guest wrote: | Here is an excerpt from the article:
"And for the ants, economic studies have demonstrated over and over that houses (1) cost more than most people make when they sell and (2) rarely match the long-term returns of stocks or other investments."
Now maybe I am being a bit cynical, but would it be possible for the "Wall Street Journal" to come to a conclusion that real estate is a better bet than stocks? I am *shocked* that the WSJ would print such an article, just when people are beginning to wonder if the "long-term returns" of the stock market are going to be in the mid-single-digits going forward. My my...
Where does one go for unbiased advice nowadays? On one hand you have the David Lereahs, on the other hand you have Wall Street shills, it seems like one needs to adopt a very cynical outlook in order to make sense of any of it. |
If you combine what the real estate touts say about stocks with what the stock touts say about real estate you'll get a pretty realistic picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCK
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 559
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:15 pm GMT Post subject: Re: Wall Street journal |
|
|
| guest wrote: | Here is an excerpt from the article:
"And for the ants, economic studies have demonstrated over and over that houses (1) cost more than most people make when they sell and (2) rarely match the long-term returns of stocks or other investments."
Now maybe I am being a bit cynical, but would it be possible for the "Wall Street Journal" to come to a conclusion that real estate is a better bet than stocks? I am *shocked* that the WSJ would print such an article, just when people are beginning to wonder if the "long-term returns" of the stock market are going to be in the mid-single-digits going forward. My my...
Where does one go for unbiased advice nowadays? On one hand you have the David Lereahs, on the other hand you have Wall Street shills, it seems like one needs to adopt a very cynical outlook in order to make sense of any of it. |
A house doesn't have to be a good investment; it just has to beat renting. Using the stock market as a baseline is crazy.
If you lose money on your house, factoring in all of the costs, it doesn't mean your decision to buy was a bad one. All you have to show is that renting over that same time period would have cost you more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
samchady
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:13 pm GMT Post subject: article |
|
|
The thing I took away from the article is that you should not buy a bigger house to get a bigger investment, you should buy what you need. You are right, the math just has to beat renting to work out. People though think that real estate is a good investment, and historically it has returned less than the stock market.
Of course, if you are risk averse like me, then renting wins because the risk of ruin is removed. I am still looking to buy, but just need the price to work out and be in the right area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
