|
Weinertron posted:The rule of thumb I used to hear for buying a house possibly making sense was 7 years, has this changed because of how low mortgage rates are right now?annoying. Lower interest rates let you get into more house if you so choose. For example the common rule of thumb was 3x gross, but with rates below 4% you can go 4-5x. You do pay more principal off faster with lower rates as well. I still think it is at least five year break even because you need appreciation to offset the cartel fees (~6%). If you sell you want the money you paid towards the principal back on top of your original down payment. The whole making sense thing (vs renting) boils down to appreciation, which you can't predict. Ask anyone who bought their first house in 2006 how the five year break even thing is working out on their "investment."
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
slap me silly posted:Everything everybody tells you is bullshit and rules of thumb are useless. You just have to run the numbers for your own situation. The hard part is knowing what your house will be worth in the future, because that depends on the area and on other stuff like the Fates. There's a low likelihood of coming out ahead in the shorter term (3-7 years) because of the high transaction costs when you buy and sell. And of course there are non-financial considerations like how you feel about owning a house and how much you like the flexibility of renting. This. If my condo value hadn't dropped ~19k in the last 2.5 years I'd have been ahead after 3 years, but it did so gently caress me, do never buy. Now that I'm refinanced to 15 years at 3% I need to stay for about 3 more years to break even assuming my value stays put.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:The rule of thumb I used to hear for buying a house possibly making sense was 7 years, has this changed because of how low mortgage rates are right now? Rates are down, but transaction costs are not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Realjones posted:The whole making sense thing (vs renting) boils down to appreciation, which you can't predict. Ask anyone who bought their first house in 2006 how the five year break even thing is working out on their "investment." I know I'm probably getting a reputation as a nitpicker, but a house does not 'appreciate' in any real sense of the word. I think it's just as big of a mistake to call a house an "investment" as it is to say that houses "appreciate." Housing prices in general (can) go up for a variety of reasons - mostly to do with inflation, population increases (demand) and of course, the inherent value of a given location. The house itself depreciates - in every sense of the word - over a given period of time. Unless you're actively making improvements, your house gets worse every day, not better. You might be able to sell it for more, but that's not appreciation. That's speculation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
tiananman posted:I know I'm probably getting a reputation as a nitpicker, but a house does not 'appreciate' in any real sense of the word. I think it's just as big of a mistake to call a house an "investment" as it is to say that houses "appreciate." Buy house for $, sell house for $++. Regardless of the actual mechanisms that cause it, how is this not an investment? (This is a sincere question, as I have no idea what I'm talking about.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
caiman posted:Cool. Another FHA question: how long will I have to pay PMI? Does it cease once I've paid a certain percentage of the principal? Will I just one day look at my mortgage bill and see a lower amount due? One thing to note is that with FHA you're required to pay PMI for 5 years regardless of your LtV ratio, and the LtV is 78% to remove PMI not 80% as it traditionally is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
caiman posted:Buy house for $, sell house for $++. Regardless of the actual mechanisms that cause it, how is this not an investment? (This is a sincere question, as I have no idea what I'm talking about.) Well, I've gone through this before (so I apologize for the redundancy) but I think that most people use the word "investment" waayyy to liberally. Basically, people attribute the idea of investing to something that they want, whether it's a nice new house or a pair of new shoes. Buying new shoes is an investment in their future because they need to look good to feel good, etc. Buying a new house is an investment because you'll be able to sell it for more money down the road, maybe. In the world of finance though the actual (and I admit, strictest) definition of an investment is a business (or other venture) which returns capital to you in the form of regular cash payments. So, a dividend paying stock is an investment. You buy it once, it pays you cash every quarter. You're not even thinking about flipping your dividend paying stock if it doubles or triples in price, because the price of the investment at any given moment is secondary to the cash flow that it throws off. A bond is an investment. You buy it at face value, and collect the coupon (cash) payments for the term of the bond, and then get your principle back at the end. On the other hand, if you think that some biotech penny stock is on the verge of getting Phase 2 approval - buying it now to sell it more for later is a speculation. You're not buying it to receive a regular cash payment, you're buying it because you suspect that there's some catalyst coming up that will spike the price. Similarly, buying a house now, because you suspect that you'll be able to sell it for more later is a speculation on housing prices. Houses do not yield cash. They don't pay a dividend. They don't sell or produce anything - and in fact, they actually depreciate. Now, it might seem like I'm attributing negative connotations to speculating and positive connotations to investing - but I'm not. I think both speculation and investing have a place in your financial planning. But successful 'investors' tend to invest most of their money - in safe, reliable and cash producing assets and businesses. They might hope to get 4-6% per year from their investments. And then with the small portion of their portfolio, they shoot for the moon on speculations. Speculations are risky, because there's no guaranteed return - or even any implicit return. It's a coin toss - and ideally it should have a big impact on your portfolio if it goes your way - and obviously a small impact if it doesn't. The problem is, most people want to speculate with the large portion of their net worth - by buying a house because they think prices will go up 10% a year. The problem is, they're not getting much return for their risk. Their upside is small, their downside is huge - and their house is costing them shitloads of money along the way. Whereas an investment is revenue positive. Its payouts are small, but so are the risks. I know this distinction is very specific and lots of people don't get it, because they think that anything you might buy (whether it produces cash or not) is some form of "speculation." But that's because they're conflating the standard definition with this specific financial definition. If you start to think about your purchases in this strict kind of way, then you will never put your money into something for the wrong reason. You can still be wrong, but being wrong on a blue chip dividend payer is different than being wrong on Vegas real estate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
That technical distinction definitely makes sense. But I guess I don't agree that calling buying a house "an investment" is a mistake. At least not any more than calling the purchasing of risky stock "an investment" is. Sure, it's not guaranteed to make you money, but in the casual, vernacular sense of the term, buying a house is much more an investment than buying a pair of shoes or paying a landlord. While it's not guaranteed to make you money like bonds, it's quite possible that it will. That's why, in my mind, it seems perfectly accurate to say that buying a house is an investment and renting is not. EDIT: Maybe the correct term should be "potential investment." That still puts it above renting, which is a guaranteed non-investment. Spatulater bro! fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
caiman posted:EDIT: Maybe the correct term should be "potential investment." That still puts it above renting, which is a guaranteed non-investment. Except with renting you limit your downside. You pay a certain amount a month that you will never see again. With a purchase, you are (typically) leveraged by a factor of 5 plus transaction costs, so it's not improbable that you lose a shitload of money on TOP of having to pay a certain amount a month that you will never see again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
caiman posted:EDIT: Maybe the correct term should be "potential investment." That still puts it above renting, which is a guaranteed non-investment. A "potential investment" is a speculation. Maybe after all your taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, upkeep, renovations, and transaction costs you'll come out a little bit ahead. MAYBE, but ultimately you'll be lucky to break even if you truly factor everything in. If you really factor in everything, not many people come out with significant upside. And renting is really more of a hedge than anything. You limit your downside and your costs to your rent, there is no additional downside. Whereas the potential downside on a house is enormous - arguably much more than the potential upside. Buy a house as a home to be lived in and enjoyed, not as an investment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Even if you really want to call a house an investment, because you don't want to be limited by the strictest (and most useful) definition, then after looking at most house purchases, you'd have to call it a bad investment because most people don't make any money buying and selling houses. They don't. After inflation, you might hope to break even under the best of circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
The only reason I want to buy a condo is so I can actually decorate it and feel like I live there permanently. I'd never look at housing as an investment, that's insane. I'd love for it to hold its value or go up a little bit due to the labour I invested into it though. If I can buy a condo and in like 5-10 years sell it and, adjusting for inflation and taking into account my condo fees, break even then that's a huge win because it means I've just saved 5-10 years worth of rent. Heck so long as I come out about even with renting I'm happy because renting in most of north america is horrific.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If I can buy a condo and in like 5-10 years sell it and, adjusting for inflation and taking into account my condo fees, break even then that's a huge win because it means I've just saved 5-10 years worth of rent. Heck so long as I come out about even with renting I'm happy because renting in most of north america is horrific. I think that definition of break even is unlikely except in a bubble. Transaction costs are 3% of purchase price and 3% of sale price, annual maintenance is ~1% of current value, add in whatever % is on your mortgage, and inflation is on top of that. The condo fees may take care of some of the annual maintenance, but there are more that are your responsibility alone (appliances, walls-in fixes).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Yeah I probably won't come out ahead financially but at least when things are falling apart I'll be able to fix them my self and not feel like I'm investing in someone else's building or waiting around for the property management company to do it and then do it in the cheapest shittiest way possible then raise everyone's rents because everyone finally got new faucets then a year later get kicked out because they're converting to condos. Also every apartment building makes you schlep to a laundry room to pay outrageous money to have your clothes stolen or your wet laundry dumped onto the floor. Never do rent. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Engineer Lenk posted:Transaction costs are 3% of purchase price and 3% of sale price, They are typically higher than this. In the US, most people pay a 6% commission to the agents (buyer's and seller's split it) when they sell. That means the minimum transaction cost is 6%, but you pay a bunch of other fees and costs when you buy (loan origination fees, inspections, document fees, etc.) too. I suspect that typically in the US, someone who buys a house and then later sells it pays something like 9% of the sale price in transaction fees, total; some get by with less (especially if they sell it themselves and keep the seller's agent fee) and some pay a lot more (paying for points, staging, paying for a refinance at some point). You also didn't mention property taxes which are very significant. 1% to 2% a year is quite typical around here. A lot of people pay PMI. There's also insurance which can be very costly depending on location and whether you need a supplemental flood or earthquake policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
When looking to buy recently I ran the numbers in as much detail as I could to see the difference between renting and buying. Assuming rent would be a bit cheaper than an equivalent mortgage, factoring in the transaction fees, taxes, association fees, insurance, and lost interest on extra savings from renting... let's just say that people who give the 5-7 year range are really stretching the definition of "break even". For me, at a 20 year mortgage @ current rates with 20% down and property values stable or slightly rising, I could come out ahead/even in 7 years. Otherwise if you've got a higher rate, longer mortgage, or are paying PMI, you actually come out worse than if you were "throwing money away" renting + saving the excess. Of course, every area is different, maybe renting is somehow more expensive than a mortgage in some places, but everyone should really dig into their particular numbers beyond, "Wow, that mortgage payment seems so low!" And remember you're paying to fix everything yourself now, as well. Including the washing machine. Basically, we should all live in boxes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Rooster Brooster posted:And remember you're paying to fix everything yourself now, as well. Including the washing machine. Yeah. Mine is about to break...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Rooster Brooster posted:And remember you're paying to fix everything yourself now, as well. Including the washing machine. I rent an apartment and own my own washing machine / dryer, have I done something wrong?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Rooster Brooster posted:When looking to buy recently I ran the numbers in as much detail as I could to see the difference between renting and buying. Assuming rent would be a bit cheaper than an equivalent mortgage, factoring in the transaction fees, taxes, association fees, insurance, and lost interest on extra savings from renting... let's just say that people who give the 5-7 year range are really stretching the definition of "break even". Even there though, they're using 'break even' as compared to renting - which is how I usually see it written. Expecting to 'break even' as compared to paying no rent is a buy-in-2002 sell-in-2007 experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Rooster Brooster posted:
This is a plus, as you can own a washing machine that isn't the cheapest model that was on sale the last time your landlord had to buy one. I'm sure there are apartments around with top tier steam powered wonder laundry combinations, but I've never seen one. Most of the benefits of home ownership are like this, it's more quality of life than anything financial. sanchez fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
I'd like to chime in and say that even under the strict definition outlined above a house can still be an investment. Ours comes complete with an old man who pays $900/mo. It's a terrible, terrible investment, but an investment it is. I'd have to live to at least 90, with continuous renters, to have the apartment pay off just the principal and interest. Since I plan on living some place until I die, preferably in the house I'll have already lost a ton of money and mobility on, that doesn't really concern me much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Yeah you have to factor in quality when running the numbers. If after 7 years a condo is twice as much as an apartment then gently caress that. But if the prices are ever even close to comparable, buying will generally always be a better option as you'll have far more control over your home. You get the appliances you want, can move walls around, can even join the council and get rules changed. With renting it's usually the shittiest appliances and fixtures, you have to beg to get things fixed, you can't modify the interior, and there usually isn't in-suite laundry. I also sound like such a filthy capitalist, but people just don't seem to give a poo poo when it comes to things they don't own. Comparing apartment buildings to condo buildings the difference in just how clean things are can be stark. People don't piss in the elevators, trash the laundry room, or steal all the furniture from the lobby quite as often in a condo vs apartments. When your condo fees are directly paying for the upkeep of the building people tend to give a poo poo and treat everything better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
If the prices are even close to comparable, renting will generally always be a better option because it's far easier to move for work and you don't have to manage the maintenance. Point being, there are intangibles on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Yup. It's not strictly "quality of life" so much as it is "lifestyle." You can have a severe downgrade in quality of life by moving from renting to buying; or the same; or an upgrade. But you will experience some degree of change in lifestyle, and that is what you're buying (or should be buying) when you buy. For a lot of people, the home ownership lifestyle is not what they were expecting and in the long run not what they would have preferred.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Engineer Lenk posted:Even there though, they're using 'break even' as compared to renting - which is how I usually see it written. Expecting to 'break even' as compared to paying no rent is a buy-in-2002 sell-in-2007 experience. This is definitely how I define break even. When running the numbers I say X is the money flushed down the toilet per month by renting, Y is the money flushed down the toilet per month by buying. If Y > X, do never buy. If Y < X, then you have to determine how many months it will take to recoup fixed costs Z associated with buying, owning, and selling and that is your "break even."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
tiananman posted:Investing v. Speculation Eh, I don't think most people working in finance would agree with the way you've defined the 2 terms. Even under your definitions, there's a lot of wiggle-room to conflate the two. I'd consider investing in a junk bond speculative, and there're many high dividend stocks that I'd consider speculative as well. Not to mention tying "investing" to regular cash flows - that's a really odd way to portray it. Buying a house isn't inherently speculative. You could consider it (if you're more comfortable, REIT equivalents) to be part of a diversified portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yup. It's not strictly "quality of life" so much as it is "lifestyle." You can have a severe downgrade in quality of life by moving from renting to buying; or the same; or an upgrade. But you will experience some degree of change in lifestyle, and that is what you're buying (or should be buying) when you buy. Definitely this. I bought my house when I started Grad School, and there were three huge factors involved, I had bad experiences renting during undergrad and didn't want to deal with landlords, the mortgage/taxes/insurance payments per month on the house I bought are less than half the rent of a similar sized apartment, and I have family in the area (who also happen to be partners in a Real Estate Brokerage). I love owning, even with all of the headaches (lawn care, gutters, occasional repairs). This works in the city I'm in (smaller city in North Carolina) because of the way housing prices shake out vs. rentals. On a side note, what real estate agents call themselves varies from state to state. Here in North Carolina, everyone is a broker. There's a 75 hour prelicensing course and a bar exam to become a provisional broker. From there you have to take three 30 hour courses in three years to become a full broker. After two years as a full time broker you can take the broker-in-charge (BIC) course and qualify to handle an office/agency as well as escrow accounts. Unsurprisingly, most of the trouble agents around here run into is with comingling of funds (personal/brokerage/escrow). The Realtor designation only means that someone belongs to the Realtor Association (which drat near every agent does as they run most of the multiple listing services across the country to the best of my knowledge). It is not an official/government designation and the National Association of Realtors will come down hard on anyone using the designation that is not a member. Agent/Broker is technically the correct term depending on the state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
tiananman posted:I know I'm probably getting a reputation as a nitpicker, but a house does not 'appreciate' in any real sense of the word. I think it's just as big of a mistake to call a house an "investment" as it is to say that houses "appreciate." Appreciation is a general term used to describe the idea of selling a home for more than you purchased it for. Google "home appreciation" and you get 250 million results, so clearly I am not the first person to describe a housing transaction in such a way. A home may not be an investment in the purest sense of the word, but it is a huge factor in many American's net worth calculations and is in many ways a forced savings account...one in which you hope to get a "return" of at least the inflation rate. You're arguing meaningless semantics for no real reason other than for the sake of arguing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Realjones posted:Appreciation is a general term used to describe the idea of selling a home for more than you purchased it for. Google "home appreciation" and you get 250 million results, so clearly I am not the first person to describe a housing transaction in such a way. A home may not be an investment in the purest sense of the word, but it is a huge factor in many American's net worth calculations and is in many ways a forced savings account...one in which you hope to get a "return" of at least the inflation rate. Well, the fact that a bunch of rubes don't understand what appreciation actually means shouldn't mean anything if you're actually trying to figure out whether it makes sense to buy a house or not. If you're looking for baloney figures, bullshit excuses and shoddy reasoning, then you don't need google. You can get that from lovely realtors and get-rich-quick real estate scammers. It's not meaningless semantics if you take a step back and realize that we're actually talking about putting yourself in as much debt as practically possible with the hope that you don't have to declare bankruptcy should something go against you. That's not a loving investment unless you like your odds at the casino.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Or maybe to put it more diplomatically: it is an endemic and incredibly damaging problem in America today (and especially in America circa 2007) that people put buying a house and buying a porfolio of well-diversified mutual funds into the same category ("investments") and then make the unwarranted assumption that one is functionally similar to the other (especially in terms of risk and upside potential). A semantic argument that explains in detail why a dividend-paying mutual fund is in a totally different category of "things you buy with your money" than a home is one way to hopefully try and dispel this pernicious and destructive myth. There are right now literally millions of Americans who would be prospering, instead of financially ruined, if they had properly understood these facts and acted appropriately. Maybe if a lot more of us started using the term "investment" only in its technically correct context, and the term "speculation" wherever that term is more technically correct, we could help to fight this widespread and terrible form of financial ignorance. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
rockcity posted:I have a question that I'm hoping some of the more mortgage savy people in here can help answer. I read the OP and skimmed the thread a bit, but hadn't seen it directly asked so I figured I'd post it here. When you're applying for a mortgage jointly, does it matter if you are married or not? The reason I ask is that fiancee (as of two days ago) and I have been talking about buying a house this coming June-ish and we weren't sure if being married or not would affect us applying for the loan or not. We've been living together for over 4 years and are engaged so I'm not sure if this is a more of an up to the lender type of situation or if there as a hard and fast rule about rates and filing if you were married or not. My fiancee is nervous that us not being married by then would affect it and said we could always get married on paper prior to the wedding if we needed to, but I wasn't sure if it was necessary and wanted to do some research to find out what was true. Has anyone had any experience with this? Missed this one previously. If you're both going onto the loan it's not really a big deal, the main difference is whether your application and credit are completed jointly or separately which is basically meaningless as far as whether you can be approved or not - just means someone like me has to review 2 copies of your application and credit reports. If you were just trying to have one of you on the loan because the other has poo poo credit/tons of debt it could matter depending on your loan product, bank, and the state you're in. I know for FHA and USDA loans in community property states you have to pull credit on the non obligated spouse and include their debts in your ratios, if you're not married yet this wouldn't apply so would matter in that scenario. Conventionally Fannie/Freddie do not require that a non obligated spouses's information must be included regardless of community property state or not, but some banks may have their own overlays on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 10:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"investment" only in its technically correct context, and the term "speculation" wherever that term is more technically correct, Aren't they exactly the same thing, e.g buying something with the intention of making a return?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 14:02
|
|
|
sanchez posted:Aren't they exactly the same thing, e.g buying something with the intention of making a return? Did you read the previous posts? The difference is in whether you are expecting the value to go up (and it could go down, hence you are speculating that it will go up) or whether it inherently has a return.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
I've been following this thread for around 2 and a half years, and it's a bit of an eye-opener as to how different the housing market is in the US to the UK. I can't think of a single person who I know who would prefer to rent than buy - but then, I think the rental situation in our country is totally stuffed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 14:13
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Did you read the previous posts? The difference is in whether you are expecting the value to go up (and it could go down, hence you are speculating that it will go up) or whether it inherently has a return. Yes, I just don't see how a dividend paying stock which could stop paying that dividend and lose all its value can be different to a stock that currently pays no dividend but one day might. The level of risk is vastly different for mystery biotech vs bluechip, but to call buying stock in Amazon speculative but stock in KO an investment seems weird. I understand his definition, I do not understand how looking at things in that way is useful. sanchez fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
A more reasonable way to phrase your objection, I'd say. I somewhat agree; dividend paying stocks and bonds can end up being less than worthwhile. However, a house just cannot be considered an investment unless you have a pretty good idea that the housing market is going to make the house worth more. Which is unlikely. edit: unless your plan is to buy houses to rent them, in which case they are totally investments because they provide a return, of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
sanchez posted:Yes, I just don't see how a dividend paying stock which could stop paying that dividend and lose all its value can be different to a stock that currently pays no dividend but one day might. The level of risk is vastly different for mystery biotech vs bluechip, but to call buying stock in Amazon speculative but stock in KO an investment seems weird. Under the best of circumstances, as has been explained ad nauseum in this thread, a house is a break even proposition. A house doesn't produce capital or generate products you can sell - it costs money to own. It loses value. And, you have to finance it, so even if you put down 20%, you end up paying through the nose for the interest - EVEN when interest rates are low. If that sounds like an investment to you, then I don't know what to say. Under the best of circumstances, a dividend stock appreciates in price, AND pays you quarterly payments that can also go up every quarter. Besides capital gains taxes, there are almost no costs to holding a dividend stock. Transaction fees are miniscule. If you want to conflate definitions, then of course, every purchase you make can be both a speculation and/or an investment at the same time. But at that point, you're not getting any real use out of the words if there's no distinction between buying a pair of leather boots, a house, a triple A rated bond and a haircut. And of course there's a continuum of risk for every "investment" - but that's different than using terms like "investment" and "appreciate" interchangeably with any old asset - regardless of whether it even has any promise or likelihood of returning capital to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
tiananman posted:Under the best of circumstances, a dividend stock appreciates in price, AND pays you quarterly payments that can also go up every quarter. Besides capital gains taxes, there are almost no costs to holding a dividend stock. Transaction fees are miniscule. LOL, please don't give advice on investing. I can't tell if you're being disingenuous or ignorant, but you really shouldn't be portraying equity investing as risk-free. There's a joke in the stock picks thread that it's "safe as houses".
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:LOL, please don't give advice on investing. I can't tell if you're being disingenuous or ignorant, but you really shouldn't be portraying equity investing as risk-free. There's a joke in the stock picks thread that it's "safe as houses". ...wasn't that talking about Zynga?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Welp, thinking about refinancing again. Might be able to drop my rate by 1% and kill PMI in one fell swoop. Anybody know anything about this racket? http://www.goodmortgage.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 20:39
|
|