Creative Funding For New Toys

[nugundamII]

I was wondering the same thing. I’m having a hard time comprehending how paying rent can be a creative way to help pay for toys.

There are many pros and cons to buying vs. leasing (renting) when it comes to purchasing a vehicle. I can see the validity on both sides of the argument as well as the stupidity when the wrong choice is made.

It’s hard to comprehend why anyone would choose to rent/lease a house. I can think of only two reasons. The person has money to burn and it doesn’t matter or is in a position where they are not able to purchase a home for whatever reason.

I have a friend who travels the world as an aircraft mechanic. His contracts take care of room and board when he is traveling. In some cases he receives a per diem for room and board based on the length of the contract and the cost of living for the particular market he is working. Otherwise he is put up in an extended stay hotel. He stopped paying rent for his apartment at home when he realized he was only there for about 4 months out the year. He figured if he was going to be paying for somewhere he isn’t living he may as well be buy a place and that way he doesn’t lose money. If he ever decides to move he can at least get his money back by selling the place.

The wife and I have close to 3000 sq. ft. of all brick new construction completed in December 2006. We have 4 BR’s, 3 full baths, a formal living room with dining area, a huge kitchen with hearth room (my man cave), a partially covered deck with large patio, 3 car garage, two wash rooms and fully fenced in backyard with 6 foot privacy fence. That's not bad for under $2000 a month, which includes taxes and insurance, on a 30 year fixed interest rate mortgage with $0 down. I've attached several pics to put this into perspective.

It would probably cost twice our current mortgage payment to rent a place with the same amenities we have. A family that pays $4000 a month in rent instead of $2000 in a monthly mortgage payment doesn’t make logical sense. Doing so would equate to $48,000.00 out the window in a year’s time, versus $24,000 that goes towards principal, interest, taxes, and insurance; all of which comes back to the family in some form of payment with the exception of insurance.

As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on this one.

BTW you must have a 6 figure salary to own and maintain that

that would cost an easy 600-800k here

[VFTF1]

Some people mentioned not to buy a house, but rather to rent. I was just wandering why is that, i figured buying a house puts money in your own pocket instead of the lanlord. So why are people suggesting to rent instead, how does it put more money in my pockt?

Simple:

If you are buying a house with your own money, and paying 100% in cash OR you are paying a significant amount (say 70-80%) in cash and loaning the remaining 20 or 30% from the bank AND you are buying a house TO LIVE IN AND ENJOY instead of buying another house to gamble with on the retail market then...

YES - you are right - buying a house makes sense.

However, if the proportions are reversed - if you are paying 10 to 30% of the value in cash and loaning 70% from the bank - then you're NOT putting money in your own pocket.

You are effectively still renting - only you're renting it from the bank. You're also renting under a permanently binding contract. You can't just move out if you suddenly experience financial difficulties or if you get a better job offer in another state or country.

If you want to move out -you have to either rent or sell the property. Renting is not easy - it's a part time or even full time job. It's not something you can do lightly either.

Selling the property - isn't this obvious - is clearly not going to bring you as much as you paid buying it. So - you'll likely end up owing the bank.

This leaves you trapped living their, paying rent to the bank - only it's not called rent it's called "mortgage and loan payments" and of course you technically can sell the place or rent it - but trust me - that isn't easy to do.

On the other hand - if you are a renter - you have more flexibility. You can move faster- you're more mobile. If the market changes - you can make the appropriate reactions without risking your future. You have more negotiating power.

People have this wrong idea that being a renter means that you work for your landlord - they have this feudal/serfdom stereotype where the renter works and the landlord just laughs on the way to the bank.

Not true. Just because you rent doesn't mean you're poor. In fact - the majority of people who now have trouble paying off their debts on real estate are middle class families which took huge loans for apartments and houses they couldn't afford.

Rich people are usually rich because they DON'T spend more than they take in and they engage in savings and capital accumulation.

So - just because you rent doesn't mean "cheap stinky studio" and it doesn't mean you can't have other property or savings in the bank.

Again - it's not an iron rule. If you have a loving wife, three kids, and a dream to live the vast majority or entirety of your life in place X and you find your dream house and you can afford it and you don't go too much into debt - then yes - of course - buy it.

But - if you're young - even a young couple - why jail yourself? Why make the mistake of buying into the "home ownership" propaganda when all you're doing is renting from a bank? And on terms that - in the case of a change in the market- render you helpless?

This is why I think that renting puts more money into your pocket: because it traps less money in an over-priced piece of real estate you might regret having gotten in the first place.

Pete

[MacrossMan]

Fu ck me thats nice

Maybe I should live in the states

Me I like my 50k in the bank

My wife saved up 40k but the houses here are mad!

Thanks. Circumstances in Canada seem to give more reason to not purchase. I have to agree that there is nothing like money in the bank though.

Too bad Cali cost an arm and a leg. However, there are other parts in Cali which I'd rather not move to that is much cheaper. Nice home Macrossman!! Do you have pool too?

Thanks Q. I've seen that show "My House Is Worth What" and know what houses in Cali cost. It's astronomical. We are planning on putting in a pool in the next few years. Most of our neighbors have them and our backyard is plenty big enough for it. The lot is on 1/3 an acre.

I have to say though, that purchasing a home would be a definite way to go to probably save money and have some expendable cash for toys. Right off the bat you will probably pay less in monthly mortgage payments than you pay in rent. The tax benefit at the end of the year is a plus. And for you guys in Cali, I know going green is huge so anything you do to your house for the environment will more than likely result in some sort of tax credit.

The whole ownership thing is overrated, because no matter how you slice it, you never truly own it. You are basically "leasing" the lot the house is built on from the county you live in. The land will always belong to them. The "improvements" or house you put on the land results in a tax bill that must be paid in addition to the taxes you pay on the land each year. But overall, it is a good deal and results in some significant savings and tax relief over time.

Another thing to consider to come up with for funding is starting your own business. The things you are able to write off as business expenses are incredible! It's possible for things like your vehicle and cell phone to be written off as business expenses. Even fold in your toy purchases if they are part of the "decor" for your home office. Office furnishings are tax deductible.

[nugundamII]

Simple:

If you are buying a house with your own money, and paying 100% in cash OR you are paying a significant amount (say 70-80%) in cash and loaning the remaining 20 or 30% from the bank AND you are buying a house TO LIVE IN AND ENJOY instead of buying another house to gamble with on the retail market then...

YES - you are right - buying a house makes sense.

However, if the proportions are reversed - if you are paying 10 to 30% of the value in cash and loaning 70% from the bank - then you're NOT putting money in your own pocket.

You are effectively still renting - only you're renting it from the bank. You're also renting under a permanently binding contract. You can't just move out if you suddenly experience financial difficulties or if you get a better job offer in another state or country.

If you want to move out -you have to either rent or sell the property. Renting is not easy - it's a part time or even full time job. It's not something you can do lightly either.

Selling the property - isn't this obvious - is clearly not going to bring you as much as you paid buying it. So - you'll likely end up owing the bank.

This leaves you trapped living their, paying rent to the bank - only it's not called rent it's called "mortgage and loan payments" and of course you technically can sell the place or rent it - but trust me - that isn't easy to do.

On the other hand - if you are a renter - you have more flexibility. You can move faster- you're more mobile. If the market changes - you can make the appropriate reactions without risking your future. You have more negotiating power.

People have this wrong idea that being a renter means that you work for your landlord - they have this feudal/serfdom stereotype where the renter works and the landlord just laughs on the way to the bank.

Not true. Just because you rent doesn't mean you're poor. In fact - the majority of people who now have trouble paying off their debts on real estate are middle class families which took huge loans for apartments and houses they couldn't afford.

Rich people are usually rich because they DON'T spend more than they take in and they engage in savings and capital accumulation.

So - just because you rent doesn't mean "cheap stinky studio" and it doesn't mean you can't have other property or savings in the bank.

Again - it's not an iron rule. If you have a loving wife, three kids, and a dream to live the vast majority or entirety of your life in place X and you find your dream house and you can afford it and you don't go too much into debt - then yes - of course - buy it.

But - if you're young - even a young couple - why jail yourself? Why make the mistake of buying into the "home ownership" propaganda when all you're doing is renting from a bank? And on terms that - in the case of a change in the market- render you helpless?

This is why I think that renting puts more money into your pocket: because it traps less money in an over-priced piece of real estate you might regret having gotten in the first place.

Pete

EXACTLY!

This whole PRIDE of OWNERSHIP Marketing has eaten away at peoples brains

I owned and no pride could replace not racing each month to make payments to the bank. Fu ck if you want to pay off your mortgage sooner there is even a penality to that

Ha! more toys for Pete and me !

Pete

Edited May 21, 2009 by nugundamII

[Bri]

Some people mentioned not to buy a house, but rather to rent. I was just wandering why is that, i figured buying a house puts money in your own pocket instead of the lanlord. So why are people suggesting to rent instead, how does it put more money in my pockt?

It depends on the housing market conditions. Rent is cheaper then a mortgage for a comparable house so you can put the difference away on a savings account or invest them in bonds or the like. If house prices are unstable or sliding, rent will be safer and more profitable. Still house ownership is in general more profitable in the long term but it's more risky and leaves you with less cash to bun in the early years of a mortgage.

At the moment houses have been overvalued and prices are on a downward trend. Lot of my friends are stuck with mortages on houses they bought when the prices were high and now they can't sell them unless they are prepared to take a big loss on the sale.

[MacrossMan]

Simple:

If you are buying a house with your own money, and paying 100% in cash OR you are paying a significant amount (say 70-80%) in cash and loaning the remaining 20 or 30% from the bank AND you are buying a house TO LIVE IN AND ENJOY instead of buying another house to gamble with on the retail market then...

YES - you are right - buying a house makes sense.

However, if the proportions are reversed - if you are paying 10 to 30% of the value in cash and loaning 70% from the bank - then you're NOT putting money in your own pocket.

Pete

Maybe I'm slow, but I have to disagree Pete. If you think about it in terms of financing a car, you do not actually "own" the car until you make the last payment and the title is handed over to you. This is the difference though. In most cases with a vehicle the moment you drive the car off the lot its value has depreciated. If you purchase the vehichle in 2010 it won't be worth what you paid in 2015. Ideally you'd want to pay cash for a car or finance it for up 6 years and hope it lasts another 5 or more after it's been paid for.

With a house, you're right. You're basically renting from the bank because the house technically belongs to them until you make the final payment, but there are stronger arguments to made in paying mortgage versus paying rent. Here are a few.

• Houses traditionally appreciate in value. I've seen general numbers that say the value goes up 10% every 10 years. The value goes up, but the monthly payments stay the same when you buy. Renting, the market goes up, the rent goes up.

In 10 years a mortgage payment will still be the same whereas a person renting the same house will pay whatever the current market condition says a the house rents for. $4000 today, probably $5000 10 years from now.

All interest and taxes paid on a mortgage loan are tax deductible each tax year. Rent dollars have no return.

If for some reason you have to move suddenly (particularly if due to job change) most companies will buy your home at its current market value and pay your moving expenses. In the likely event that you become unemployed and unable to make payments banks are normally willing to work with the buyer. Believe it or not banks would rather not foreclose on the home if at all possible.

There is no status or label that comes with buying or renting. Those who dabble into that sort of foolishness are small minded. There are pros and cons to buying vs. renting. I personally feel there are more pros to buying than renting.

If I was to give a person my same salary and monthly expesnes 10 years from now with me making a loan payment each month and the other person paying rent I am going to be able to buy more toys at the end of the month.

Edited May 21, 2009 by MacrossMan

[Agent-GHQ]

I was disturbed by the logic of those who rent vs owning your own home. Clearly, more cash in the end of the year for the owner, thus more toys!

That was well put Macrossman!

[Bri]

[...]

Houses traditionally appreciate in value. I've seen general numbers that say the value goes up 10% every 10 years. The value goes up, but the monthly payments stay the same when you buy.

[...]

This misconception is the source of the financial crisis.

[MacrossMan]

This misconception is the source of the financial crisis.

Yeah, things have really gotten sideways financial/housing crisis. A lot of people got in over their heads and banks made a lot of bad loans which has ultimately affected the sales and values of homes across the nation.

We could debate the rent vs. buy thing till the cows come home. I know it is relevant to saving money to buy more toys but let's see if we can come up with some new ideas. I'd hate to see this thread get locked because the discussion has gone to the way side.

I mentioned in my last post about starting a business. I love music so I started a mobile DJ service 2004. My home office where all my macross stuff is considered office decor. You have physicians or lawyers with display cabinets in their offices. These fall under the category of office furnishings are tax deductibe.

Just another way to save yourself some money on your toys.

Edited May 21, 2009 by MacrossMan

[eriku]

Meh, my wife and I both really love renting because rent is basically all we have to pay for, that and some utilities. No property tax, no costs of upkeep, no maintenance, mowing, shoveling, pest control. We might buy a home some day but for now renting is the way to go for us. I don't think there is any essential 'right' or 'wrong' between renting and owning, it's all based on individual tastes and circumstances.

[VFTF1]

Well, to be fair - I'm kind of also in a win-win situation personally because my parents live just outside the city, own a huge plot of land and a house that can pretty much fit five generations of family in it... So granted - if I ever break both legs, get cancer of the liver, my business goes bankrupt, lighting strikes and paralyzes me from the waiste up - I will still not be homeless and not have to migrate in search of work so I can survive. Also, my girlfriend "owns" her apartment ("owns" in apostraphes because she pays off a mortgage). My parents are in the classically perfect situation.They bought the land for pennies on the dollar, and built the house themselves when they could afford it. Now - they have zero debt. All they pay is 100 USD per month in real estate taxes and elecriticty bills...and the garderner...and the cleaning lady... maintenance is not cheap - but it's also some what optional (aka you don't HAVE TO have the cleaning lady come once a week and you can do gardening and mowing yourself once in a while).

I think it's pointless to treat the rent vs. own debate in terms of looking for one rational outcome because it does all depend on context - and even if we all concluded that "in general" renting were better "in general" - then who's to say that in the particular case of Macrossman - he's right and he made the smart move getting his house?

However - there are a couple of misconceptions out there due to a lack of perspective.

In terms of the appreciation of the value of real estate in the USA -

between 1900 and 2000 housing prices rose on average about 3% per year (not adjusted for inflation). Between 1950 and 2000, when the basic loan/mortgage infrastructure took hold in the market - housing prices rose about4% (again not adjusted for inflation). However, check out the 10-City index for housing prices in major cities from 1997 to 2006 shows housing prices going up 19.4% a year which is a significant departure.

So - for about 97 years you had appreciation of 3 to 4%. Then suddenly within the span of 9 years you have almost 20% appreciation.

How did this happen?

Simple: when government policy pays banks to give people essentially free money to buy houses - they are essentially subsidizing houses. When you subsidize an industry you send an artificial signal that there is higher demand for that product. What happens to prices when there is higher demand? Prices go up.

Knowing that all this money was flooding into the housing market - is it any wonder developers raised their prices time and time again? Is it any wonder that potential buyers were willing to pay outrageous money for houses and apartments since IT WASN'T THEIR MONEY. I mean - look - if someone says - "hey - this apartment costs 200 thousand dollars" and the bank just told you that you can have it for 1000 USD a month even though you work a temp job and have two credit cards that are maxed out - will the 200 thousand dollar price tag really compel you to negotiate DOWN? No. Because you're thinking "yeah - whatever - 200 or 300 thousand - whatever. I'm paying a thousand bucks a month."

It's the same with other industries where policy has been driven by the "pride of" or "right to" philosophy. Look at how much college tuition costs. It's ridiculous. Why does it cost this much? Because the state keeps throwing money at the industry.

The solution is not - of course - to artificially limit the rise in prices because that will just lead to "gas lines" in the industry - to shortages.

The solution is exactly what is happening now - a massive depression. A bursting bubble when reality comes back in control and people realize that all those green pieces of paper are pretty much the equivalent of monopoly money.

Speaking of which - that has been one of the side effects of this crazy housing bubble:

You might think "yeah - I got this great deal on my real estate" but on the other hand - look at how many dollars you need to buy a VF-1 from Yamato? Now look at how much other things cost that are produced overseas or have parts produced overseas. Now consider that the purchasing power of your dollars and your savings has essentially been whiped out.

Look - under normal circumstances - the "renter vs. owner" debate is really all about preference. It's like debating "1:72 model or DC chogokin?" There are pros and cons.

But - if the government were paying banks to give loans to Macross fans on the condition that they bought DX chogokins and not 1:72 models --- guess what would happen to the price of DX chogokins? 300 USD per piece - 500 USD per piece - it is concievable.

And guess what Bandai would do? MAKE MORE.

And guess what would happen in the end?

The value of that 300 or 500 or eventually 1000 USD that you'd be willing to spend on a DX - willing because it's just some digit on your credit card bill and the "real" cost "for you" is - say - 13 USD a month plus 1 buck in interest - would finally PLUMMET.

And that huge collection of DXs you built up (kind of like all those houses and apartments people bought up) -- you think you'd get out of debt by selling those off?

No. Because it will turn out that Bandai made too many of them - because they didn't (couldn't) tell the difference between artificial demand generated by cheap credit backed by government and REAL demand generated by REAL value created by REAL work and savings over time translated into the purchase of something for which there is authentic demand.

Under those circumstances - the debate gains a new dimmension. It's no longer "DX or 1:72" it's "1:72 or believing the lie thast you can own 50 DXs without having three jobs and a tonight's winning lottery ticket."

I guess that's how I looked at the question.

Naturally - some one will always pop up with a legit "well I do X and I'm doing great" and "I do Y and I'm doing great too" story. Doesn't take away from the general analysis of the situation though.

Pete

[SchizophrenicMC]

So, basically, what you're saying is...

It's better to buy?

My family rents, as did the neighbors. Note the "did." They were renting. The owner went bankrupt and they were evicted from the now-foreclosed house. Probably better to buy, since you have closer control on making sure you still have a home. I feel a little safe renting from who we're renting from: my aunt and uncle.

I mean, in Texas, while that sh!t's still going downhill, it's better than much of the US. Can't speak for the Europeans, Asians, and Aussies here.

Hell, I don't know. Sell your furniture and go ghetto with...

FEDEX FURNITURE!

[nugundamII]

Bank client floored by penalties

Print Print

Text Size Text Size Text Size Choose text size

Report Typo Report typo or correction

Email the author Email the author

iCopyright License this article

AddThis

May 23, 2009 04:30 AM

Comments on this story (40)

Ellen Roseman

When Rahim Moosa lost his job last October, he decided to sell the house he'd bought with his wife a year earlier.

His lender, TD Canada Trust, said there would be an $8,000 penalty to break his five-year closed mortgage – an amount he found tolerable.

"By the time we sold in April 2009, TD Bank quoted us a doubled penalty of $18,000. Now, they are stating it will be approximately $25,000 upon closing in June," he says.

Most mortgage contracts and renewal forms specify that clients seeking an early exit will pay either three months' interest or an interest rate differential (IRD), whichever is greater.

The IRD is calculated by taking the outstanding balance, multiplying it by the gap between your existing mortgage rate and the current rate for a term similar to what you have left, and multiplying by the number of months left to the end of your term.

Mortgage rates have fallen steadily since last fall, making the IRD penalties grow bigger and bigger.

Once I got involved in Moosa's case, TD worked hard to cushion the blow. It sent him to a mortgage specialist, who suggested making a 15 per cent lump-sum prepayment using a line of credit that would be paid back at closing.

Since TD hadn't told him about this option last October, Moosa asked for and received the right to make a 30 per cent prepayment to reduce the outstanding balance.

The estimated penalty is now $11,000 to $14,000.

"We won't know for sure what the exact penalty will be until the payments are made using the line of credit next week," Moosa says.

He wonders why TD dragged its feet when told about his financial problems last fall.

"Our branch representative should have advised us that we could pay a 15 per cent lump sum to reduce the penalty.

"TD needs to have a better process in place, particularly when dealing with clients whose largest investment is in their hands."

Moosa's comments will be reviewed, Hechler said. "We could have moved more quickly to help and provided clearer information from the beginning."

Kevin Plautz, also a TD mortgage customer, felt he received misleading information when he asked about breaking the deal to take advantage of lower rates.

His financial adviser initially quoted a penalty of $2,100, based on three months' interest. Other TD staff he spoke to later did not challenge that figure.

Only when he was ready to renegotiate did he learn there would be an IRD penalty of $5,900.

"I wouldn't have bothered doing a renegotiation if I had just been told the correct penalty at the start or one of the many times I asked about it since then," he says

TD agreed to reduce his IRD penalty to $4,000 after I escalated his complaint to the head office.

"We have offered to substantially reduce the amount of Mr. Plautz's IRD penalty as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the confusion he experienced over the amount he was quoted," Hechler told me.

While planning to take the offer, Plautz is leaving TD. He's found another bank that will give him a lower interest rate and cover $225 of his $270 mortgage discharge fee.

"I have a very bad taste in my mouth. I think I still prefer to move my business," he says.

I'd like to hear from readers. Have you tried to renegotiate a mortgage amid falling interest rates? How did the lender respond and what penalty was charged? I'll publish comments in a future column.

Write to onyourside@thestar.ca

or check the On Your Side blog at www.ellenroseman.com

Comments on this story are moderated

|

Login to Comment

Commenting Guidelines

expandContent

Sort By

Inexcusalbe Consumer Ingorance (cont'd)

Further to the comment about staff only being sales people and not properly trained: the information is on the documentation that they have the client sign. Branch staff should be ensuring that they themselves undertand the documents, and if they don't they should ask questions of their supervisors. Stop blaming the banks for everything: interest rates going up; now it's interest rates going down. And no one complains at the supermarket when they are waiting in line for over 5 minutes!

Submitted by dink at 3:00 PM Monday, May 25 2009

* Agree

* |

* Disagree

* |

* Alert a Moderator

Consumer Inexcusable Ignorance

Reading the majority of these comments is really a testament to the inexcusable ignorance that still exists in the marketplace. In today's technological world, no one should be so uneducated when it comes to something so vital as finances. More specifically to 'Tabber' and 'King Dudley': IRD is not new. I have been in the banking 20 years with the same FI. The first 13 of those years in branches in Personal Banking, working up the ranks. IRD has always been (for my 20 years anyway)something that Banks used for penalty calculations. Clients may not be aware, as it's use is dependant on the term of mortgage a client has or remaining, the interest rate environment (up or down) and if there is a replacement mortgage. If a branch staff quoted one penalty and then when the time came to payout the penalty was higher, this is not a misquote: factors changed,interest rates dropped, mortgage balance decreased. The staff member can only quote a penalty as 'of today's date', as factors change.

Submitted by dink at 2:59 PM Monday, May 25 2009

* Agree

* |

* Disagree

* |

* Alert a moderator

Banks Fees

Well done Ellen for speaking on behalf on the small voice - the customer. Banks here in Canada seem to gouge their customer at every opportunity - they can't even blame in on "North America" like so many other things because IRD's don't exist in the US. Fees, fees and more fees - thats the Canadian banking way. Whats with monthly fees? Back in my home country the banks managed to do it all fee free and still make a healthy profit (including those with overseas branches here). Its just like gas prices - a monopoly by the big few to stick together for their own best interests - Executive bonuses. As for the rest of us we're lucky just to keep out jobs.

Submitted by j27srl at 12:37 PM Monday, May 25 2009

* Agree

* |

* Disagree

* |

* Alert a Moderator

Just the opposite

When I sold my house last year, my interest rate was lower than the going rate by about 3/4-1%. TDCanada Trust was more than happy to allow me to sell so they could use my money to lend at a higher rate. In fact the rep. told me if the purchaser was going through them, she might be able to help with the discharge fee.

Submitted by Brockville at 6:32 AM Monday, May 25 2009

* Agree

* |

* Disagree 1

* |

* Alert a moderator

TD shame

This is so illustrative of TD bank. TD Bank has stopped caring for their customers in order to support the high salaries of their executives. TD bank has become an offshore banking system with head offices in Canada. My last two connections with TD Visa found me with offshore Customer Service people in India who kept reading a script to me and asking me to continually agree with their recited verse that I understood and agreed with them. I and others demand services in Canadian English or French delivered by Canadians. I am moving all of my personal and business accounts from TDCanadaTrust(5), 3 RSP accounts and my VISA account. Enough is enough TD you don't deserve my accounts. I am urging all TDCanadaTrust account holders to move their accounts from this arrogant bank. I need and demand services by a bank that puts the customer at the top and not some customer service company in India. STOP USING TDCANADATRUST because they have lost the right to use the "TRUST" part of their name.

Submitted by gr8wheelss at 3:44 PM Sunday, May 24 2009

* Agree 2

* |

* Disagree

* |

* Alert a Moderator

no bailout?

some people on this site are asleep it looks like, the government bought over $70 billion worth of mortgages from cmhc..that = bailout.just because the word 'bailout' wasnt used it dosent mean it didnt happen..wake up.

Submitted by king dudley at 12:49 PM Sunday, May 2

[MacrossMan]

That's sad and unfortunate. I'm not sure what a closed contract is, but each time we have bought a house there has not been any penalty for paying it off early. You request a pay-off from the bank and the amount is actually lower than what actually shows on the most recent payment info.

Our current house appraised for more than the builder's selling price in December of 2006. Since we didn't use a realtor, our builder/seller thew in some extras as well as a few items that conveyed and at closing we walked away with a check for $9000.00.

If only I had new about Macross toys then! Just another example that shows buying a home might help you fund your toy festish.

Edited May 25, 2009 by MacrossMan

[Chowser]

DAMN YOU!!! For the shameless plug! I'm not even into the whole Star Wars thing, but I would certainly like to have one of these just for the heck of it; if they're affordable! Please send me a PM with a price on what something like this would cost. Thanks!

Trust me, he does very fine work

Now all my collecting has to stop. I am now paying two mortgages. So until we get the old house rented out or sold, I'm out of collecting for abit...

[D_Unit]

I personally think right now is a good time to buy a home if you have the money. In most parts of the world, real estate prices seems to be reaching a bottom... that doesn't mean it won't go down even more though. But economically; any drastically lower home prices and cities will likely crumble in the wake of lowering property taxes and higher maintenance costs. Just think, for the price of 1-3 years net salary of $50-$75G take home, you get to pay off a new home... laterally!

I wish I could say the same for Vancouver Canada, where I live. Prices have dropped, but only moderately. My neighbor sold his home for $850,000.00 CDN ($740,000.00 US) which was 4 years older than mine and a bit smaller. My sis got her home a couple of years after me (and right before the retarded real estate bubble started) for $430,000 CDN; both of us are paying property taxes for homes accessed closed to 800G's... ouch! But let me please remind everyone in the rest of the world that a 800G to one million dollar home in Vancouver ain't what you think... it's the same as a $150G-$250G home in many cities in the US or other areas of Canada.

My sis has less than 10 years left on her mortgage and I'm done with mine. Problem is, she's got a family now and I'm still all by myself... well at least I got the surly old man and my tenants (and my adorable little "boys" of course). Oh dam, I'm so freakin' bored and lonely I'm about to chug down my remaining bottle of scotch and run naked in the streets with an axe... oh wait, I gotta walk the "boys" tomorrow morning.

To anyone else living in Vancouver I say, don't buy... if prices don't tank after the Olympics, then just move away... I'm sure you can live like a king in most parts of the world with $500G's or more.

BTW: TD Canada/Waterhouse is where I invest my portfolio with. I don't bank with them but they do have the most competitive brokerage prices in my area of Canada and they have the most robust trading system.

PS: I've noticed that most online toys stores are having sales. I just got my 1/48 Angle Birds & GBP armor for cheap (plus the $CDN is up now too). So besides saving money, just wait. I plan to get all my Bandai's and Yamato's later on. The plan has already worked for my recent TF collection; I got most of them for 1/2 price or less.

Edited May 26, 2009 by D_Unit

[Excillon]

Not so sure about buying a home, I have the money, the credit, and lord knows I need the space, but not now. I'm waiting for the market to upswing, where I can log in some steady OT and prices are still low, then swoop in and get a deal. My wife just got a job with the IRS as an agent, so finally after 4 years of her going to school and me having the only income, that will help a lot.

As for what I do for money for toys, it's never been a big deal to me. I always collect one line that I can get at Walmart, Target, etc. to feed my instant gratification fix (this time it was TF Animateds, along with my daughter) and one harder to get line, which is 1/60/PG/DX gundams only, no other scales. I gave up MG kits and sold them all off and my other TF's, etc., and it was a smart thing to do. Since there aren't that many PG and 1/60 kits out there between Bandai and G system, and DX is basically done I think, I don't have to spend a lot on them, and can defer money from that to Macross occasionally, 1/6 figures, or the oddball toy I must have. But I always limit it, which is easy since I'm not a hardcore collector of the other stuff. It also helps to have a hobby that can double for a 2nd job, I do welding and machine custom parts for a local Bike/ATV shop. It's not hard considering I'm a machinst for a living. It's really cool when you find another that does the same thing, like a friend and I have a system where I work on his bikes for him, and he hooks me up with cheap or free tattoos (my other passion) since he has his own shop. God bless the barter system.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Excillon

[anime52k8]

yeah, um... right. what does this have to do with toys again?