Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 1/5/2025 at 7:34 AM, newnative said:

Well, it took a big dip, didn't it?   But, then it came back, didn't it? 

As I just posted, property over the long term has been proven to increase in value.  However, that's not what the member said.  He basically said, "you can never lose" and I disagree with that.  As you have said, sometimes, for some reasons, property can take a "big dip" and some people lose. 

Posted
On 1/5/2025 at 2:44 AM, Digitalbanana said:

Observe the stock derivatives, they will give you the probabilities of where a price will move between over a period, and always realize the volatility will always revert to a mean.

Therefore use VIX Volatility indexes or Bollinger Bands.

Posted
On 1/4/2025 at 3:00 AM, jas007 said:

That's what the TradeVision software does.  They can figure out, through all the options trades, where market makers have to buy and where they have to sell. The software isn't perfect, but seems to show some good results.  Better on some stocks than others, if you look at the backtesting data. But it's definitely just a trading thing.  

 

One of these days, I'm going to perhaps try a small account that is traded entirely by AI.  Just put in some money and let it work.  See what happens. 

 

probably will be more like a casino, going forward. 

No secret, that software based trading systems produce better results than "traditional chart reading" in combination with "gut feelings" of short term traders (eliminating emotions).


Unfortunately, systems that produce good results are quickly adopted by too many traders, thus defeating the system from within.

Posted
18 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I just posted, property over the long term has been proven to increase in value.  However, that's not what the member said.  He basically said, "you can never lose" and I disagree with that.  As you have said, sometimes, for some reasons, property can take a "big dip" and some people lose. 

      Yes, of course, if you sell a stock, or a property, that has dipped below the price you paid for it, you will incur a loss.  Obviously, if you don't need the money, don't sell in a dip.   As I showed in the examples I used in my earlier post, if you can wait, they'll likely recover.  

     The very last condo I bought in the US was a foreclosure that I purchased in 2009, after I sold the condo I mentioned in my earlier post.  I paid $170,000 and I thought I had gotten a bargain.  Little did I know, the real estate dip was still dipping, and the condo's value dropped to $160,000 in 2010.  Had I sold then, I would have lost money. 

    Meanwhile, I had made the decision to move to Thailand in June 2010.  So, instead of selling at a loss, I rented the condo instead, with my brother-in-law managing it for me.  Eventually, the real estate market improved and I sold the condo at a profit several years later.   That same condo has continued to appreciate--as most real estate does--and Zillow tells me it is now worth $277, 500.

Posted
52 minutes ago, swissie said:

Nice yield over time. But as a comparison:


In the early 1980 the Dow Jones Industrial hit 1000. Today it's over 42'000.


Conclusion: R/E is good, stocks are better.


Caution: The DJI reflects "industrial growth", not to be repeated in western economies for the next 50 years. High Tech may bring similar stellar performances for the next 50 years. Maybe/possibly/perhaps/hopefully.

   No reason you can't do real estate and stocks--especially since, unless you like living in the open air, one needs to keep a roof over one's head anyway.  Might as well make some money while you're sheltering yourself.  

Posted
7 minutes ago, newnative said:

Yes, of course, if you sell a stock, or a property, that has dipped below the price you paid for it, you will incur a loss. 

History has proven proven property increases in value over the long term.  The same can not be said for stock.  Some stocks go to worthless, and the company goes bust, and is dissolved.  Not the same same as property. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, newnative said:

   No reason you can't do real estate and stocks--especially since, unless you like living in the open air, one needs to keep a roof over one's head anyway.  Might as well make some money while you're sheltering yourself.  

Realizing a profit from the roof over one's head only ever happens when you sell the roof over your head, then, you have to buy back into the same market.  It's not always a good idea to flip a property that you have been living in, just because it's gone up in value. 

Posted
1 hour ago, swissie said:

Nice yield over time. But as a comparison:


In the early 1980 the Dow Jones Industrial hit 1000. Today it's over 42'000.


Conclusion: R/E is good, stocks are better.


Caution: The DJI reflects "industrial growth", not to be repeated in western economies for the next 50 years. High Tech may bring similar stellar performances for the next 50 years. Maybe/possibly/perhaps/hopefully.

That's one opinion.  

 

I utilized both.  Both served me well.

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

You graph proves my point.

 

See years 2009 and 2011?  Prices dropped. 

 

You said this:  "Unless you are inside trading, then land & RE are never losers"  Your own graph shows this as incorrect.

 

If you said words like, "over the long term, property only gains in value" or similar, I would have agreed, but you said "property never losers" and that's incorrect. 

Just like stocks, one has to buy & sell smartly.  Just because the graph shows drops, doesn't mean one's holdings dropped, whether RE or stocks.

Posted
21 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Realizing a profit from the roof over one's head only ever happens when you sell the roof over your head, then, you have to buy back into the same market.  It's not always a good idea to flip a property that you have been living in, just because it's gone up in value. 

Yep! Selling into a Bull Market means selling a sack of potatoes for 10$ only to buy it back for 11 $.

Posted
4 minutes ago, swissie said:

Yep! Selling into a Bull Market means selling a sack of potatoes for 10$ only to buy it back for 11 $.

One could downsize and take some profit, but for those already in a downsized property, what you describe is correct. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Just like stocks, one has to buy & sell smartly.  Just because the graph shows drops, doesn't mean one's holdings dropped, whether RE or stocks.

 

"Unless you are inside trading, then land & RE are never losers" - YOUR words, not mine.

 

Property is not like stock.  One example is say a worker is transferred by their employer and has to sell.  They may take a loss on the sale.  They really don't have a chance to "sell smartly."  They need the equity from the sale to buy in a new location.  

 

There are many other examples where not everyone makes money on property.   

  • Haha 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, newnative said:

   No reason you can't do real estate and stocks--especially since, unless you like living in the open air, one needs to keep a roof over one's head anyway.  Might as well make some money while you're sheltering yourself.  

I agree. A combination of R/E and stocks are best. R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".


A mortgage in the US usually runs for 30 years. Why is that?


For a very practical reason: Houses in Europe are designed to last for 2 to 3 generations. Unless much mainainance is invested, a house in the US is desighned to last for 30 years. The duration of the mortgage.


True "wealth building" works in other ways.


So it's the "land" that produces the value over time and not the house. Most "American Houses" would not get any building-permit in Europe. The construction considered as "too flimsy".


Considering the fact, that the US home consists of a basic framework of 2x4 lumber, no wonder that hurricanes like those structures.

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, swissie said:

R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".

Capital growth rate, compared to the interest rate, would be vital if that was one's strategy.  

Posted
47 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Realizing a profit from the roof over one's head only ever happens when you sell the roof over your head, then, you have to buy back into the same market.  It's not always a good idea to flip a property that you have been living in, just because it's gone up in value. 

       While you are living in a property you own, if it is appreciating, you are realizing an eventual profit on your original investment, even if you have not yet sold it.   So, you are making money for yourself keeping a roof over your head, even if you haven't cashed in yet.   

      I've owned about 30 properties, both here and in the US, and every one of them increased in value--the last US one I mentioned took a couple of years.  Other than making them attractive, I didn't do anything special.  Real estate appreciates.  While I was living in each of them, I was earning money as they appreciated, rather than a landlord earning money if I rented, instead.   

       When you sell, you aren't necessarily always buying back into the 'same market'.   In some cases, people are making a change to a different city, state, or country.  But, in any case, buying back into the same market has not been a problem for me--either in the US or here.  

  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, swissie said:

I agree. A combination of R/E and stocks are best. R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".


A mortgage in the US usually runs for 30 years. Why is that?


For a very practical reason: Houses in Europe are designed to last for 2 to 3 generations. Unless much mainainance is invested, a house in the US is desighned to last for 30 years. The duration of the mortgage.


True "wealth building" works in other ways.


So it's the "land" that produces the value over time and not the house. Most "American Houses" would not get any building-permit in Europe. The construction considered as "too flimsy".


Considering the fact, that the US home consists of a basic framework of 2x4 lumber, no wonder that hurricanes like those structures.

    Absolute nonsense regarding the reason mortgages in the US are for 30 years--starting with the fact that not all mortgages in the US are even for 30 years.  In 1972, when my Dad retired and we moved back to the US from Okinawa, he and my  Mom wanted to buy a house.  Because of his age--55--the bank would only give him a 20-year mortgage.  Had nothing to do with how long a house would supposedly last.  The house my parents bought, by the way, is still going strong. 

      You can get mortgages in the US for 15 years, 20 years, 30 years, and, even some 40-year mortgages are available.  The length of the mortgage has nothing to do with the house, itself.  Rather, it's usually the combination of the buyer's finances and how many years they want to be paying off a mortgage. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, swissie said:

I agree. A combination of R/E and stocks are best. R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".


A mortgage in the US usually runs for 30 years. Why is that?


For a very practical reason: Houses in Europe are designed to last for 2 to 3 generations. Unless much mainainance is invested, a house in the US is desighned to last for 30 years. The duration of the mortgage.


True "wealth building" works in other ways.


So it's the "land" that produces the value over time and not the house. Most "American Houses" would not get any building-permit in Europe. The construction considered as "too flimsy".


Considering the fact, that the US home consists of a basic framework of 2x4 lumber, no wonder that hurricanes like those structures.

That's one of the most ridiculous and ignorant replies I've read in a long time.  You know absolutely nothing about USA RE, building, construction or mortgages.

Posted
13 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That's one of the most ridiculous and ignorant replies I've read in a long time.  You know absolutely nothing about USA RE, building, construction or mortgages.

Uhhh: I am confident that you will find the time to outline why my comments are "ridiculus". Take your time, point by point. Something like
a)
b)
c)

Posted
1 hour ago, newnative said:

       While you are living in a property you own, if it is appreciating, you are realizing an eventual profit on your original investment, even if you have not yet sold it.   So, you are making money for yourself keeping a roof over your head, even if you haven't cashed in yet.   

      I've owned about 30 properties, both here and in the US, and every one of them increased in value--the last US one I mentioned took a couple of years.  Other than making them attractive, I didn't do anything special.  Real estate appreciates.  While I was living in each of them, I was earning money as they appreciated, rather than a landlord earning money if I rented, instead.   

       When you sell, you aren't necessarily always buying back into the 'same market'.   In some cases, people are making a change to a different city, state, or country.  But, in any case, buying back into the same market has not been a problem for me--either in the US or here.  

Quote: "When you sell, you aren't necessarily always buying back into the 'same market'.   In some cases, people are making a change to a different city, state, or country.  But, in any case, buying back into the same market has not been a problem for me--either in the US or here".


Yes indeed. The Farmers "Up North" have sold their farms (their sons not wanting to farm anymore). They bought a lavish motorhome and live in Arizona. Plenty of cash left, to support more than an occasional square dance. Some of them enjoying a "second spring", sometimes disturbing 30 year old marriages.


Never have I seen happier old folks. By selling their land in exchange for a lavish motorhome with plenty of cash left. In other words: One must not necessarily buy into "the same market". 

 
Some buy into the "Thai-Market", but that's another story.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 15

      'Pizzagate’ gunman killed by police in North Carolina after traffic stop

    2. 335

      Here's what happens when the world's richest man buys the presidency

    3. 110

      January 6, 2021 -- a day that will live in infamy

    4. 285

      SO who of you guys live in Thailand?

    5. 0

      Britons Overwhelmingly Support a New Grooming Gang Inquiry

    6. 0

      Politicians Must Address the Ethnicity of Grooming Gangs, Says Whistleblower’s Aide

    7. 0

      Giorgia Meloni Asserts George Soros Is More Dangerous in Politics Than Elon Musk

    8. 0

      Kim Porter's Diary Allegations Resurface Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Her Death

    9. 0

      Alec Baldwin Files Lawsuit, Calling Himself a ‘Scapegoat’ in ‘Rust’ Case

  • Popular in The Pub


×
×
  • Create New...