ATTN: stevejhx -- POST HERE

"Steve, the apartment has pistachio-painted walls"

Actually, that's one thing I'd do if I owned my current rental: paint the walls pistachio.

How'd you know?

inotodo

Apparently!

bj - I'll make it easier for you: pick an apartment, any apartment, and pick a rental price and ask me if I'd rent it at your rental price and/or buy it at the sale price. They don't need to be the same: what you think a place should cost to rent.

Telling how Juicy never responded to any questions.

leave juicy be--he's still trying to get his arms around the concept that he can use his borrowing power to buy lotsa stuff--even stox!!! even real estate that he doesnt live in such that he's a landlord where he owns, and tenant where he lives at the very same time!! imagine that--put that in your rent/buy get rich quick model

But can he paint his walls pistachio?

Juicy - still too busy to respond?

Juicy?!

You know, WB, I just got some checks from my Discover card that I can use to....

BUY STOCKS!

Tens of thousands of dollars to buy stocks, with a mere 5% fee and 0% interest for a year!

In fact, I could even use these checks to buy houses in less expensive markets....

...like Long Island City.

HAHAHAHAHA!

At this point I gauge all my investments, leveraged or not on a comp with lic condos....it,s become kinda my benchmark bellwether etc

Brings back memories of trying to explain these concepts to juicy liccdope and co..

bjw (& AR) - "I was impressed enough to actually consider moving there if I ever got tired of things here (unlikely, but still). But I'd have to investigate in February to be sure."

That might be a savvy investment move. I was just there, and was shocked at the amount of empty, unsold, lights-are-off-at-nite condos in and around Downtown. I wasn't sure if I was hallucinating, so I asked a nonexpert source about them. He pointed at one of these shiny new storage spaces and said, "That one just had an auction and still couldn't sell any." I don't think Crazy Eddy's price-slashing specials coming in a year near you are a stretch of the imagination. About the weather, I lived there for a three-year period once and never owned an umbrella. I always smirk when I hear the stories about rain.............. Tulips grow pretty well there, and pistachio is a color of choice. Go on, everyone!

Crazy Eddie went to jail. People just don't appreciate the economic value of pyramid schemes.

Except steveF.

Did I mention to Juicy and LICCdope that if I rack up, say, $75,000 in credit card loans at 5% interest, not only do I beat most houses' margin rates for that size a loan, but I DON'T HAVE TO PUT UP COLLATERAL!

So if I make a bad bet, I just declare bankruptcy.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

No opportunity cost on borrowed money? Really? What if I were to decide to buy $75,000 in vanilla wafers instead of stocks?

What fools.

This thread is crazy.
But what do you mean about an opportunity cost on borrowed money? You have an actual cost of interest that you pay to the lender. Are you saying there is a cost in addition to that?

By the way, Crazy Eddie, that guy was insane. So was the Wiz. So was Circuit City.

and so are you.

You know, WB, I just got some checks from my Discover card that I can use to....
BUY STOCKS!
Tens of thousands of dollars to buy stocks, with a mere 5% fee and 0% interest for a year!

Also, one of the greatest errors individuals and businesses make is buying a long-term asset with short term borrowings.

I'm confused again, steve, but I do try to follow your arguments - there is an opportunity cost to borrowed money used to invest? But some of the things you say make it sound as though it's found money with no risk at all, such as "...not only do I beat most houses' margin rates for that size a loan, but I DON'T HAVE TO PUT UP COLLATERAL! So if I make a bad bet, I just declare bankruptcy."

If you're not worried about the consequences of a bad bet because you'd use bankruptcy as an escape parachute, then why is "opportunity cost" part of that equation? I'm picturing pistachio-colored tulips now.......

I drove though 7 states today and took a loan out in each one. I'm rich!

JuiceMan, you should pick up a few Seattle condos in the next auctions. Then rent them out. Oops.........

I don't know what's worse, the fact that these two buffoons think buying stocks with their credit card is a good idea or that it translates to investing mortgage funds anywhere but the house you are buying. These two are streeteasys version of dumb and dumber.

"one of the greatest errors individuals and businesses make is buying a long-term asset with short term borrowings."

Who ever did that?

Oh, Juicy - you're such a sore, sore loser! No difference between borrowing funds on your credit card than borrowing on margin to buy stocks. In fact, since they're liquid, they're probably a better investment than Manhattan real estate.

Still waiting on your figures, and your detailed discussion on why I'm wrong. (Because I'm not....)

Oh steve, please. Tell me how the conversation switched between getting a mortgage and investing it in stocks to buying stocks on your credit card? You just want attention now, your like a deprived 5 year old.

Feel free to post ANY article that mentions investing mortgage funds anywhere besides the house you are buying. Until then, you are just wasting valuable streeteasy storage space.

Oh, Juicy, you do hate losing, don't you? Of course with LICCdope as your BFF, it's the natural course of action.

Money is fungible, remember? You have $100,000 in cash. You could invest it in stocks, or reduce your mortgage balance by $100,000. You choose to invest the money in stocks.

You have therefore invested your mortgage in cash, in effect.

I'm - nay, WE'RE ALL - waiting for your discussion on a) how much it costs you per month to buy an apartment for $1 million, live in it for ten years, then sell it again at $1 million, net of transaction costs. Because by your math you effectively live in it for free.

And I'm - nay, WE'RE ALL - waiting for you to show us where it says that the use applied to borrowed money has no opportunity cost.

Waiting.....

HAHAHAHA!

What a maroon.

Like I said, an attention starved 5 year old.

The 100k example is with cash YOU HAVE, not cash YOU BORROWED for a mortgage.

Your not waiting for anything from me. I answered that question in this thread, for whatever reason you refuse to go look for it.

Waste of space.

"I answered that question in this thread, for whatever reason you refuse to go look for it."

Do us a favor - cut and paste, b/c I can't find it.

"not cash YOU BORROWED for a mortgage"

Take out $100k on a HELOC.

Take out $250k on a second mortgage.

Cash advance on your credit card.

Personal loan.

Pawnshop.

Sorry - you lose. There's ALL SORTS of way of borrowing to invest in the stock market besides margin. In fact, not only can you borrow money this way and invest it in stocks, you can leverage it again by depositing it, investing it & borrowing against it on margin.

That - to entertain Riversider's ignorance - is called the "multiplier effect."

"Take out $100k on a HELOC.

Take out $250k on a second mortgage."

In order to borrow this 350k you would already need 350k of EQUITY in your house. There is already an opportunity cost on the equity, you want to count that twice as well? Assuming a 1 M mortgage, how do you get an opportunity cost on the other 650 k?

According to steve, I can get a 1M mortgage and then take 1M of HELOC's and 2nd mortgages on it. 2M all at once, no problem!

"Do us a favor - cut and paste, b/c I can't find it"

I promise it's there steve

Sign the petition!

quite interesting how dumb ppl are. Stevehjx is correct, all monies are fungible. But here is the issue that gets me, the downpayment should be looked at like the equity portion of an investment bc in fact it has all the characteristics of such an investment.

Heloc would be like a mezz financing, mortgages like senior secured loans. As you go up in seniority and security the less interest is charged/imputed. So the DP should be looked at like the riskiest tranche of capital and should "earn" 10% or 15% , so "owners" must gain this utility in some form. The kicker is that MOST people move and there is usually a DIRECT COMP => renting the SAME unit above or below the "owned" unit..... so UNLESS there is a HUGE prob of significant UPSIDE, this TRADE is insane.

$500psf=> fk yeah!

That's right, Juicy - and in order to buy a house you have to have a house to buy, as collateral.

And you have to have an income to support the borrowing.

And you have to have a good credit score.

And lots of stuff.

"According to steve" nothing, Juicy - you asked for ways to borrow to buy stocks other than on margin, those are ways. Do you fail to see that except for a credit card or personal loan, almost all borrowings require COLLATERAL? Including when you buy a house?

Let's say I borrow $100,000 on my credit cards, invest it in stocks, and then borrow another $50,000 against it in margin. There I've borrowed 3x my collateral; stocks go up, I can borrow even more more.

Your argument seems to be that because banks will lend you more money with a fixed asset as collateral than with stocks, that somehow there's no opportunity cost to either. Of course you can provide no proof for that position, because it's pure melarky.

You think that if you buy a house for $1 million in cash, live in it for 10 years, sell it for those same $1 million, THAT YOU'VE LIVED FOR FREE!

HAHAHAHAHA!

I'm starting to think that steve really is insane. Only a mental imbalance could cause someone to keep pushing this asinine argument that the opportunity cost of buying a home should assume that if you didn't buy, you would max out your credit card and otherwise borrow from a bank the same amount as you would have taken in a mortgage, and then invest that money in stocks.

The madness of steve.

Is it better to own or to rent?

Licc. Stevehjx is correct. Funds are fungible. The only difference between re is that more leverage was made available as the credit cycle increased, Bc more and more ppl assigned less and less risk to that asset class, thereby creating more leverage. A classic example of a bubble.

The fact ppl start to assign 'emotional' attributes that what is in essence a form of prepaid rents is what makes it confusing. Add in tax breaks and well.... Just look at your lic investment/home. Fking hilarious.

That's why he's called LICCdope, w67. Before the heady days of the boom, when banks had to keep your loans on their books, they would only lend you twice your annual salary, or in LICCdope's case, $10,000. At one time you could actually borrow more on margin than you could on real estate - for the simple reason that margin is short-term and callable, and real-estate was long-term, which mismatches as against banks' short-term funding by deposits.

None of these things does LICCdope know. Of course there's a lot of things that LICCdope doesn't know, starting with the right place to own real estate.

Add w67th to the list of people off their rocker.... Oh wait..we knew that already

Funny how steve asks the same question over and over when the answer he seeks is right in this thread. Must be his way to distract everyone from the actual topic.

""According to steve" nothing, Juicy - you asked for ways to borrow to buy stocks other than on margin"

Nope, I never asked this. You changed the conversation to this because you know you are full of shit and this is your way to evade and deflect.

"That's right, Juicy - and in order to buy a house you have to have a house to buy, as collateral."

Precisely, so if you don't have a house you don't have the million dollar loan. If you don't have the million dollars, you can't invest it anywhere. Oh my, this is really complicated stuff!

W67th, how do you invest a million dollars you don't have? Is that what you mean by "fungible"?

You can borrow it, Juicy, and use something else as collateral, or use no collateral at all, a la credit cards, family loan, personal loan, start an investment company, invest family money, all sorts of stuff.

As I said, the rules change. You can buy a lot more in government bonds on loan than you can for a house, or for stocks. Of course you need to start with SOMETHING - equity, income, SOMETHING. Nobody lends poor people money.

Your position is that there is no opportunity cost in buying a house with 100% financing because no one else will lend you money with 100% financing. That is absurd. Opportunity cost isn't determined by what PERCENT is financed - it's determined by what IS financed, what IS bought.

Now then, let's see, where is you nonexistent explanation that's so obvious that not even you can find it...?

What Juicy (yet again) doesn't realize is that for the most part mortgages are only given because a) they have a government or similar guarantee; and b) they are backed by physical collateral, usually worth a lot more than the loan itself.

Surely, Juicy, when you set up your dental office you got financing from the equipment manufacturer, giving the very equipment as collateral. If you didn't have the collateral, you couldn't get the loan.

Does that mean that that was the only option you had? No. You could have bought used equipment, you could have joined someone else's dental practice, you could have sailed around the world, or painted your office walls. You're confusing the collateral with the money - they're not the same.

I agree JM, everyone knows w67 is one of the jokers on this board.

Do you think steve doesn't realize how ridiculous he is? He makes some of the stupidest arguments around, like now, yet he insults everyone at the same time. I can't see how this guy has any friends, other than other mentally unstable ones.

How can steve be so slow to not realize that the foregone alternative to buying a house is to rent and keep your down payment invested elsewhere, and not to TAKE OUT A MILLION DOLLAR LOAN to INVEST IN STOCKS??????

Is it better to own or to rent?

"How can steve be so slow to not realize that the foregone alternative to buying a house is to rent"

Absolutely agreed, LICCdope. You're one for one thus far.

"keep your down payment invested elsewhere"

Two for two....

And then you get lost:

"...and not to TAKE OUT A MILLION DOLLAR LOAN to INVEST IN STOCKS??????"

Who said it had to be a million dollars? It could be TWO MILLION, or one hundred thousand.

Doesn't matter - you compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Otherwise, you get the impossible solution of two different opportunity costs investing the same amount: buying in cash, and buying with a mortgage (leverage). The same amount of money MUST have the same opportunity cost.

Yes, different facts and circumstances will have different opportunity costs, unless you live in steve's land of the stupid, where a small rental apartment in a dumpy building in the Theater District is something to be proud of.

Pride: an underwater studio in a dump in the Superfund District.

I may live in the "Land of the Stupid," LICCdope, but unlike you I don't live here:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/queens/images/queensbridge_houses_8feb04.jpg

and this isn't the head of my homeowners' association:

http://comps.fotosearch.com/compb/UNX/UNX234/caucasian-prime-adult_~u10068666.jpg

HAHAHAHA!

The Mayor of Long Island City:

http://img3.photographersdirect.com/img/26650/wm/pd2645904.jpg

why are you too dumb to get that there are limits to your borrowing power, and that when you choose to borrow to buy anything, including real estate that you live in, you are exhausting borrowing power with which you might buy other investments?????--you cant be that fricking stupid or youd be drilling holes in peoples faces all day--or xraying peoples private parts unnecessarily to increase billings

get a fricking lead burkha or something--your brain's cooking

and licc, please dont start in about your neighborhood pride--if this is your new twist on shilling to prop up your poor investment in lic, youve sunk to new lo's--it may be an awful place to live, and a lousy investment; but weve got pride over here in Newtown

Idiot extrodinaire ( also known as Wbottom), of course there are limits to your borrowing power, what's that have to do with anything? Neither of you geniuses have been able to post a lick about how cash for a mortgage can be used as anything other than the property being purchased. You can talk about buying stocks with your credit card all you want but neither of you have shown me how to use my mortage for anything else than the house it was intended for. I'm still waiting.......

Oh fruitjuice, sometimes it's better to focus on the next generation. Tell fruitjuice jr to log on

The Beauty Queen of Gantry Plaza State Park:
http://www.freewebs.com/damnitbobby/freaks%201.jpg

Alan keep juicy's mistress out of this. Have some decorum.

Hey w67th, have you figured out how to invest money you don't have yet? FLMAOzzzzzzzzz

Show me a return. I'll show u the money.

"how to use my mortage for anything else than the house it was intended for."

The concept of the fungibility of money seems to be beyond the JuiceMan. No surprise there.

I know a guy who has a vacation house that he couldn't get a mortgage to buy. So he mortgaged his first property instead (already paid for) and used the money to buy the vacation home.

There is an example of someone who used a mortgage for something other than the original purpose.

And he could well have bought stocks with it instead. And if he had, he could have further leveraged it with margin once it was invested.

A mortgage, JuiceDope, is merely a conveyance of title or a lien (depending on the type and the state). You will note that when you sign a mortgage you also sign a note: a promissory note. The note is the debt; the mortgage is the encumbrance. All you do with a mortgage is give collateral.

As long as you have collateral, you can do anything you want with the money. In the case of a mortgage for a new home, you need to use the money to buy the home because, presumably, you don't have the money to buy the home otherwise. But if you have $1,000,000 already, and take out a $1,000,000 mortgage to buy a house, you have effectively said, "Rather than use the $1 million I have to buy the house, I'm a gonna keep it & use it for something else. Maybe - BUY STOX!"

Because, JuiceDope, MONEY IS FUNGIBLE.

"I know a guy who has a vacation house that he couldn't get a mortgage to buy. So he mortgaged his first property instead (already paid for) and used the money to buy the vacation home."

Yet another example of using money YOU HAVE, equity in the first house, to purchase something. So far i have a number of examples of opportunty cost on money you have but you STILL haven't shown us how to buy something with money you don't have.

"As long as you have collateral, you can do anything you want with the money. In the case of a mortgage for a new home, you need to use the money to buy the home because, presumably, you don't have the money to buy the home otherwise. But if you have $1,000,000 already, and take out a $1,000,000 mortgage to buy a house, you have effectively said, "Rather than use the $1 million I have to buy the house, I'm a gonna keep it & use it for something else. Maybe - BUY STOX!"

What a load of donkey meat. You are confusing yourself again with money you have and money you don't. If you don't have the collateral you don't have the funds and therefore you don't have the opportunity cost.

Oh, and enough with the "juice dope" stuff. I could easily call you stevebigfuckingmoron but I refrain from doing so.

I see - so it's your contention that if you borrow money to buy a house it has no opportunity cost?

And it's also your contention that if you buy a home for $1 million, live in it for 10 years, sell it again for $1 million, you lived for free?

No wonder you think real estate is magical!

"You are confusing yourself again with money you have and money you don't."

No - you are confusing collateral with the money received against collateral. You are confusing a mortgage (2 g's, BTW) with a promissory note. You are confusing the fungibility of money with the non-fungibility of collateral.

Please, do call me "stevebigfuckingmoron," because I enjoy it!

"And it's also your contention that if you buy a home for $1 million, live in it for 10 years, sell it again for $1 million, you lived for free?

You know the answer to this question, it is in this thread. What an obstinate jackass.

Still waiting for you to post ANYTHING published that confirms what you are saying. ANYTHING! Why can't you find ANYTHING?

"it is in this thread"

Post it again - it AIN'T THERE!

What would you have me confirm, JuiceMan? I've already posted multiple examples of how leverage increases opportunity cost, the economic theory behind it, and the economists and economics departments at major universities who publish it.

You don't seem to get it. Do you want me to publish those links again?

What you seem to want me to do is to say that if you give your house as collateral for a loan, you don't actually have to give your house as collateral for a loan.

That is just plain DOPEY. Hence the moniker. When you give your home - or anything - as collateral, you give it as collateral. If you own a factory you could give the factory as collateral for a new boat if you want to.

Your "theory" is that if you give your home as collateral for a loan through a mortgage, then the only thing that you can use that loan for is to purchase your home. For the literal-minded and otherwise autistic Teabaggers on this thread, that seems reasonable. But it is dopey. Dopey because money is fungible. I bought a vacation home with a mortgage even though I could have paid for it in cash. I am not alone. The ONLY TIME your "theory" is valid is if you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO money left after using the loan that is secured by the mortgage to buy a home.

But no one - NO ONE - is in that position, because no bank (or anybody) will lend you money to buy a home if you're using your last dime to do it. Money is FUNGIBLE, meaning that, like beans, it doesn't matter which dollar you use. Or gold bar. It's all interchangeable.

You are correct that you can get more leverage by using a fixed asset - any fixed asset - as collateral than a financial asset (if you don't count a home as a financial asset, as some do). But that is neither here nor there. The fact is, the money you get from that loan is fungible with all other money you have.

What's so hard for you to grasp about that?

Charge it on your credit card - it doesn't matter: Money is Money.

"I bought a vacation home with a mortgage even though I could have paid for it in cash. I am not alone."

Again, opportunity cost on money you have. If you have a million and get a loan for a million you don 't suddenly double your net worth to 2 million do you?

"The ONLY TIME your "theory" is valid is if you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO money left after using the loan that is secured by the mortgage to buy a home."

This is absurd. So if I have $5000 left after my mortgage then I have a million of opportunity cost on my mortgage?

Yes, post the link from these famous economists. Can't wait to see it!

The post you are looking for is on the 3rd page halfway down. Post it here and then maybe you can shut up about it.

Did you know, Juicy, that Archie Bunker mortgaged his house to buy Archie's Place, which had the unfortunate side-effect of a really bad spinoff?

And it killed Edith.

Archie must have had some significant equity in his house in order to pull that off. Money he HAD!

Here JuiceD....

http://www.noble.org/ag/Economics/OperatingLeverage/index.html

http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/info/yic/22fin.html

http://www.comcom.govt.nz/assets/Pan-Industry/Cost-of-Capital/Submissions-on-CoC-Workshop/Unison-CRA-Leverage-and-the-Cost-of-Capital.pdf

Now then, let's see what your answer was....

And COLLATERAL, Juicy, affects your borrowing power. Your BORROWING POWER has an opportunity cost, too: do I borrow for this, or for that?

Your position is absurd. AKA "Dopey".

Thanks for posting 3 articles that do NOTHING to support your claims. Big surprise! Where in these articles does it talk about opportnity cost of borrowed funds? IT DOESN'T!

"And COLLATERAL, Juicy, affects your borrowing power. Your BORROWING POWER has an opportunity cost, too: do I borrow for this, or for that?"

Switching topics again steve? Tisk tisk.

"Where in these articles does it talk about opportnity cost of borrowed funds?"

"Leverage" = "borrowed funds."

Did you know that?

And no - I'm not switching topics. I'm trying to clarify for your dim mind the difference between collateral and the money you can borrow against it, and why money is fungible. You seem not to have these concepts clear, when even LICCdope does.

Still waiting for some articles on the opportunity cost of your mortgage. Not cash I have and can put elsewhere, not buying stocks on credit cards, not the difference between financial and operating leverage, not some article from New Zealand that uses the words " opportunity cost of debt" so must have met steves google search criteria but is actually talking about the decision to take money you have and pay down debt, not borrowing power, not taking equity from one home to buy another, not any of this.

Steve, show us ANYTHING that calculates an opportunity cost on the on the mortgage when calculating a rent vs. Buy analysis. Stop stalling, evading, switching topics, and wasting valuable space. If it is such a well known process why are you posting articles from New Zealand that are completely irrelevant? Post an article now that is relevant or admit you are wrong. Simple.

AHHH! Now Juicy changes the requirement! A mortgage loan is not "debt"! This is new!

But here:

http://truthfullending.com/paying-off-your-mortgage/

The opportunity cost of paying off your mortgage.

WAIT! That's not good enough for Juicy! BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THE MONEY!

And here's one on the opportunity cost of home ownership:

http://www.youngandfrugal.com/2009/04/08/the-opportunity-cost-of-home-ownership/

WAIT! The author is only 23! THAT'S NOT OLD ENOUGH TO GET A MORTGAGE!

Google '"opportunity cost" mortgage' and you get 1,120,000 results. I'm sure you can find one that suits you.

But nothing will ever suit you because you insist on taking the ONE option that gives you the answer that you want.

As usual.

It must be an article that SPECIFICALLY states "opportunity cost of buy/rent analysis," not "opportunity cost of home ownership." It must be SPECIFICALLY what Juicy says.

See where the "dope" came from?

""opportunity cost" "home ownership""

gets 51,800 results. Take a look.

Still evading. Every single one of these articles is about the opportunity cost of the money you have, which we have already established. Point me to ONE article out of the 51,800 that calculates an opportunity cost on the borrowed amount, as you have chosen to do. Why is it so hard Steve? Why?

Still waiting......

Gee Steve, do ya think you are going to post something soon or just give up? I love the article that you posted that talks about whether to pay off your mortgage or not. Funny how it didn't say anything about the opportunity cost of money you don 't have. Wonder why? You may want to search those New Zealand archives again....

Juicy, Juicy, Juicy, you are an adamant fool, to be sure.

Sorry to say it, but alas, 'tis true.

Let's see - we've already demonstrated that you can spend "money you don't have" with a credit card. "Equity" in your home is also "money you don't have." You have a house, not money.

You continuously confuse collateral with money. It's not money. It's collateral. You specifically are looking for one article that says exactly what you want it to say in exactly your words, and as soon as I find one, you change it again.

It's thinking like yours that got us into the mess we're in now - people who put two and two together and get twenty-two. People who don't understand the fungibility of money, the multiplier effect, leverage and hurdle rates. All of the articles I posted are relevant to the discussion and deal directly with it; you, as a dentist, merely don't have the knowledge to understand what they're saying.

Like living in a $1 million house for 10 years and selling it after ten years for $1 million means you've lived for free.

Or that living in a $1 million house paid for in cash, and you still have the house AND $1 million in cash.

That is the logical conclusion of your position, Juicy.

But it's wrong. You have the house, not the money. You want money, in most cases you have to put down security.

How much security, then, will depend on the asset. If you're using the house as the asset for your mortgage, then you have to do the same for stocks: use the same leverage. Otherwise, you get no opportunity cost and the world is free.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, lots of words and no article. Surely someone else in the world calculates opportunity cost like steve does? Anyone? Stewie? mr T.?

Just post an article that shows someone calculating it like you do steve. Can't be that hard if everyone does it this way right steve?

Still waiting.......

I post, Juicy, you add new requirements. Why don't you provide us an exhaustive, detailed list of your requirements, EXACTLY what the article must say, word for word.

And explain to us how you can live for free if you pay in cash, and live with no opportunity cost if you put no money down.

Two plus two equals...twenty-two.

Juiceman's anger issues are showing.

More words no article.

I'm not changing requirements steve. Only you could propose silly calculations with nothing to back it up. What we all want see is a rent vs buy analysis where the opportunity cost is calculated on both the equity and the mortgage balance. This was the only request, the only topic, the only thing I was interested from the beginning. You are the one that decided to post articles from !ew Zealand while trying to change topics and evade the question for a week. So now a simple request:

Show us an article that calculates opportunity cost on the equity and the mortgage balance when doing a rent vs, buy analysis.

Is it better to own or to rent?

Maybe steve can post one of his imputed rent articles? Surely the famous macroeconomists do it this way right?

hey juice
steve's done a lot of explaining and posting, at your behest, much of which has been compelling
and you ridicule, damnd more, and change the terms of your inquiry; while offering little or no explanation of your own

why don't you addrss what steve has present and explain your point of view?

seems you are avoiding this--put your ideas out there for a change, if you have any

"Only you could propose silly calculations with nothing to back it up"

HAHAHAHA!

I'll see what I can do but it won't be today: Ma's coming shortly, for the holiday.

Remember, though, Juicy: you were the one who wrote to the authors of a study because they forgot to include the principal amortization in their calculations. AMAZINGLY, neither the New York Fed nor Goldman Sachs got back to you.

I also recall that the Juice quoted a study from Hong Kong once...where mortgage interest isn't deducted.

Funny how he, like Fox Gnus, disdains foreigners except when they don't.

Of course steve is evading, because his argument is idiotic and contrary to economic principles and intelligent thought.

Only someone who is mentally disturbed would assume that the alternative to buying a house with a mortgage is to borrow the same amount of money and invest it in stocks. No one in their right mind would do such a dumb thing. Enter steve.

The sad part is steve probably knows this, but his stubborn refusal to admit he is wrong (time and again) causes him to keep pushing it with distortions and evasions, making him look like even more of an idiot.

"seems you are avoiding this--put your ideas out there for a change, if you have any"

This from the person who hasn't answered one question posed to him. Wbottom has less credibility than steve if that is even possible

"The sad part is steve probably knows this, but his stubborn refusal to admit he is wrong (time and again) causes him to keep pushing it with distortions and evasions, making him look like even more of an idiot."

Yes, but we are performing a public service keeping steve from cluttering other threads

Still waiting steve, it shouldn't take long if this is common principal right? Just post the rulebook white papers, those economists calculate opportunity cost this way right?

Best to your Ma and happy Thanksgiving to her.

"Common principle," not "principal," Juicy.

Ma's on NJT right now.

LICCdope: one who lives in Long Island City should dare speak down to one who lives in Manhattan. Learn your place.

Thank the iPad for the grammar mistake. I hate auto correct.

I agree - and Word correcting my grammar is even worse.

But I'm a fan of the squiggly red lines under misspellings.

Thought I'd check in - still no answer from Stevie kablooie. And yet you mock JuiceMan for (supposedly) not answering your questions? Amazing.

We really are doing a service here, steve is a menace.

"Only someone who is mentally disturbed would assume that the alternative to buying a house with a mortgage is to borrow the same amount of money and invest it in stocks. No one in their right mind would do such a dumb thing. Enter steve."

classic moronics from LICC--any time he veers from insult to anything tangible, he belies his dumbness

steve has said that alternatives, that might be considered, to borrowing to buy real estate would include leveraged (margin, stock loan, whatever)investments in stocks, commodities, fixed income, etc. I also invest in private equity and hedge funds which hasve substantial embedded leverage. He is spot on. In fact apples to apples comparison of leveraged RE with other instruments, would require similar leverage of the alternative. In practice, one might be in cash, or own gold futures with 15:1 leverage, or own triple tax free munis (ouch!), or anything.

Happy thanksgiving all.

LICC careful not to mistake yourself for the turkey you mean to serve!!

wbottom you are basically steve's alter ego, which means your comments are just as idiotic and delusional as his. You should try to learn about economics and opportunity costs before commenting again.

very good LICC--a safe response--all insult and no attempt to be at all substantive--

what little substance you produce is garbage, so, like i said, best you stick to the insult

tu quoque much, LICcomm?

This is theatre of the absurd, except that it's comical with none of the tragedy or depth. Everyone knows what the words "opportunity cost" mean in the context of making a leveraged purchase of real estate. If there are some imputed alternative financial decisions here, it's sure a moving target, and all the arguments do is throw in more moving targets. The amusing part is the tone.

lowery, please ... I want to find out how it ends before reading the lit crit. Is it too much to ask for me to find out who wins the argument in the end?

"ar, I don't like either (lemming or troll), but have to laugh at a small handful of posters treading pretty close to troll territory, even as they denounce the principal troll around here."

oh, the irony...

alanhart, I haven't done the lit crit yet. There's far too much material to digest and give proper credit to. When someone wins, please let me know, but I can give you a big hint as to when that will be............

wbottom- the person who hasn't made an intelligent substantive comment yet- nice try at deflection.