MJS Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 15 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said: Because he can pay cash for a house and not have a mortgage. Since he’s a 1st round pick, he will be there at least two years. He will earn another million and his house will appreciate 16%-20% in two years with this housing market. If he gets cut because he is a bust, sell the house and make a profit. Because he will make a profit on the house when he sells it in 2-3 years. You have to account for seller fees. He might be able to sell a house for more in 2 to 3 years, but I still bet he loses money on it because you have to account for at least 5-6% of the future sale price in fees. Plus, the housing market is not great right now. There is no guarantee it will even go up in two or three years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 8 minutes ago, MJS said: You have to account for seller fees. He might be able to sell a house for more in 2 to 3 years, but I still bet he loses money on it because you have to account for at least 5-6% of the future sale price in fees. Plus, the housing market is not great right now. There is no guarantee it will even go up in two or three years. When you're barely ever home, maintaining a house is difficult. I doubt he intends to spend his offseasons in KC. For all we know hes out there looking for the right house as we speak. He was just drafted and its still a month before camp begins. Silly criticism of a kid. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: 16-20%?? lol. he can't pick you as his financial adviser... LOL. In one year increased 14%. How much does it need to increase to 16% the next year? I think you can do the math. https://www.redfin.com/city/35751/MO/Kansas-City/housing-market “Kansas City Housing Market Trends What is the housing market like in Kansas City today? In April 2024, Kansas City home prices were up 14.0% compared to last year, selling for a median price of $285K. On average, homes in Kansas City sell after 22 days on the market compared to 21 days last year. There were 674 homes sold in April this year, up from 617 last year.“ 22 minutes ago, Jauronimo said: When you're barely ever home, maintaining a house is difficult. I doubt he intends to spend his offseasons in KC. For all we know hes out there looking for the right house as we speak. He was just drafted and its still a month before camp begins. Silly criticism of a kid. I am mostly being tongue and cheek….you know me about real estate. 33 minutes ago, MJS said: You have to account for seller fees. He might be able to sell a house for more in 2 to 3 years, but I still bet he loses money on it because you have to account for at least 5-6% of the future sale price in fees. Plus, the housing market is not great right now. There is no guarantee it will even go up in two or three years. KC housing market grew 14% since last year. Lets say he buys the house at $400,000 and pays cash. How much would that house be worth if it grew 14%? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 15 hours ago, billsfan89 said: Fair enough but I think there is value in the flexibility that renting provides and you can just invest the rest in an Index Fund that will provide you similar returns with a lot less stress. If you are Worthy in KC you can rent a place super nice for like 3k a month (I can't imagine you couldn't get a nice 2-3 bedroom in that range) and then invest the rest into an Index fund and you probably get a similar return with dividends reinvested. We are splitting hairs here but I think there's a case for renting in some circumstances and I think you can make a valid case especially during his rookie year where he may not want the hassles that come with owning a home one less distraction. Definitely wise to diversify your portfolio, so things like an Index Fund are never a bad idea...however, over long term, an index fund should honestly never outperform real estate unless you buy really bad real estate. And while putting money into a fund is obviously easier, real estate really isn't hard to manage as you can just hire a property management company to handle it. Avg home value in the US is 242% higher today than 20 years ago. You buy an investment property 20 years ago for $330,000 it would be worth $800,000 today based on the national average. And lets say you carried a $300,000 mortgage at 6%, the balance today would be $157,000 giving you another $143,000 in equitable gains from someone else paying your mortgage. And that is all before you factor any earnings from the rents. Rental prices have also gone way up over 20 years, but if you keep it modest and say over 20 years your avg net monthly gain (Rent - Mtg, Tax, Ins, Repairs, Vacancies, etc) was just $200 a month (and over 20 years it would very likely be much higher than that) that would be another $48,000. Their original $30k investment would be worth $661,000 in 20 years...or basically equivalent of getting a 17.5% annual rate of return. Now compare that to a fund...if that fund averaged an 8% return it would be worth about $140,000 in 20 years. Thats $521,000 less in gains over that time. And as you can see the gap is so wide that you don't even have to have the real estate equal the national averages for it to greatly out perform a fund, and if you buy in an area that outperforms the national average the returns would be even greater. And keep in mind these are athletes we are talking about, so affordability isn't a question and they could buy 10 or 20 of these houses to start. And as they make more money along the way, keep adding more properties to their portfolio as they made more money if the chose. If I was advising these athletes, I would highly encourage them to rent and get their money diversified into both long term real estate holdings and long term securities. They did that, they would still have plenty of money for their lives now and would be building wealth and income for retirement. Once those properties are paid off, the rents are mostly profit, and with the kind of holdings they can have by then they would be looking at tens of thousand, to even well into 6 figures in MONTHLY income for the rest of their lives. But...then there are idiots like Worthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Definitely wise to diversify your portfolio, so things like an Index Fund are never a bad idea...however, over long term, an index fund should honestly never outperform real estate unless you buy really bad real estate. And while putting money into a fund is obviously easier, real estate really isn't hard to manage as you can just hire a property management company to handle it. Avg home value in the US is 242% higher today than 20 years ago. You buy an investment property 20 years ago for $330,000 it would be worth $800,000 today based on the national average. And lets say you carried a $300,000 mortgage at 6%, the balance today would be $157,000 giving you another $143,000 in equitable gains from someone else paying your mortgage. And that is all before you factor any earnings from the rents. Rental prices have also gone way up over 20 years, but if you keep it modest and say over 20 years your avg net monthly gain (Rent - Mtg, Tax, Ins, Repairs, Vacancies, etc) was just $200 a month (and over 20 years it would very likely be much higher than that) that would be another $48,000. Their original $30k investment would be worth $661,000 in 20 years...or basically equivalent of getting a 17.5% annual rate of return. Now compare that to a fund...if that fund averaged an 8% return it would be worth about $140,000 in 20 years. Thats $521,000 less in gains over that time. And as you can see the gap is so wide that you don't even have to have the real estate equal the national averages for it to greatly out perform a fund, and if you buy in an area that outperforms the national average the returns would be even greater. And keep in mind these are athletes we are talking about, so affordability isn't a question and they could buy 10 or 20 of these houses to start. And as they make more money along the way, keep adding more properties to their portfolio as they made more money if the chose. If I was advising these athletes, I would highly encourage them to rent and get their money diversified into both long term real estate holdings and long term securities. They did that, they would still have plenty of money for their lives now and would be building wealth and income for retirement. Once those properties are paid off, the rents are mostly profit, and with the kind of holdings they can have by then they would be looking at tens of thousand, to even well into 6 figures in MONTHLY income for the rest of their lives. But...then there are idiots like Worthy. The S and P 500 (the most common index fund type) has appreciated 400% since 2004 and that's without dividends reinvested which would probably compound you into a 475% return. But even just going on a 400% return that's a much better rate of return than Real Estate in that time frame which is 275%. That's without having to pay for upkeep, property tax, insurance and other costs associated with home ownership. Now you can rent in that 20 year period but that's also going to come with a lot of pain in the ass things like you have to hope you get a good tenant because one bad tenant can set you back a lot. At best real estate maybe if you get a great tenant is yielding you equal to an index fund with dividends reinvested plus or minus 10-15%. Now since you actually do need a place to live it is still a good idea to own a home if you know (with about as much degree of certainty as you can have) where you want to live long term. Locking in a mortgage for equity and a fixed cost (outside of property tax and insurance which will go up more slowly than rent) is a great idea for your common person to at least own the home they live in. Worthy and these athletes probably short term are better off renting and parking their money in an index fund which yields better annual returns and less stress than maintaining rental properties and less stress in having to buy and sell a home or condo twice in a few years. It's a lot easier to rent a nice 2-3 bedroom and break a lease than it is to close on a home, furnish it, and move out and sell it again. I used to work for a Real Estate Franchise headquarters doing training videos and the CEO and other head honchos there told me that outside of owning your own home an Index Fund in the S and P 500 is actually a better less stressful way to invest your money, pretty much better or the same returns but you don't have to worry about renting or managing properties and it is a lot easier to sell your stock or a portion of your stock if you need the liquidity. For example if you had 330,000 invested into an S&P 500 Index Fund in 2004 it would be worth 1.32 million. That's without dividends reinvested. That's a lot bigger of a return than the 800,000k a home would be worth if bought in 2004. Even if you got an average of 2k a month in rent consistently for those 20 years that would get you to 1.28 million which would be a very generous amount of consistent rent to get you are still falling short about 40k and you have to deal with a lot more maintaince and stress with renters and you have to pay property taxes and capital gains on sales. Whereas once you cash out on an index fund you pretty much just pay the cap gains tax. Edited June 1 by billsfan89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 (edited) 22 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: The S and P 500 (the most common index fund type) has appreciated 400% since 2004 and that's without dividends reinvested which would probably compound you into a 475% return. But even just going on a 400% return that's a much better rate of return than Real Estate in that time frame which is 275%. That's without having to pay for upkeep, property tax, insurance and other costs associated with home ownership. Now you can rent in that 20 year period but that's also going to come with a lot of pain in the ass things like you have to hope you get a good tenant because one bad tenant can set you back a lot. At best real estate maybe if you get a great tenant is yielding you equal to an index fund with dividends reinvested plus or minus 10-15%. Now since you actually do need a place to live it is still a good idea to own a home if you know (with about as much degree of certainty as you can have) where you want to live long term. Locking in a mortgage for equity and a fixed cost (outside of property tax and insurance which will go up more slowly than rent) is a great idea for your common person to at least own the home they live in. Worthy and these athletes probably short term are better off renting and parking their money in an index fund which yields better annual returns and less stress than maintaining rental properties and less stress in having to buy and sell a home or condo twice in a few years. It's a lot easier to rent a nice 2-3 bedroom and break a lease than it is to close on a home, furnish it, and move out and sell it again. I used to work for a Real Estate Franchise headquarters doing training videos and the CEO and other head honchos there told me that outside of owning your own home an Index Fund in the S and P 500 is actually a better less stressful way to invest your money, pretty much better or the same returns but you don't have to worry about renting or managing properties and it is a lot easier to sell your stock or a portion of your stock if you need the liquidity. But the money gained on real estate is not just the equitable property gains, that was only 1 of 3 ways property brings returns. It was a 17.5% annual rate of return...$30k into $661,000 in 20 years...and that was being conservative on rents and not factoring in larger gains if they bought in growth areas. It also doesn't factor in leveraging the equity gained into additional property. This is a common oversight that comes up all the time when people want to discuss real estate gains vs funds. They forget or overlook the equitable gains from someone else paying off your mortgage, only the capital gains above the acquisition price. For example, just the equitable gains from the mortgage pay down from someone else paying your mortgage over 20 years alone in the example above was $143,000. Which that aspect alone returns more over 20 years than a fund at 8% annual return (which was $110,000), and I think most people would love a fund that had an 8% annual return for 20 years. Expecting a fund to match or best a 17.5% annual return feels unrealistic to me. Again...not against investing in the funds by any means...you should always diversify. But my personal trust for growing wealth is in real estate. But honestly, if Worthy and these athletes just did either of these they would be wise...but most unfortunately aren't wise with their money. Edited June 1 by Alphadawg7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: But the money gained on real estate is not just the equitable property gains, that was only 1 of 3 ways property brings returns. It was a 17.5% annual rate of return...$30k into $661,000 in 20 years...and that was being conservative on rents and not factoring in larger gains if they bought in growth areas. It also doesn't factor in leveraging the equity gained into additional property. This is the problem that comes up all the time when people want to discuss real estate gains vs funds. They never consider the equitable gains from someone else paying off your mortgage, only the capital gains above the acquisition price. The equitable gains from the mortgage pay down over 20 years alone in the example above were $143,000 which that aspect alone returns more over 20 years than a fund at 8% annual return (which was $110,000). You find me a fund that is giving a 17.5% annual rate or return on average for 20 years straight and I will get you a lot of clients. Again...not against investing in the funds by any means...you should diversify. But real estate is a better wealth generator IMHO. Get me a list of clients then. SPDR Index Fund was selling for 110 in May 2004 it is selling currently for 527. That's a 470% return over that time period roughly 20 years no dividends reinvested. That's a 23.5% yearly rate of return. That's not some obscure outlier here either, most index funds like VOO that all track the S&P 500 have similar returns within 1%. Compare that to Real Estate which comes with a ton of headaches in terms of renters, yearly property taxes, maintaining properties, closing costs, lack of liquidity insurance costs, and a ton of other factors the index fund is a better investment by far. You should own your own home, that's very clear, because you need a place to live and renting costs go up and you get no equity from that. But investment properties aren't worth it. Edited June 1 by billsfan89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickelCity Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 Back to relevance: that tiktok video is hilarious. What a clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 3 hours ago, pennstate10 said: Gotta say that you yougns don’t have a realistic view of real estate. We bought a nice house in Getzville for $196K in 1992 (original owner was Ted Cotrell, Bills DC). Sold the house for $175K in 1999 when I relocated. My signing bonus more than covered the loss, but the lesson is that real estate doesn’t go straight up. not so young, but I agree. His taxes would be higher than his rent and he will be stuck trying to sell in a high interest market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said: LOL. In one year increased 14%. How much does it need to increase to 16% the next year? I think you can do the math. https://www.redfin.com/city/35751/MO/Kansas-City/housing-market “Kansas City Housing Market Trends What is the housing market like in Kansas City today? In April 2024, Kansas City home prices were up 14.0% compared to last year, selling for a median price of $285K. On average, homes in Kansas City sell after 22 days on the market compared to 21 days last year. There were 674 homes sold in April this year, up from 617 last year.“ I am mostly being tongue and cheek….you know me about real estate. KC housing market grew 14% since last year. Lets say he buys the house at $400,000 and pays cash. How much would that house be worth if it grew 14%? https://www.noradarealestate.com/blog/kansas-city-real-estate/ "According to Zillow, the Kansas City housing market is currently experiencing a robust growth trajectory, with the average home value soaring to $236,292, marking an impressive 6.9% increase over the past year. Moreover, homes in Kansas City are swiftly going to pending status in approximately 7 days, indicating a high demand in the market. Kansas City MSA Housing Market Forecast: The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of Kansas City, MO, encompasses various counties in Missouri and Kansas. This housing market is projected to witness significant growth, with forecasts indicating a steady rise in property values. For instance, by April 30, 2024, the forecast predicts a 0.5% increase, followed by a 1.1% rise by June 30, 2024, and a further 1.8%uptick by March 31, 2025. This forecast underpins the promising outlook for the Kansas City MSA, highlighting opportunities for both buyers and sellers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: https://www.noradarealestate.com/blog/kansas-city-real-estate/ "According to Zillow, the Kansas City housing market is currently experiencing a robust growth trajectory, with the average home value soaring to $236,292, marking an impressive 6.9% increase over the past year. Moreover, homes in Kansas City are swiftly going to pending status in approximately 7 days, indicating a high demand in the market. Kansas City MSA Housing Market Forecast: The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of Kansas City, MO, encompasses various counties in Missouri and Kansas. This housing market is projected to witness significant growth, with forecasts indicating a steady rise in property values. For instance, by April 30, 2024, the forecast predicts a 0.5% increase, followed by a 1.1% rise by June 30, 2024, and a further 1.8%uptick by March 31, 2025. This forecast underpins the promising outlook for the Kansas City MSA, highlighting opportunities for both buyers and sellers." So whose link is correct? Let me guess, Zillow obviously is smarter than Redfin. And just like any city. Its location. Most people are poor and those areas houses do not appreciate well. Nicer areas appreciate very well. I think someone like Worthy would have a home in a nicer area of KC. Would you say houses appreciate more in Orchard Park or the lower Westside of Buffalo? Edited June 1 by Royale with Cheese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 Came for the bad worthy takes stayed for the bad investment advice 1 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, billsfan89 said: Get me a list of clients then. SPDR Index Fund was selling for 110 in May 2004 it is selling currently for 527. That's a 470% return over that time period roughly 20 years no dividends reinvested. That's a 23.5% yearly rate of return. That's not some obscure outlier here either, most index funds like VOO that all track the S&P 500 have similar returns within 1%. Compare that to Real Estate which comes with a ton of headaches in terms of renters, yearly property taxes, maintaining properties, closing costs, lack of liquidity insurance costs, and a ton of other factors the index fund is a better investment by far. You should own your own home, that's very clear, because you need a place to live and renting costs go up and you get no equity from that. But investment properties aren't worth it. Agree to disagree on whether investment homes are worth it or not. I’ll take the permanent income for life from the rents which are all mostly profit once other people pay your mortgage which is also something you are not considering in your comparison. Player buys 20 houses putting 10% down that’s $600k outlay and would be worth $12.6M today based on the earlier parameters. And once the mortgages are paid off the rents would be earning him an additional $800,000 to $1,200,000 annually in income on top of the future equitable gains. Again, good to do both and be diversified. Edited June 1 by Alphadawg7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 14 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Agree to disagree on whether investment homes are worth it or not. I’ll take the permanent income for life from the rents which are all mostly profit once other people pay your mortgage which is also something you are not considering in your comparison. Player buys 20 houses putting 10% down that’s $600k outlay and would be worth $12.6M today based on the earlier parameters. And once the mortgages are paid off the rents would be earning him an additional $800,000 to $1,200,000 annually in income on top of the future equitable gains. Again, good to do both and be diversified. my comparison was not to rental properties. The discussion is whether to buy in KC (for 2 years) a place to live, vs renting a place to live. now you are talking about being a real estate investor for income. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: my comparison was not to rental properties. The discussion is whether to buy in KC (for 2 years) a place to live, vs renting a place to live. now you are talking about being a real estate investor for income. I get that, but I introduced a 3rd option because he can do both…rent and still buy long term real estate property, and quite frankly it’s by far the better option IMHO. Plus I joined into the discussion when index funds and real estate were being discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunsgoodtime Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 "Keon Coleman makes cath from Josh Allen on a slant in shorts" The Bills are winning the SB 🤣 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 2 hours ago, billsfan89 said: For example if you had 330,000 invested into an S&P 500 Index Fund in 2004 it would be worth 1.32 million. That's without dividends reinvested. That's a lot bigger of a return than the 800,000k a home would be worth if bought in 2004. Even if you got an average of 2k a month in rent consistently for those 20 years that would get you to 1.28 million which would be a very generous amount of consistent rent to get you are still falling short about 40k and you have to deal with a lot more maintaince and stress with renters and you have to pay property taxes and capital gains on sales. Whereas once you cash out on an index fund you pretty much just pay the cap gains tax. No offense but your math is wrong here. He didn’t invest $330,000 in 2004, he invested $30,000. Had he invested $330,000 (that would have bought 11 homes in that scenario) it would be with $7.271 million which is a lot more than $1.28 million from your fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 28 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Agree to disagree on whether investment homes are worth it or not. I’ll take the permanent income for life from the rents which are all mostly profit once other people pay your mortgage which is also something you are not considering in your comparison. Player buys 20 houses putting 10% down that’s $600k outlay and would be worth $12.6M today based on the earlier parameters. And once the mortgages are paid off the rents would be earning him an additional $800,000 to $1,200,000 annually in income on top of the future equitable gains. Again, good to do both and be diversified. I don’t think we needed to go to the extreme. I don’t its a smart idea to buy 20 houses at 10%. Just buy one for cash, live in it for 2-3 years and I am certain you will make money if you buy in the right location. I just would never rent with that much money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 (edited) 2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said: So whose link is correct? Let me guess, Zillow obviously is smarter than Redfin. And just like any city. Its location. Most people are poor and those areas houses do not appreciate well. Nicer areas appreciate very well. I think someone like Worthy would have a home in a nicer area of KC. Would you say houses appreciate more in Orchard Park or the lower Westside of Buffalo? This is something I actually know something about. I used to say the volume estimators were complete garbage, but now I just say they are complete garbage. If you have never been inside a house, you have no idea what it is worth. It could be a pristine palace, or a tear down worth just the dirt, and they are guessing toward the middle. Don’t buy old pics. There are reasons the Appraisal Institute changed their definition from an “opinion of value” (as it was known) to an “estimate of value”. Computers can’t have opinions, and people wanted to make money. EDIT: But that football guy is a speedy but soft twig. 😋 There, I did my best to get back on track. . Edited June 1 by Augie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaggersEOD Posted June 1 Share Posted June 1 But why even sell the house? Pay cash on a house at each location, if you move on, rent it and buy another. Pay a property manager, no worries. Renting a former player’s house should be easy. Nice little passive money generator when you leave the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.