HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bd670@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Russell I. Dyreng)
Subject: Re: Owner Occupied -vs- Rental Mortgage
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:30:33 GMT


>Does anyone understand how a mortgage company might react if we 
>wanted to change the use of a house we might buy from a 2nd 
>residence status (owner occupied) to a rental?  (We are putting 
>20% down.)

When you fill out your loan application you have to sign a 
statement that says you intend to use the property as your 
primary residence.  However, if after a reasonable period of time
you decide that you want a different primary residence and to use
that as a rental, they won't squawk.  I did exactly that  and it
went without a hitch.  

>What happens if we go ahead and buy the property as a 2nd 
>residence and then rent it out?  Will they find out through 
>insurance?  Will they simply raise my interest rate?  Will they 
>care?

The insurance company wouldn't even need to tell them, because
you would probably want all of your correspondence with them to
to the address where you live anyway.  

>Do they care because rental property depreciates faster?  They 
>already know we can make the payment because we're buying as a 
>2nd residence.

Usually the reason that the mortgage company wants you to have
the home as your primary residence is that it lessens their
risk, especially if you have a small downpayment (usually 30%
or less).  If you run into a financial problem down the road 
and you have more than 30% into your investment property, the 
chances of your walking away from it are much less than if you 
had only a 10% stake in it.  

So when you buy a property with 5%, 10% or 20% down, they 
would like you to claim that as your primary residence.  Why?
Because they figure that you are more likely to walk away from
a piece of investment property with minimal equity in it than 
the place where you live at that same equity position.

Russ
bd670@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky misc.invest.real-estate:600 misc.consumers:15801 misc.consumers.house:11496
From: amalik@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Alka Malik Sobti)
Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate,misc.consumers,misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Making an offer for ahome with a lien
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:28:17 GMT
Reply-To: amalik@bubba.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: misc
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA


I would like to thank all of you that responded to my question on
liens.

Thank you for sending your replies to me directly.

Thank you.

							- Alka
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
Subject: Re: Real Estate News Summary, Part 114
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:23:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unocal Corporation

In article <19812@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
>I wonder if they've considered the "baby boomlet."  Ie, the children of
>the baby boomers.  Someone born at the beginning of the baby boom, say
>around 1945, should have kids old enough to buy their first or second
>house by now.

In southern california we have the Asian factor.
Approximately 25% of recent home sales are to Asian surnames although
this group was only 13% of the 1990 census.  This kept our dismal market
from completely collapsing.
From: dprlcm@inetg1.ARCO.COM (Larry Morley)
Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
Subject: Re: "Passivity" of Income/Loss (was Re: Need help with rental depreciation)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 19:49:00 GMT
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company

In article <183dbnINNdmj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bd670@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Russell I. Dyreng) writes:
> 
> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
> >Written in article <1992Aug28.163444.14498@berlioz.nsc.com>
> >by worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden):
> >
> >: Between 100K and 150K there is a
> >: phaseout of deductibility for "passive losses" which do 
> >: apply to rental property.
> >
> >I may be mistaken, but I've heard there are methods whereby the 
> >"passive" can be redefined into "active," thereby fully 
> >restoring all deductability.
> >
> >Things such as handling ALL the paperwork and management 
> >yourself, vs.hiring a property management company.
> >
> >Anyone know for certain?
> >
> >--
> >The Chipmunk.
> 
> The IRS defines passive as essentially to mean that you 
> contribute nothing but money to the operation.  This passive rule
> usually deals with things like real estate limited partnerships.
> 
> When you hire a property manager yourself to manage your property
> you are still making all of the decisions and calling the shots.
> This makes you an active participant for tax purposes.
> 
> Short and simple.
> 
> Russ
> bd670@cleveland.freenet.edu

Even though the *definition* of an "active" real estate investor may be 
short and simple, the 1986 Tax Reform Act contained language which
singled out real estate investment for uniquely rigid treatment under
the tax code. The code expressly prohibits any investor with more than
100K adjusted gross income (AGI) from fully deducting losses from real 
estate activity against non-passive income. This deductibility cap is
phased down to zero at 150K AGI. One particularly onerous feature of the
cap is that it is applied no matter how "active" the investor is deemed
to be. The only redeeming feature of the code is that the non-deductible
portion of these losses may be accumulated on a year-to-year basis and 
realized when the investment property is ultimately liquidated.

One of Bush's proposed changes for '92 was to eliminate this cap 
for "professional" real estate investors - i.e. for individuals who
could demonstrate that they devoted more than 50% of their working time
to actively managing and investing in real estate. This seemed to have
a lot of support in congress but unfortunately was never enacted since
Bush and congress could never agree on other parts of the whole tax
package. 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
From: tki@atk.tpo.fi (Tuukka Kirveskoski)
Subject: Re: Real-estate prices & U.S. economy
Organization: Tampere Telephone Co, Tampere Finland
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:52:43 GMT

in article <23jnm5k@lynx.unm.edu> pkrause@triton.unm.edu (Paul Krause CIRT) 
writes:

>In article <tki.21.0@atk.tpo.fi> tki@atk.tpo.fi (Tuukka Kirveskoski) writes:
>>I've been thinking a lot of investing my money in a condo or real-estate
>>here in Finland. I have read a lot of articles describing the markets in
>>the U.S.A. which sound to be similar to ours here (depression in economy
>>, unemployment and high interest rates force prices down). The end of
>>real-estate skyrocketing was year '87 (?) in the States and '89 here in
>>Finland. I understand that the recovery time in economy is different in
>>different countries, but I still would be pleased to know some of your
>>forecasts how long does it take your real-estate markets going up again?

>>Tuukka Kirveskoski           
>>========================================================================

>I think the USA is really made up of several regional markets that are 
>somewhat independent.  I bought a 4-plex in late 1987 thinking the market 
>would turn in 2-3 years.  It has actually taken 5.  The people I know who
>are still buying real estate will not do a deal unless there is cash
>flow from the first day.  Any increase in value is considered a bonus.

>Paul

Do the different regional markets in the U.S. have a common trend? In which
regional market can the change first be seen? Our markets change first
in the capital area of Helsinki and after a delay the rest of the country
walks on those footsteps. Is there in the States some area where the mar-
ket trend is continuously up nowadays? I'm trying to mirror it all to 
our local markets. We haven't reach the bottom, yet, and it may be wiser
to rent than to buy now (the prices have come down about 40% since the
end of '89.).

========================================================================
Tuukka Kirveskoski                                   I There's no TRY,     
Tampere Telephone Co., Tampere Finland               I there's only
Internet e-mail:  tki@atk.tpo.fi                     I      DO
                  tuukka.kirveskoski/o=tpo/@elisa.fi I      or
Elisa    e-mail:  Kirveskoski_Tuukka_TPO             I  NOT TO DO !
========================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
From: waldnerm@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew R. Waldner)
Subject: Re: 15 year vs. 30 year loans
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:14:00 GMT

If you use quarterly compounding (most mutual funds do
this) the reward is even greater - almost $862,000.

Matt
Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
From: schludermann@sscvx1.ssc.gov
Subject: WANTED house to rent in Bridge City TX
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:18:17 GMT

 I need to find a two bedroom 2 car garadge house in the bridge city, Orange
county area of south east Texas.
                                 Kris

Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
From: eroth@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (elizabeth.s.roth)
Subject: Re: 15 year vs. 30 year loans
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:56:51 GMT

In article <dbinford.714405881@neptune> dbinford@convex.com (David Binford) writes:
>>Did I miss anything?
>
>I think so.  If I understand what you are comparing :
>
>1. 50,000 note @ 8% for yrs 0-15, THEN invest same payment @ 15% for yrs 15-30
>			VS
>2. 50,000 note @ 8% for yrs 0-30, and invest the between the 15 year note and
>   the 30 year note (432.12-312.75=120.06) @ 15% for yrs 0-30
>
>One problem is you are investing without compounding the interest. i.e.
>you are only paying yourself interest on the investment payments, not the
>investment itself.  If you run the same numbers with compounding interest
>here is what I get for the investment lines of your example
>
>> + 84,014.48 savings ($432.81 x 12 x 15 at 15%)
>invest (432.81*12) at 15% compounded annually for 15 years = 215,116.61
>
>>+ 46,621.11 savings ($120.06 x 12 x 30 at 15%)
>invest (120.06*12) at 15% compounded annually for 30 years = 720,297.88
>
>

Run that by me again.  $120.06 a month for 30 years can become
$720,297.88.  Granted I used simple interest instead of compounding,
but I don't get your figures.  Want to break it down?

>Looking it another way, you are borrowing at 8% and investing at 15%.  For
>every dollar you don't send to the note and send to the investment, you
>are make 7% on that dollar.
>
>My own view on this (not that anyone actually asked for it), is to take out
>a 30 year note.  If you have money to invest that does not need to be very
>liquid, you put it where it gives you the best return.  If you can't find
>an investment that will outperform your own loan, you "invest" in it and
>"earn" the rate of your loan.
>--
>/*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ */
>  Dave Binford		   (214) 497-4762	    dbinford@convex.COM
>  Convex Computer Corp.  P.O. Box 833851   Richardson, Texas 75083-3851
>/*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ */


-- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Education never helped morals ... the    -- WILL           (all the usual   <
> smarter the guy, the bigger the rascal.  -- ROGERS          disclaimers)    <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
From: pkrause@triton.unm.edu (Paul Krause CIRT)
Subject: Re: Real-estate prices & U.S. economy
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 21:25:44 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <tki.21.0@atk.tpo.fi> tki@atk.tpo.fi (Tuukka Kirveskoski) writes:
>I've been thinking a lot of investing my money in a condo or real-estate
>here in Finland. I have read a lot of articles describing the markets in
>the U.S.A. which sound to be similar to ours here (depression in economy
>, unemployment and high interest rates force prices down). The end of
>real-estate skyrocketing was year '87 (?) in the States and '89 here in
>Finland. I understand that the recovery time in economy is different in
>different countries, but I still would be pleased to know some of your
>forecasts how long does it take your real-estate markets going up again?
>========================================================================
>Tuukka Kirveskoski                                   I There's no TRY,     
>========================================================================

I think the USA is really made up of several regional markets that are 
somewhat independent.  I bought a 4-plex in late 1987 thinking the market 
would turn in 2-3 years.  It has actually taken 5.  The people I know who
are still buying real estate will not do a deal unless there is cash
flow from the first day.  Any increase in value is considered a bonus.

Paul

Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
From: rogerv@sco.COM (Roger Vortman)
Subject: Re: 15 year vs. 30 year loans
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:01:02 GMT


>: I think to sum up the whole idea behind paying a 30-year mortgage in 30 
>:    years instead of getting a 15-year mortgage, has been to
>:
>: [...]
>:
>:	 2) And, take advantage of the tax deduction for as long as possible
>:		 (30 years in this case).

>Don't forget, the interest portion of the payment shrinks over time.

>To take a classic example, the payment on $100k loan at 18% (1.5% per
>month) is $1507 (and change).  Of that first month, the interest portion
>is $1500, (1.5% of $100k) and $7 is principle reduction.  The very next
>month, it's only 1.5% of $99,993, a little less.

>Somewhere between 5 and 10 years, you reach the halfway point, 1/2
>interest, and 1/2 principle.  It's not linear, so it's not at 15.

>By the time you get to around 20, 25 years into the loan, the interest
>deduction is so small it's almost not worth keeping track of for tax
>purposes.

If you are talking about a 30-year loan (at least that is the only
one that it makes sense to talk about 20-25 years into the loan), then
the half-way point is at 23 years, which makes it untrue that at 20-25
years into the loan the interest deduction is not worth keeping track
of...unless $600/month interest on a $1200/month payment ($7200 per
year) is below your tax accounting threshold.  It certainly isn't below
mine

I guess that I am just not understanding your example, because you
speak of being at the half-way point at 5-10 years, and then speak of
being 20-25 years into the loan.  If you are talking about a 30-year
loan throughout this reply, then you should check your figures...as
I mentioned, the half-way point is at 23 years.  If you are talking about
a 15 year loan, then the half-way point is at the beginning of year 9.
Which illustrates the non-linearity that you mention, but in the opposite
direction. 

Email me if you want a copy of an amortization program.

-Roger
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: flongo@seles (Frank Longo)
Subject: Re: Any comments about closing on the new house!
Organization: US Card Products Group, Citicorp Treasury
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 13:07:54 GMT

parikh@parikh.austin.ibm.com writes:
: Hi,
:      I will be closing on my new house soon.  I am not bringing  
: lawyer to the closing, because, as I heard, it does not worth it.
: Anyone please give me some insights to what I should be looking 
: for in the documents.  What I should and should not do?
:     Please reply to parikh@wizards.austin.ibm.com
: Thanks,
: Kalpesh Parikh

I strongly advise you to hire a lawyer. I don't know who told you
that it's not worth it ( probably your broker ), but considering
that this is probably the single most important purchase/investment
of your life, the several hundred dollar fee that a lawyer will
charge you is definitely worth it.

Though you should have had a lawyer involved from the start ( from
the time you started looking for homes ), his most important role
comes in at the closing. Search around for one who is experienced
in real estate, and do *NOT* take any recommendations from either your
real estate broker or the homeowner for they have conflicting
interests from yours.

flongo@bank.citib.com
Frank Longo
From: saz@apollo.HP.COM
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: 401k Rollover Legality Question
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:15:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

> Why should you keep them separate.  Everyone says to keep them
> separate, but no one says why.  What flexibility is there?  In short,
> what do we gain?!

The reason is:
If you have an IRA that was funded with after tax dollars, you don't
want to mix your 401K pre-tax dollars with it.  Otherwise, I believe
uncle SAM taxes you again on the after-tax dollars when you finally
cash out at age 59.5 or so.

-- 
* Steven A. Zedeck - Hewlett Packard Company, Workstation Systems Division *
* Chelmsford Systems Laboratory                   * Phone #: (508)436-5897 *
* 300 Apollo Drive; Chelmsford, MA 01824          * HP-TELNET:    436-5897 *
* Internet: saz@apollo.hp.com   * UUCP: {decvax, mit-eddie...}!apollo!saz  *
From: dwb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (david.boyle)
Subject: Re: DOS based software to track one's investments
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:15:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.221247.23956@sj.ate.slb.com>, bob@sj.ate.slb.com (Bob Firestine) writes:
> Can anyone recommend a good, inexpensive, DOS-based program to keep track of
> other good stuff deleted

Along these lines, is there any investment-type shareware available so that
I can get a feel for investment type software packages.  Thanks.  
						Dave Boyle
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Economic effects of election results
From: mzwick@vitro.com (Morris J. Zwick)
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:06:52 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Vitro Corporation

In article <1992Aug25.201647.23240@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mmokhtar@attmail.com
(Mazen Mokhtar) writes:
>
>  What would be the economic effect of a Bush win in November? How about
>a Clinton victory? I am not asking about the changes in the economy due
>to the policies they enact, I am asking about the changes due to their
>victory in and of itself. For example, a Clinton victory is likely to
>decrease the value of the dollar and improve the stock prices of medical
>complanies. A Bush victory might help car maker stocks.
>
>  Any ideas?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Mazen Mokhtar
>
>

Why do you think that medical stocks would rise because of Clinton victory?? I
would think that any nationalized health care would cause them (and private
insurers) to plummet. The nationalization of medicine will, in the short term,
reduce or inhibit prices by government fiat (price controls). In the long term,
this will mean less private investment in medical technology, therefore
reducing the gains made by medical science (medical R&D is EXPENSIVE).

The only way the dollar would devalue more than it already has is if Clinton
lowered interest rates (not likely with Greenspan at the helm; besides, they're
probably already too low) or if we faced economic collapse (increased
government deficits would certainly have an effect by causing inflation).

Why would car makers be helped by Bush? Seems to me that Clinton would be more
attuned to their demands for market protection, especially from the Japanese.
Any such protective controls would lead to higher car prices and higher Big 3
profits.

I tried to make my comments in a non-partisan fashion. Hope I succeeded!
         ___________________________________________________________________
        /  Morris J. Zwick	                 Internet: mzwick@vitro.com
__     /   Vitro Corporation	             Voice:    (301) 231-2784
  \   /    14000 Georgia Ave.                ___________________________
   \ /     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972      |"I don't want the world; |
    *                                        | I just want your half!" |
                                             |  - They Might Be Giants |

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (Mike Miskulin)
Subject: Re: Long-term direction of the dollar
Organization: High Energy Concepts
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:22:45 GMT
Summary: not a lot lower
Keywords: usd


Hi,
	The longer term picture for the Usd is quite a bit
	better than it looks now.  By longer term I mean 
	over 1 year in the future.  The primary reason we
	are making new lows is the interest differential 
	between the Usd and most other currencies in the world.
	Its hard to make a point to invest in Usd at 3 or 4%
	while Dem pay 9 or 10%.  As an example, the cost of
	carry of a long Usd position against the Dem is 
	.00027 per day (these are the swap points).  On a
	long position of 1 mio Usd you pay Dem 270 per day 
	to finance your short Dems.  So, if you bought your
	dollars at the rate of 1.4000, after 37 days you need
	a move to 1.4100 just to break even.  Currently the
	1 year swap points are .0890.  This means you must
	sell your usd at 1.4890 to break even.  

	Some people are also under the assumption that the
	dollar is under pressure because there is much selling
	interest.  That is really not the case.  There is
	much buying interest of high yeilding currencies.  Note
	that the Yen has fallen in value greatly this year 
	against all the EMS currencies.  Likewise, the Aud has
        in fact fallen against the Usd as interest rates in
	Australia have plummeted from over 10% a 18 months ago
	to just about 5% now.  

	As to the longer term, European rates will not always
	be this high.  Many countries would like to lower rates
	but can't do so due to the Bundesbanks firm stance. To
	lower rates would mean a speedy decline in their own
	currency.  The Buba however will likely be able to ease
	next year as the German economy heads into a recession
	and inflationary pressures ease.  Remember that 7 years
	ago that the situation was TOTALLY reversed - the 
	european countries had very, very low rates and the US
	had high short term rates - and Dem/Usd was above 3.00
	This made foreign products extremely competitive when
	compared to our own; now we have the hyper competitve
	exchange rate in our favor.   And as a firm believer
	in business cycles, we had 8 years of growth followed
	by 1 of recession and another (so far) of slow growth.
	We should see a gradual pick up in GDP to the 2.5-3.5%
	level (exactly what the Fed wants - moderate growth,
	low inflation).  Europe however has just begun a recession.
	Investment flows will start to turn back to the US and
	out of Europe.  
	
	So my prediction is Dem/Usd at 1.70-1.80 this time
	next year.

Mike



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mike Miskulin		mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us	70053,551@compuserve.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jchen@smdsctt.bellcore.com (C. Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: PictureTel and Compression Labs
Reply-To: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:25:56 GMT

In article <MICHAEL.92Sep1144300@t13.lanl.gov>, michael@t13.lanl.gov (Michael I Angerman) writes:
|> 
|> PictureTel (PCTL) has a year hi of 53, it is now trading at 10.
|> 
|> Compression Labs (CLIX) has a year hi of 35, it is now trading at 5.
|> 
|> Both are in the business of compression of video signals etc...
|> 
|> Any ideas or comments on these two companies on whats up ?

An article on 8/27 WSJ talked about these. There are two main reasons:
Competition: PCTL and CLIX are facing increased competition from large
             companies such as AT&T, NT, and Hitachi, etc.
Proprietary Technology: The customer prefers standard protocols. If they
            hold on to their proprietary systems, WANG is a good example
            for them.

-- 

C. Jason Chen                 
**************E-Mail: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
**************V-Mail: (908)699-6993
**************P-Mail: 444 Hoes Lane, 1E229, Piscataway, NJ