Buying a first home

[shmokes]

I know absolutely nothing about this subject.  My wife and I are moving to Miami soon, and we know we will be there for at least three years.  Up to this point, we've always rented an apartment, but we're toying with the idea of buying instead of renting so we can start building up some equity, etc.  But I have no idea how this works.  Is it even reasonable for me to hope to buy a new house in a new city when I currently have no equity so there can't be some huge down payment?  Why would a lender even consider giving us a mortgage?  Our current jobs would be practically irrelevant, I would think, since we're obviously not going to commute from Miami to Cedar City, UT for work.  They may give some idea of the type of salaries they can expect us to be able to pull in, I suppose (I hope not since either of us would be making far more money doing the same thing in any large city compared to the rural city we currently live in).

Do lenders consider things like, "Okay . . . this guy is a law student, which makes him a pretty safe borrower since he'll make good money when he finishes law school."

It seems like if we bought a really inexpensive home that our mortgage wouldn't be too much more than rent would be, and we wouldn't just be throwing all the equity in the toilet.  What are your thoughts?  Is it even worth trying?  Am I better off waiting until we are established in a city with good jobs, etc., before trying to buy a first home?  Am I better off from an investment standpoint to wait until I can go a little bigger, since first-time homeowners get various incentives like tax breaks or something (from what I understand).  Are there signs of an impending housing bubble bursting soon that say I should wait?

FWIW, my wife is currently applying for jobs and will hopefully have a job before we ever move out there.  The rest of our income, at least for the first year, but likely for the second and third as well, will come from student loans.  We're hoping that she can get paid enough that my student loans will only have to cover tuition, but depending on how much she makes we may have to take care of some living expenses with loans as well.  Not the most exciting thing to look forward to, but . . .

Thoughts?

[shardian]

First off, Miami+cheap house=

Secondly, if you will only be there for 3 years, do not buy a house. You will not build equity in three years.

Thirdly, I would personally love to be at the mortgage office when you ask if going to law school qualifies you for a loan. Comedy gold right there.

Can't help but pick on ya dude, you know its all in fun.
If you seriously want to look into buying, get "Home Buying for Dummies". I Read that one cover to cover before going to the mortgage place. Also go ahead and get a credit check now to see where you stand.

[ChadTower]

You don't get credit from a lender for what you might be someday.  You get credit for what you have actually done over the last 5 or so years... or more often you get penalized for it.

I'd advise against buying anything until you know you want to stay there.  If you don't want to stay, don't buy, it's just not worth it.

[Chris G]

I'm a strong proponent of buying (pride of ownership, equity, tax benefit), but I also happen to live in an area with a strong housing market.  For only a 3-year commitment, I doubt the appreciation would make it a good financial choice.  If you plan to sell (versus keeping it as a rental, etc) there are commonly some significant selling expenses which reduce your overall return (I know you're a law guy, so perhaps you could sell it yourself and save some cash).  You also have to factor in the property taxes and repair & maintenance costs you incur as a home-owner that drag down your return.

[AtomSmasher]

Well, your first step would be to contact a mortgage broker and let them figure out what kind of loan you can get and how much you can spend on the house.  100% loans were pretty common for a while, but with the increasing number of forclosures, it might be difficult to get now.  If you are able to put 5% down, then you would get a much better interest rate.  It doesn't cost you anything to let a broker run the numbers for you, so theres no reason not to check and see.

As for the housing market in Miami....I have no idea.  I keep a close watch on the housing market in southern California, but that doesn't help you much.

While shardian is correct that you probably won't make much equity in three years, at least every penny of the loan interest you pay (which is most of your mortgage payments for the first several years) is tax deductible, which means your not just throwing the money away anymore.  I pay my taxes in one lump sum at the end of the year and buying a house last year dropped my tax payment literally in half.

In my experience, the best way to get quick equity in a house is to find a new housing project that is either in a very early phase of building, they sell each later phase at higher prices, so the earlier you get in, the more equity you will build up.  If you can't do that, then start checking with the new homes sales offices and see if anyone dropped out of buying a home at the last minute.  They can't have any standing inventory, so they sell them at unbelievable deals.  Thats how I got my house, I got it for $25,000 under market price and they paid $10000 to the mortgage company to buy down my interest rate.

[shmokes]

My credit is excellent.  But I don't want to buy just for the sake of buying.  If it doesn't make me better off financially, or allow us to live in a nicer, larger place for the cost of a smaller place, I'm not interested.  I'll have to pick up that book, but frankly I'm busy enough as it is dealing with my last semester at school, while simultaneously taking care of getting into law school, getting my wife a job, doing my own job, etc.  If it's obvious that I should not be trying to buy a house right now I'll just put off reading that book for the next few years.

It's probably worth noting that we currently do not plan to stay in Miami beyond law school.  That could change, I suppose, if we end up really loving it there or something to that effect, but I expect that we will leave immediately after graduation.

Lastly, and I know I should probably not be responding to this as it was just a bit of needling, but I don't think that going to law school qualifies me for a loan.  We would obviously have to be able to pay our mortgage payments.  But I would imagine that banks, who want to give as many loans out as possible because they are profitable, would want to consider every relevant factor.  It seems reasonable that future earning capacity would not be entirely irrelevant.   

[ChadTower]

Excellent credit is only one part of it... you also have to have sufficient income.  IMO, any equity gained would be swallowed by property tax in only a three year period, and transactional costs would make it quite unprofitable.

Lenders do not consider future earning capacity.  You could drop out tomorrow and never finish.  Your plans aren't their concern.

[shmokes]

Hmm . . . I'll have to point my wife to this thread.  It sounds like buying is maybe a bad idea. 

Not really relevant to whether I'll try to buy, but it seems kinda dumb that they wouldn't consider the future earning thing, if just for customer retention.  Kinda like banks lose money on the vast majority of checking accounts because most people never have any significant amount of money in them, but they use services (tellers, ATMs, Online administration services, telephone-based automated services, etc.), and they're almost always free.  But they end up being kind of a loss leader and people generally end up getting loans from whatever bank they normally use.  I would think they would be at least a little interested in it from the standpoint of, "Okay, this guy wants to buy a $250,000 house, which isn't much in Miami, but in ten years he's going to be in the market for a $1.5 million dollar home, and we want to be in on that.  We treat him right today, and he'll want to come back tomorrow."  Of course, I suppose the risk simply outweighs any consideration like that, but . . .

[shardian]

To tell you the truth, you going to Law School would be more of a liability than an asset for one reason: school loan debt.
You will be worse off than most people when it comes to loans for the first few years after you graduate until you show a record of paying those large student loans down.

[ChadTower]

To tell you the truth, you going to Law School would be more of a liability than an asset for one reason: school loan debt.

There is that plus you haven't even started yet.  They will give you credit for it when you are a senior entering your last semester.  You will get zip credit for it until then and they may hold it against you because of the tuition burden you will be carrying for 4 years.

[shmokes]

Three years. 

[Chris G]

From my experience, it really seems that banks could not possibly care less about retaining mortgage customers or whether they earn their future business.  Part of it is that many banks regularly bundle and sell their loans in bulk to other banks.  Another part is that the whole mortgage thing is more complicated than say a credit card where you can just call in and simply ask for a lower interest rate.  And finally, they know that no one cares what bank they get their loan from - it's all about the rate.

[ChadTower]

How many people really get 3+ mortgages anyway?  Not many.

shmokes, 3 years if all goes perfectly as planned.  You have a kid now.  Life interrupts plans.

[CCM]

Miami is not a cheap place to buy a house.  It will probably not be worth it of you are only planning on living there for 3 years.  According to the link below, the median price for a house as of the 4th qtr of 2004 was $297,200.  That was over 2 years ago and housing prices don't usually go down.

http://content.monster.com/articles/3471/16706/1/default.aspx

Also, you really need to get it out of your head that a bank is going to care what you think you may be making in the future, that's just crazy.  Maybe you'll be a rich fancy french-speaking lawyer someday, but for now the bank isn't going to give you a loan so you can default on it.

[hypernova]

From what I've heard/read, housing costs in the state of Florida have kept going up, AS WELL AS insurance rates (flood/hurricane.)  They've done stories on the 6:30 evening news about how many are having to leave Florida because of insurance rates alone.  Where in Miami is it?  In/near the city, or on the outskirts in a suburb, or furthur out?

I'm with some others here.  I don't think buying a house is a good choice in this case, especially when you're planning on selling in three years.  Unless you can find a REALLY good deal that you simply cannot pass.  With all this stuff you have going on, how much time will you have to take care of the house itself?  Will you be able to appreciate the value with improvements in the time you live there?  Or will you just be hoping that the housing market doesn't go kaput before leaving?  And consider the what if.  Just what if your roof needs replaced because of storm damage, or some other large expense comes along.  Will you be able to handle it financially?

[Chris G]

the bank isn't going to give you a loan so you can default on it.

I disagree.  Banks will loan just about anyone money, especially for a home.  It's just a matter of how crappy the rate would be.

[BobA]

It is all dependant on the market.  The bank can always get its money back in a hot market but in a slow market they do not want to risk mortgages as freely.   Where I live there has been 30 to 50 percent increases in selling prices over the last year.   Those who held back lost out because the prices increased 50% in a single year for single family homes.  The banks were very free because they could not loose and it was cheaper than rent.  It is all due to oil boom and the fact that homes here were very low priced until the boom.   

Now the prices will probably level out due to the fact that the total debt load is becoming too great.   If I can recall the Miami market went thru the boom and there are now alot of developers and speculators who want to walk away from inflated investments.   In that market it may not pay to buy if the buy in price is too high. Your choice should be made with a very good understanding of the current market.   Books and advice should be weighed agains the current market conditions.

[Wade]

Not really relevant to whether I'll try to buy, but it seems kinda dumb that they wouldn't consider the future earning thing, if just for customer retention.  ....

Now here's what that doesn't work.  Who's to say that your future earning potential is more than any joe blow off the street?  Joe Blow could open a company tomorrow, and be a millionaire 6 months from now.  Because someone doesn't have a degree certainly doesn't mean he isn't capable of making money.  You on the other hand, will have debt already, and there's even the chance you don't finish school or become employed.  Factoring what you "might" earn one day would just be silly on the bank's part.

The short answer is you should forget about buying a house for now.  I have no doubts that you could find someone to give you the loan, but you wouldn't make any money in 3 years.  Buying a home is fundamentally better the longer you can stay in the house.  Buy when you see yourself staying in the same house for 10+ years, and do your best to make that happen.

Banks used to only loan 2-3 times current income minus current liabilities or about 35% of take-home pay minus liabilities.  Nowadays, banks will loan MANY times current income, they'll even do it on a balloon payment or a reversed mortgage (where each month, you pay only part of the interest, and the rest of the interested gets rolled into the principal - scary!)  Basically, you're betting that your property value will increase faster than your black hole of debt!  This is why there is a huge housing market bubble and why it's starting to pop, and lots of people are going bankrupt.

Wade

[hypernova]

These sub-prime loans (loans for poor people/people with bad credit) ain't helping people out either...

[shmokes]

I think I won't buy unless we fall in love with Miami and maybe six months or a year in decide that we should stay long-term, which I really don't see happening.  For one thing, I want to live in Paris for at least 2 years, and I want this to happen when Maddy is in the preschool/very early elementary years because I want her to be able to get good at the language very quickly, but I don't want it to affect her ability to perform in school too much and I'd imagine that would become an issue the older she got.  So, this further decreases the probability that we will decide to stay in Miami.

I still think it stands to reason that banks look at future earning potential.  The way they know that my future earning potential is more than any joe blow off the street is simple:  statistics.  It's the same way they make all their decisions.  When insurance companies set rates higher for teenage boys than teenage girls, it's not because they know that any given teenage boy is going to get in an accident, while his sister will not.  What they know is that there's a higher probability of an accident with the boy.  Same goes for me.  I may end up deciding that lawyers are corrupt drains on society and, in spite of my degree, I want nothing to do with them.  Maybe I'll get a job flipping burgers.  But this is statistically unlikely to happen, just as it's statistically unlikely that joe blow will start a business and be a millionaire in six months.  Statistically, law students would be a much safer investement than joe blow off the street, and banks know this.  Hell, even if they end up dropping out of law school they still have at least a bachelor's degree which significantly increases their earning potential.

[Wade]

Apparently banks care more about what a person has done, than what he might do.  Versus insurance companies, they are relatively fair.

Your points are valid, but the truth is that a guy who has held a steady job for several years and paid his bills is a much lower risk than a student with no income and debt, regardless of the degree.  Banks probably don't view degrees as the guarantee that you do, either.  The income level isn't the primary factor on whether a person keeps good credit.  High earners can be the worst offenders -  plenty of doctors go bankrupt.  Some people just don't know where to stop, and lenders will give you enough rope to hang yourself.

Wade

[jbox]

[rant]
I've had a lot of my friends go through this whole "should I or shouldn't I buy" debacle and I've never understood what's so hard about it. The maths really isn't that hard. You only need to work out one number to decide if there is any point whatsoever in spending the next six months of your life getting stressed over the paper each weekend:

buy ratio = rent cost / (loan interest + non-trivial property costs)

Especially if they have no principal (or worse) then they are almost universally better off renting for 2-5 years and saving the difference. Then, as they build principal the expected interest repayments will go down over the years until they reach the point where they will actually be doing this "building equity" crap that parents cannot ---smurfing--- shut up about instead of the reality where they are really just giving the bank 99% of that money purely as interest repayments. Plus the council rates, the stamp duty, the 'because we can' federal taxes and all the other stuff that people seem somehow incapable of understanding go on top of that big house price to make you bleed even harder. 

If I had to guess why people feel the need to give the bank 50% of all their income for the next five years of their life is if they:
(a) have a cunning plan for bumping off one of the other insuree's to get a 'free' house
(b) have cancer and a cunning plan for bumping off themselves so their family can get a 'free' house
(c) are trades-people and really can increase a house's value in a few years (I do know a very small number of people do actually make a living out of this)
(d) are tax accountants and know how to cook the books to make money off the house loan/family trust/baby board members/dead pets/etc... in a few years
(e) are psychologically incapable of actually budgeting their income and thus can never save up for a deposit since there is no nasty red letter for having *excess* money in your account
(f) are psychologically imprinted on a particular house, or living in a house, or have a phobia of gypsy-ism or a husband/wife/kids that nag them for "stability" (possibly the most common reason)
(g) they don't understand the maths of principals vs interest, but still think they're smart and everyone else is dumb

Plus, you have a relatively set time to buy, a relatively set time to leave, and what is a small gap (property wise) in between. Economics 101 says that you are in the worst possible position to play the market since you have the least range of choices available to you. 
[/rant]

Now, if you still want a house because you are like Drew and fredster and think National Service, home cooking and owning your own home are just dog-gone-it the way man is meant to live that's perfectly fine because capitalism says you can spend your money in any way you think will make you happy. But as a business proposition you couldn't possibly propose a worse scenario especially if (say, god forbid, fingers crossed, please don't be offended) your wife were to get seriously ill or any other number of life's ways of screwing you over? 

[AtomSmasher]

If I had to guess why people feel the need to give the bank 50% of all their income for the next five years of their life is if they:

So you feel its better to give 50% of your income to whoever your renting from?  At least when your paying loan interest, you get to write off that amount from your taxes.  When I figured out my taxes this year, I found out I'll be paying around $6000 less then I would if I did not buy a house this year.  Add to that the fact that I could sell the house today for $20000 more then I paid for it and my mortgage payment is only $100/mo. more then I was paying for rent.  Buying a house was a very good thing for me.  With the tax breaks, it will actually saves me money each year.

[ChadTower]

Add property taxes and property upkeep costs.  Most people dramatically underestimate the cost of upkeep on a house/property.  A cost they did not have renting.  When you add property taxes and upkeep costs then the tax break usually washes out about even.

[AtomSmasher]

Add property taxes and property upkeep costs.  Most people dramatically underestimate the cost of upkeep on a house/property.  A cost they did not have renting.  When you add property taxes and upkeep costs then the tax break usually washes out about even.

property taxes are aronnd $2000 and the house is under warranty so upkeep costs are negligible.  Still, since I saved around $6000 on taxes, it would have to be $4000 in upkeep costs a year, which is quite a bit more then it actually will be anytime soon, especially with a brand new house.

[shardian]

Add property taxes and property upkeep costs.  Most people dramatically underestimate the cost of upkeep on a house/property.  A cost they did not have renting.  When you add property taxes and upkeep costs then the tax break usually washes out about even.

property taxes are aronnd $2000 and the house is under warranty so upkeep costs are negligible.  Still, since I saved around $6000 on taxes, it would have to be $4000 in upkeep costs a year, which is quite a bit more then it actually will be anytime soon, especially with a brand new house.

A $6000 deduction is not the same as saving $6000 in taxes.

[jbox]

and my mortgage payment is only $100/mo. more then I was paying for rent

And *whoooossshhhhhh* there goes the topic again with someone who doesn't know how to read. I'm guessing that you didn't bother actually thinking about what I wrote in the first part and just skipped to feeling all warm inside 'cause unlike me you don't need any fancy math because you know instinctively that, how does it go, "Rent Money Is Dead Money!(tm)"

buy ratio = rent cost / (loan interest + non-trivial property costs)

WELL LOOK AT THAT! It doesn't say "mortgage repayment", it says "loan interest"! AMAZING! It's almost like, wait for it:

(g) they don't understand the maths of principals vs interest, but still think they're smart and everyone else is dumb

Now, is it my turn to say something super clever like, oh say, "If you're renting a penthouse maybe you should try buying a shack to save money and Build Equity(tm)!" 

[shardian]

and my mortgage payment is only $100/mo. more then I was paying for rent

And *whoooossshhhhhh* there goes the topic again with someone who doesn't know how to read. I'm guessing that you didn't bother actually thinking about what I wrote in the first part and just skipped to feeling all warm inside 'cause unlike me you don't need any fancy math because you know instinctively that, how does it go, "Rent Money Is Dead Money!(tm)"

buy ratio = rent cost / (loan interest + non-trivial property costs)

WELL LOOK AT THAT! It doesn't say "mortgage repayment", it says "loan interest"! AMAZING! It's almost like, wait for it:

(g) they don't understand the maths of principals vs interest, but still think they're smart and everyone else is dumb

Now, is it my turn to say something super clever like, oh say, "If you're renting a penthouse maybe you should try buying a shack to save money and Build Equity(tm)!" 

Believe it or not, you can make a point without being a complete ---sufferer of cranial-rectal-inversion---.

[AtomSmasher]

A $6000 deduction is not the same as saving $6000 in taxes.

I didn't say $6000 deduction, I said $6000 less I will be paying on taxes.  The deduction is quite a bit more then $6000.

buy ratio = rent cost / (loan interest + non-trivial property costs)

WELL LOOK AT THAT! It doesn't say "mortgage repayment", it says "loan interest"! AMAZING! It's almost like, wait for it:

(g) they don't understand the maths of principals vs interest, but still think they're smart and everyone else is dumb

Now, is it my turn to say something super clever like, oh say, "If you're renting a penthouse maybe you should try buying a shack to save money and Build Equity(tm)!" 

Apparently I don't understand your variables because it seems to me that since your initial mortgage payments are 99% interest, they are the loan interest variable in your equation.  The non-trivial property costs would then be the property taxes, and then you need to subtract the amount you save from taxes, which you didn't include in your genious formula.  So that brings me right to what I was saying before.  Maybe you're not very good at word problems and i should of put it into formula form like you had it.

On top of that, I already have $20000 in equity from buying below market value, and since the market is currently at the bottom of its cycle in my area, it will soon start increasing in value.  Definately a stupid investment on my part.

[shardian]

I don't see how you can save $6000 in actual taxes just from the house. That is just crazy.

[ChadTower]

Not if he's paying enough in interest to save that much.  Some areas do.  I paid more than $10,000 in mortgage interest in 2006 and my house is small.

[shardian]

I guess I'll just never understand you New Englanders and West Coasters.

I make half as much as you guys, live in a house twice as big as yours, and pay a fraction of the mortage/taxes/interest/extras that you guys do.

[AtomSmasher]

I don't see how you can save $6000 in actual taxes just from the house. That is just crazy.

I paid close to $18000 in mortgage interest and property taxes last year, which includes the amount paid to buy down the interest rate (I get to write that off too ).   But this year it will be closer to $25,000 since I didn't own the house for most of last year.  I also have a home office which makes the tax break even bigger.  If your wondering, my mortagage payment is a little over $1800/mo.  and my last apartment which was around 600 sqft. smaller then my house and was inferior to my house in every way except location had a payment of around $1700/mo.

[shardian]

My house was 1750 sq. ft when I bought it, but will soon be over 2000 once I close up the garage into my game room. Anyways, my mortgage including tax & insurance escrow is $460 a month.
I keep telling my wife that there was a reason I passed up big money jobs in big cities to stay here. I should have her talk to you guys about bills, taxes and such so she can appreciate how good she has in not having to work and having a nice house.

[ChadTower]

It all depends on what you do for a living.  Not all professions exist in all places.

[Chris G]

I guess I'll just never understand you New Englanders and West Coasters.

I make half as much as you guys, live in a house twice as big as yours, and pay a fraction of the mortage/taxes/interest/extras that you guys do.

Ya, but...

At least you all in big cities have a chance on CL. My CL  in WV is a big joke!

 

[jbox]

Believe it or not, you can make a point without being a complete ---sufferer of cranial-rectal-inversion---.

Yeah, but that's not as much fun for me though! I mean, this isn't global warming, terrorism, religion or a dozen other topics people can actually debate because it's hard to know who is right. This is just math, and people who are *proudly* wilfully ignorant about maths make me want to rethink my entire philosophy against late term abortions (like 90 trimesters late for example). 

[Wade]

I don't see how you can save $6000 in actual taxes just from the house. That is just crazy.

I paid close to $18000 in mortgage interest and property taxes last year, which includes the amount paid to buy down the interest rate (I get to write that off too ).   But this year it will be closer to $25,000 since I didn't own the house for most of last year.  I also have a home office which makes the tax break even bigger.  If your wondering, my mortagage payment is a little over $1800/mo.  and my last apartment which was around 600 sqft. smaller then my house and was inferior to my house in every way except location had a payment of around $1700/mo.

So, you're happy to pay $25k in interest/tax each year?  How much goes towards your principal, a thousand or two?  Is it an AR or a balloon payment?

Wade

[AtomSmasher]

So, you're happy to pay $25k in interest/tax each year?  How much goes towards your principal, a thousand or two?  Is it an AR or a balloon payment?

Wade

Its better then paying $25k in rent each year.  And no, its not an AR or balloon payment.  Every time you have a long term loan, you pay very little of the loan off in the first few years, its almost all interest.  As time goes on and you're slowly paying off the principle, so each month you pay more of the principal off and less interest (since the principle is less, the interest is less, but your payments are the same).

Believe it or not, you can make a point without being a complete ---sufferer of cranial-rectal-inversion---.

Yeah, but that's not as much fun for me though! I mean, this isn't global warming, terrorism, religion or a dozen other topics people can actually debate because it's hard to know who is right. This is just math, and people who are *proudly* wilfully ignorant about maths make me want to rethink my entire philosophy against late term abortions (like 90 trimesters late for example). 

So your saying you might want to kill yourself?  Because it seems that it was your math that was wrong, not mine.  I just didn't show you my work so you assumed I cheated 

[shmokes]

Math is difficult.  Some people are really good at painting.  Others are good at analytical reasoning.  Others are good at music.  Others spacial reasoning.  I'm pretty decent with math, though I don't enjoy it and tend to avoid it.  It sounds like information I'd be really interested in, but I don't entirely understand the formula.  What is a buy ratio?  Do you come up with a number like 65/100 that you should by a house, or the probability that you should buy versus rent is .65?  You can't expect a French and Poli Sci major to be especially brilliant in economics and finance.

[ChadTower]

Home ownership is subjective because it dictates the lifestyle a person leads.  People value different aspects of their lifestyle differently and the weight given to each attribute skews the equation.  There is no pure buy point for your home.  There is for any other property but not for your primary residence.

[AtomSmasher]

Math is difficult.  Some people are really good at painting.  Others are good at analytical reasoning.  Others are good at music.  Others spacial reasoning.  I'm pretty decent with math, though I don't enjoy it and tend to avoid it.  It sounds like information I'd be really interested in, but I don't entirely understand the formula.  What is a buy ratio?  Do you come up with a number like 65/100 that you should by a house, or the probability that you should buy versus rent is .65?  You can't expect a French and Poli Sci major to be especially brilliant in economics and finance.

From what I can tell, his "buy ratio" is if its over 1, then you will be saving money when you buy, and if its less then 1 you will be losing money.  Of course living in a house is much nicer then an apartment, but this is only concerned with finances.

I guess I'll go ahead and run the numbers to find out my buy ratio since jbox is bad at word problems.  Figuring out my exact amount of principle I pay each year would be a PITA, I'll just assume my mortgage payment is all loan interest.  And obviously the numbers are not exact, I don't feel like looking up the exact figures, but they are pretty close to accurate.

(1700*12) / ((1800*12) + 2000 - 6000) = 1.16

I guess that means buying house was a good thing for me.  Even if there are other expenses to owning a house (which there are), I will still come out ahead, or at least even, and I get the benefits of living in a decent sized house instead of a small apartment.  And since the value of my house should be increasing soon (I'm a real estate appraiser, so I keep a close watch on the market and its trends), it makes my house a good investment as well.

[ChadTower]

Don't the flying cows affect your resale value?

[DrewKaree]

You can't expect a French and Poli Sci major to be anywhere close to brilliant in economics or finance or painting or analytical reasoning or music or spacial reasoning or....well, this could go on all day

Fixt


So what I think jbox is trying to say is that he's not sure how to figure out whether or not it might be a good idea for you to buy.  Did I follow all that jbox?

Oh, and for you guys talking about tax breaks at the end of the year and whatnot, in case you didn't know, jbox lives in Oz and they may not have the same setup.  The problem though, is that it doesn't seem like you guys aren't picking up that any of those figures you're mentioning to him actually fit into his formula.  You just need to know where to put 'em.

Just because his laws might not be the same and their tax structure might not equate doesn't mean you can't figure out some method to determine if it might or might not be a good proposition to buy instead of rent.

[ChadTower]

Down in Oz can't you just put up a lean-to anywhere you want?

[DrewKaree]

Down in Oz can't you just put up a lean-to anywhere you want?

I think you have to go out in the bush to do something like that, demonstrating that even in Australia, BUSH WINS!

[Wade]

I guess that means buying house was a good thing for me.  Even if there are other expenses to owning a house (which there are), I will still come out ahead, or at least even, and I get the benefits of living in a decent sized house instead of a small apartment.  And since the value of my house should be increasing soon (I'm a real estate appraiser, so I keep a close watch on the market and its trends), it makes my house a good investment as well.

Well, in your case, you are actually paying less each month now that you bought a house.  So in that sense, it was a good move.  It's unfortunate that housing is so expensive in your area (or, you demand a very nice apartment!)  It's not all about money available each month though, otherwise a person would be better of leasing a new vehicle every year or two.  Obviously, buying a house or car are better ideas the longer you stay with them, in general.  (my opinion)

Wade

[shardian]

If you are modest in your purchase, then almost always a house payment will be less than rent (assuming rent does not include utilities).

However, buying a house ties you down and when it comes time to move you will almost certainly be stuck paying your house payment for a while on top of your new rent/mortgage payment. Alot of people cannot handle this financial burden, especially with the housing market down. It may be months before you can sell the house.

[shardian]

And Wade, you better be careful. Multiple posts in one day...you might become a worthless forum junkie like the rest of us.

[DrewKaree]

And Wade, you better be careful. Multiple posts in one day...you might become a worthless forum junkie like the rest of us.

I am NOT a...uh....um... welcome Wade

[shmokes]

. . . in case you didn't know, jbox lives in Oz and they may not have the same setup . . .


. . .Just because his laws might not be the same and their tax structure might not equate doesn't mean . . .

Mommy, the strange man is arguing with himself again.

[jbox]

*sigh* I started my post with "I don't understand why people find this so hard", and I still don't. Let's try this one more time, very slowly for the kids from the special bus who never mastered ratios at school:

(a) people who rent shouldn't even be paying off the interest on their landlord's loan because in if they make a loss usually they can do something called "negative gearing" (getting a double tax deduction) on the *loss* of the loan AND because after twenty years they also now have a big shiny property they own

(b) if you *are* paying off your landlord's interest (or worse) then you are paying too much and should move, but I'm sure there's a myriad of excuses people will make about how that's not possible

(c) comparing a city apartment to a suburban house (for example) makes no sense because as we have seen from the prices people have thrown around in this thread - location, location, location!

(d) if you are serious about buying a home then I am going to assume you have already got some idea what your maximum repayment budget really is (and that you also know what kind of rent properties of that type *in* that area are charging).

So, let's say that you have a choice between renting and buying. If you buy your repayment looks like this:
mortgage repayment = interest (bad) + principal (good)

Alternatively, if you're renting then your budget should look like this:
same income = rent (bad) + savings (good)

Both interest and rent are bad because the money is gone for good (although I'd still rather give that money to another person than another bank). The biggest problem people seem to have is understanding that when you rent the excess money doesn't magically turn into iPods all by itself!     If you are one of those people who are simply incapable of sticking to a damn budget, and thus saving the difference, then go buy a house already. Otherwise:

interest (bad) + principal (good) == rent (bad) + savings (good)

which leads us to:

buy ratio == principal / savings == rent / interest

which is a ratio (just like trade ratio = exports / imports) that tells you whether you're likely to be better off buying a house (> 1) or whether or not you're better off renting (< 1). If you get a number anywhere over (say) 0.9 then it's time to make an appointment with the bank.

And yes, there's eleventy brazillion things you have to take into account if you want to work the figures out accurate to ten decimal places, but my experience is that people who are so vague about home ownership are either (a) hippies, or (b) people with little (or no) savings. If they listen to all the other Talking Points(tm) of people whose income is derived from getting people to buy and sell property they can easily forget that at the end of the day the question is whether or not your money is actually being saved (in either a house or in shares), or whether your money is being lost (to either a bank or a landlord). All those other details may fine-tune the numbers, but they don't change the fact that interest and rent are BOTH dead money, while there is no good reason why people can't save money while they are still renting. 

The funniest thing is that this is not the first (or last) time I've tried to point this out to people, and it always cracks me up how the "wanna-be Enron's" always try to come back with numbers they 'feel' prove me wrong when in actual fact the more they exaggerate their figures the more it proves the ratio nails the important details (edit: which I notice a couple of the brighter sparks have already picked up on).   

[AtomSmasher]

Yes, both rent and interest are dead money, the one significant difference is interest is a tax write-off while rent is not.  That makes a large difference.

I guess in Australia rent is a lot lower then the average mortgage payment, that simply isn't true in America (or at least not in the Los Angeles area).  That would explain why you seem to think buying a house is such a bad idea. 

As I have pointed out numerous times, buying my house actually saves me money annually, plus I will make even more equity when the housing values increase.  Hell, if I wanted to I could of immediately flipped the house and made a nice $20,000-25,000 profit.

You seem to think that I could of just rented in a cheaper area, well yes, I could of, but then I also would of lived in a much dumpier area where gangs are starting to take over.  Personally I prefer to live in the nicer areas, especially since I can afford to.

Honestly, I can't believe how much better you think you are then most people.  Its quite sickening.

[shmokes]

Jbox, you sound ridiculous.  You didn't always know all this stuff.  You act like it's just common sense that everything you pay in the beginning is interest when, of course, you only know that because you specifically learned it, not because you simply intuited it out of thin air.  You had to learn all these things at one time, meaning before you learned it, you didn't know any of it.  Do you think the entire world is supposed to suddenly know all about something the moment Jbox does?

With that out of the air, I still have questions about your formula.  You say that interest is equal to rent, because they are both dead money, but that doesn't quite make sense to me because one is never-ending, while the other is somewhat fixed.  One day in the not so distant future, don't you pay off all the interest, at which point you're practically paying your mortgage payment to yourself in equity?  The formula also appears to ignore changes in market value.  I'm under the impression that the real estate market tends to perpetually rise in the long-term, with spikes and valleys in the short term, but when the value of your house increases solely because of supply/demand isn't that large amounts of free money that a renter would never see?

If you're going to be an ---uvula--- about how smart you are, at least be as smart as you are claiming to be.  Or I'm just wrong about all this stuff, cos like I say, I don't know anything about it, but either way you sound like an ---uvula---.

[boykster]

I don't see how you can save $6000 in actual taxes just from the house. That is just crazy.

I paid nearly $30k last year in mortgage interest and property taxes.  It at my nominal tax rate of 28% that saved me plenty 

[jbox]

I don't talk this way about software or computers or other information I know is only picked up by actual extended studies, only about things like gambling and share markets and bank loans because for some reason people decide that the maths is less important then 'their gut'. Why people go out of their way to make home loans so complicated when most people have had car loans and credit cards for years now is apparently well and truly completely beyond me. 

Seriously, I don't see any point trying to discuss this if people are incapable or unwilling to stop, take a breath, understand that I am actually pro-home ownership but am also anti-debt, and then keeping clear in their minds at all times an understanding of the difference between principal, interest and savings. If you don't that's fine (it's not my home loan) but please just skip my posts because that formula will be worse than useless for you. As an example, you can't "pay off your interest" any more than you can't pay off your rent. Ever. Now everybody goes "Well, obviously I meant the principal" because moving the goal posts is always a good way to try and weasel out of being wrong. Rent and interest are both wasted money, but they should never, ever, be equal. If they are even close it means either (a) you're being taken advantage of; or (b) you are living on the moon.

AtomSmasher apparently thinks that the rental market in the USA overall is ---Cleveland steamer---, and since I don't live there I don't care if that's true or not. I do know however that if it is true the formula he is bagging actually *agrees* with him that any time rental rates approach (or crest) the expected interest repayments on the equivalent loan then it's time to settle down with Mary-Sue and git to raising the litter of ankle-biters. But even though people can say all kinds of nasty things about someone who chooses to rent while building their share portfolio which they can "take" overseas with them, apparently saying some people get a home loan a few years before they are ready for it makes me "sickening"? 

[jbox]

jbox lives in Oz and they may not have the same setup

Heh heh, yep, in Oz you can always use a spiffy hat to make a "free" withdrawal from your bank account.

[DrewKaree]

jbox lives in Oz and they may not have the same setup

Heh heh, yep, in Oz you can always use a spiffy hat to make a "free" withdrawal from your bank account.

See?  There's your problem.  Over here we have holes we can breathe out of in our "hats".  You ain't gittin' enuff oxygen over there on Fantasy Island

[shardian]

Had a post typed out, but decided to let jbox lower public opinion of himself a few more notches before chiming in.

[Wade]

...The formula also appears to ignore changes in market value.  I'm under the impression that the real estate market tends to perpetually rise in the long-term, with spikes and valleys in the short term, but when the value of your house increases solely because of supply/demand isn't that large amounts of free money that a renter would never see?

Not really.  The equity built in your house is not really money you can use.  You have to live somewhere.  If in 5-10 years (or more) you sell your house at a handsome profit, it usually doesn't do much good because you still have to buy another house which also has increased in price.  All you've succeeded in doing is getting another loan and put yourself futher from owning your home.  In extremely rare cases, people build enough equity to own a home entirely.

It's arguable that your equity can be used to get more loans, and this is true, and a LOT of people do this.  However, I'd suggest that this accomplishes nothing positive.  All it allows you to do is build more debt.  There's no free money in your home equity, unless you decide to become homeless.

Although jbox is abrasive, I agree with his assertion that it's often better to rent+save than buy a house.

My wife and I saved more than she earned for a couple of years and stayed in a cheap, but safe, apartment. (a sacrifice that very few people we know would "tolerate")  We put a lot down, and in 5 years have about $150k in equity in our house, which is big (12 room, 4 bath, 2 car garage) and in a very nice neighborhood with slow but reliable growth.  Fifteen more years and we'll own it outright (4.75% fixed loan).  Eventually we'll probably trade it for a smaller and less expensive place, or split it into more than one home.  The reason this will work (aside from illness/death etc.) is we are *determined* to stay in this house and have decided to make the best career possible in this area, versus move a lot to try to further my career.  We'll be close to paying our home off when most of our friends are taking new loans to buy their 3rd and 4th homes.

We took advantage of every possible angle (cheapest house in an expensive neighborhood, great interest rate, high down payment, etc.), bought a house with our future family in mind (rather than a "starter home"), and bought at the limit of what I felt I could afford at the time (of course the bank would have gone a LOT further).  Fortunately, everything has worked out, my career has gone well and our payment is a small portion of my income (about 15%).

It should be mentioned that it's *entirely* possible to get into a situation where you owe more on your house than you can sell it for.  I personally know people in this situation, and they just have to suck it up and keep paying their overpriced house payments.  Or, get a big loan / take a huge loss, just to get out from under the house.

Buying a home isn't something ANYONE should take lightly.  It is the single biggest expense for most people, and messing it up can seriously screw yourself financially.

Wade

[DrewKaree]

Had a post typed out, but decided to let jbox lower public opinion of himself a few more notches before chiming in.

I think he's great!  Youse guys are all just sore that he's got something that makes your "gut feeling" more akin to indigestion

[Wade]

And Wade, you better be careful. Multiple posts in one day...you might become a worthless forum junkie like the rest of us.

Hey now...  I've been a worthless forum junkie before.  I still have my days.

Wade

[jbox]

God I've never been so insulted in my life. All that extra work and the best you can come up with is "abrasive" and "ridiculous". My earlier work got rave reviews like "---sufferer of cranial-rectal-inversion---" and "sickening", but I guess it's true that people can be desensitised to almost any depravity after a few exposures. 

C'mon guys, this is the kind of stuff Chad can do *without even consciously thinking*, surely we can at least build up to "pretentious ---tallywhacker---" or "mathtard" or anything vaguely more original than four-eyes? I've blantently insulted AtomSmasher for claiming that debt ridden students should be able to net a bargain in the same league as a well-off REAL ESTATE APPRAISER can, and not-so-subtly insinuated that I can mathematically prove how stupid y'all are with a one line equation that sums up 99% of all your hard earned "gut knowledge". Show some passion people, this is science at it's most antagonistic and you can't even muster a "I bet you're being funded by Big Rental!" 

[AtomSmasher]

I definately understand the difference between principal, interest and savings.  Actually I have to for my job, one of the ways we determine the value of a property is the income approach and it deals directly with mortgage amount, interest and rental amounts.  If you buy a house/condo/apartment complex with the intention of renting it, the bank hires an appraiser (someone like me) to determine if the property can make enough rent to pay off the monthly mortgage payment, if it can't, then they generally won't give them the loan.  I haven't done anything more complex then a 4-unit complex, but its basically the same for any rental property.  To make claims that rent should be less then the mortgage payment is just absurd, there would be no reason for most people to invest in rental properties.  I also know a number of people who rent out various properties.  My sister rents out a house, and my friend rents out two houses and a condo, every one of those properties rent is higher or the same as the mortgage payment.

The amount of rent on a property should pretty much always be as much or higher then the interest amount, at least thats how it is here.  If its not that way in Australia, then your absolutely right about renting instead of buying in Australia.

[AtomSmasher]

God I've never been so insulted in my life. All that extra work and the best you can come up with is "abrasive" and "ridiculous". My earlier work got rave reviews like "---sufferer of cranial-rectal-inversion---" and "sickening", but I guess it's true that people can be desensitised to almost any depravity after a few exposures. 

C'mon guys, this is the kind of stuff Chad can do *without even consciously thinking*, surely we can at least build up to "pretentious ---tallywhacker---" or "mathtard" or anything vaguely more original than four-eyes? I've blantently insulted AtomSmasher for claiming that debt ridden students should be able to net a bargain in the same league as a well-off REAL ESTATE APPRAISER can, and not-so-subtly insinuated that I can mathematically prove how stupid y'all are with a one line equation that sums up 99% of all your hard earned "gut knowledge". Show some passion people, this is science at it's most antagonistic and you can't even muster a "I bet you're being funded by Big Rental!" 

Some of us choose not to stoop to your levels and are able to hold a conversation without constantly insulting everyone else. I know I am not an idiot, especially when it comes to math or real estate, so I don't take offense to your insults. It just tells me a lot about the kind of person you are, which is a very sad thing indeed.

edit* heh, freudian slip.  I wrote stupid instead of stoop.

[jbox]

Some of us choose not to stoop to your levels and are able to hold a conversation without constantly insulting everyone else.

Good point. So, what do you think about this guy?

Honestly, I can't believe how much better you think you are then most people.  Its quite sickening.

As I said, I don't live in the USA so it doesn't really matter to me what the market is like there. But if what you say is true, I'm glad I live in Australia where people aren't stupid enough to rent something for more then it costs to buy it. 

[shmokes]

. . . Although jbox is abrasive, I agree with his assertion that it's often better to rent+save than buy a house.

I don't think Jbox is wrong, or at least I have made clear when I've called his statements into question that I, myself, know next to nothing about the subject and could very well be wrong.  The difference between Jbox and you is that while you are both saying essentially the same thing I find myself not thinking you are the slightest bit irritating, while he sounds like a moron.  He gets all bitchy about people using intuition rather than math, and then turns around and gets bitchy that people who have never learned this stuff not being able to intuit it.  THAT'S retarded. 

I started this thread not saying, "I'm buying a new home," but saying, "Here is my circumstance, is buying a home a good idea, or should I rent."  Take a look at the responses.  There was a virtual consensus that buying was a bad idea.  People were coming out of the woodwork saying, "Rent, don't buy."  I then basically said, "Yeah, I see what you mean.  I have definitely decided that buying is a bad idea, but I still have a few questions about this and that, etc."  Jbox's rants about how dumb everyone is came after I had said at least twice that I agreed that buying was a bad idea.  I then said something to the effect of, "Though my decision to rent rather than buy is already made up, I don't quite understand your formula.  What is the buy ratio?"

Jbox's responses are moronic, not for being wrong, but for acting like he never had to ask the same questions.  He only knows this stuff because someone told it to him once upon a time.   



edit: added quote for clarity

[AtomSmasher]

Some of us choose not to stoop to your levels and are able to hold a conversation without constantly insulting everyone else.

Good point. So, what do you think about this guy?

Honestly, I can't believe how much better you think you are then most people.  Its quite sickening.

As I said, I don't live in the USA so it doesn't really matter to me what the market is like there. But if what you say is true, I'm glad I live in Australia where people aren't stupid enough to rent something for more then it costs to buy it. 

I didn't realize commenting how I don't like how you insult everyone to be an insult in and of itself, but if you take it as one, then very well, I guess I did insult you.

edit* I guess I should also add that I don't know why anyone would buy a property with the intent to rent it out in Australia if the rental market is that bad (or good depending on your point of view).

[AtomSmasher]

. . . Although jbox is abrasive, I agree with his assertion that it's often better to rent+save than buy a house.

I don't think Jbox is wrong, or at least I have made clear when I've called his statements into question that I, myself, know next to nothing about the subject and could very well be wrong.  The difference between Jbox and you is that while you are both saying essentially the same thing I find myself not thinking you are the slightest bit irritating, while he sounds like a moron.  He gets all bitchy about people using intuition rather than math, and then turns around and gets bitchy that people who have never learned this stuff not being able to intuit it.  THAT'S retarded. 

I started this thread not saying, "I'm buying a new home," but saying, "Here is my circumstance, is buying a home a good idea, or should I rent."  Take a look at the responses.  There was a virtual consensus that buying was a bad idea.  People were coming out of the woodwork saying, "Rent, don't buy."  I then basically said, "Yeah, I see what you mean.  I have definitely decided that buying is a bad idea, but I still have a few questions about this and that, etc."  Jbox's rants about how dumb everyone is came after I had said at least twice that I agreed that buying was a bad idea.  I then said something to the effect of, "Though my decision to rent rather than buy is already made up, I don't quite understand your formula.  What is the buy ratio?"

Jbox's responses are moronic, not for being wrong, but for acting like he never had to ask the same questions.  He only knows this stuff because someone told it to him once upon a time.   



edit: added quote for clarity

While I don't agree that JBox is right, I do agree that buying a house is probably bad idea for you given your current situation.

[DrewKaree]

C'mon guys, this is the kind of stuff Chad can't do *with his pants on*

Fixt, although I shouldn't have to fix something for someone who's obviously being discreetly funded by Big Rental.

[jbox]

I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!?

I just love the latest revelation - AtomSmasher knows for a fact that renting is more expensive than buying, but he thinks you should rent too! Do you think it's because you want to be French? 

[AtomSmasher]

I just love the latest revelation - AtomSmasher knows for a fact that renting is more expensive than buying, but he thinks you should rent too! Do you think it's because you want to be French? 

He is a student whos only income is from student loans and would need to get 100% financing.  If he's even able to get a loan, it will be at an obscenely high interest rate.  Renting is not a bad idea in that instance.

Shmokes, if your interested in buying a brand new house in the not too distant future, you should look into getting an apartment from equityresidential.com.   They take a small percentage of your rent and put it towards buying a new house (although only if you buy from KB Home last I checked).  I lived in their apartments for 3 years and got around $5000 toward the purchase of my house, which paid for all of the closing costs.  It was definately a good deal and they have apartment complexes all across the country.

[jbox]

See, that really is some excellent advice right there - if you want to buy a house in the near future you should put aside some money each week to save up for a house deposit. Now I feel really dumb for not having suggested that earlier. 

Out of curiosity though, what with the whole "I pay $X,000 less buying a home then renting" talk I would have thought it would be too sickening for you to admit that people with no principle (and thus a higher interest rate) would score low on the R/(I+C) ratio? 

[AtomSmasher]

See, that really is some excellent advice right there - if you want to buy a house in the near future you should put aside some money each week to save up for a house deposit. Now I feel really dumb for not having suggested that earlier. 

Ya, because obviously its exactly the same thing as just putting money in the bank.  Oh wait, the rent at equityapartments is the same as other places, which means its "saving" money that you otherwise wouldn't have.  Crazy.  (actually the rent was the cheapest at their place in my town, which made it even better)

Out of curiosity though, what with the whole "I pay $X,000 less buying a home then renting" talk I would have thought it would be too sickening for you to admit that people with no principle (and thus a higher interest rate) would score low on the R/(I+C) ratio? 

Sorry, but I have this nasty habit of telling the truth, even if it doesn't put a neat little bow on my arguement.

Your obviously just trying to piss me off now which is pointless and immature.  I'm done responding to you jbox, so feel free to continue on about how much smarter you are then everyone.

[jbox]

I'm done responding to you jbox

No you're not. You must confront him one more time, only then will a Jedi you be!

[ChadTower]

If you are modest in your purchase, then almost always a house payment will be less than rent (assuming rent does not include utilities).

Not in MA.  Not at all, unless you're talking about renting a single family house with property (what you would buy).  Those rental properties are almost nonexistant.

[shardian]

The fact is that "the magic formula" is only a single factor amongst a list of factors that have to be considered when facing the buy/rent decision. It is not as simple as a cut and dry "I'll save money this way". In Schmokes case, even if buying was cheaper, it is not in his best interest to buy due to personal circumstances:
-Full-time student
-insecure work situation
-intends to live there for less than 5 years
-no down payment
-has no clue where he will be after 3 years
-will more than likely have to move quickly when time is up
-etc. etc. etc. with things he hasn't told us.

You are also putting yourself in serious financial risk in buying if you can't afford it, or a serious financial set-back screws you. If you rent and something goes wrong, you are out nothing. Worst case scenario, you move to another place overnight pretty much.
If you own a house and something happens, your entire (or at least for the next few years) financial future can be ruined by bankrupcy, poor credit, so-on and so-forth. Foreclosure is not a good thing. In that case, you are out a house and have nothing to show for it.
These are not gut feeling intuitions - they are facts that face alot of people who don't do the proper research and listen to people who give them a "magic formula". The majority of people in this thread own a house in the USA and actually have a clue as to what they are talking about believe it or not, so get off the high horse, pbox.

[shardian]

If you are modest in your purchase, then almost always a house payment will be less than rent (assuming rent does not include utilities).

Not in MA.  Not at all, unless you're talking about renting a single family house with property (what you would buy).  Those rental properties are almost nonexistant.

Well yeah, even here I'm sure I could find a crapper rental for less than buying. I would say that even in your area, a nice 2 bedroom apartment would be more expensive.

In this area, there are alot of rental houses. Rent on them ranges from $500-$1000 depending on the size/location. Owning the same houses probably has a price range of $250-$750 per month. Apartment complexes in my area range from $500 for a single bedroom to $800 for a 2 bedroom.

[ChadTower]

Well yeah, even here I'm sure I could find a crapper rental for less than buying. I would say that even in your area, a nice 2 bedroom apartment would be more expensive.

A decent 2 bedroom apartment in my town runs $100-200 less than my mortgage.  My mortgage is pretty modest compared to market value in my town.  Rent is high but ownership is higher here.  You have to wait years for the cost of living to drive reasonable rent above your mostly fixed mortgage cost, and even then, the mortgage payment increases every year because property taxes go up.

[jbox]

This one?

It does have an awesome view from the top last time I was there though.

[Chris G]

I was bored at work today, so I added a few things to an old spreadsheet I made back when we were evaluating mortgage payments.  Maybe some part of it will be helpful to someone... I'm sure I don't need to qualify that it doesn't take into account ALL the factors of this decision - it's just a starting point for basic analysis.  (Personally, I like the mortgage tab - seeing how early I can pay it off with extra payments).  Just enter your assumptions into the yellow highlighted cells on the Assumptions tab and view the results on the other 2 tabs.

 
Chris

[shmokes]

No you're not. You must confront him one more time, only then will a Jedi you be!

Impostor. Yoda would never use a contraction.