A good time to trade up?

That’s the pitch we realtors are using. This guy thinks not and points out (a)  the “savings” on a more expensive house aren’t real – last year’s price is not today’s; (b) a house isn’t an investment necessarily, but  it’s always an expense. If you need a bigger house and can afford it, go for it – prices are good. If you don’t, or can’t, stay put.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “A good time to trade up?

  1. WSH

    Suspect many 30-something hedgies from NYC will be looking at Greenwich closely in coming 1-3yrs….5% state income tax rate (vs NYC’s ~10% rate, w/threat of increased taxes on “rich”); much cheaper housing vs Manhattan

    But not sure why any savvy buyer would want to buy a spec/used house (at any price) when premium land in Greenwich backcountry is fairly cheap (?<$1MM/ac) and can build a house w/a reputed builder to one’s bespoke specs, for ?$700/sq ft….so a 6000sq ft new house on 4acres is <$8MM….and prob better built and designed than 99+% of new houses in Greenwich today, let alone used houses…which are about as appealing as used cars or used clothing or used smartphones…..hygienically-challenged purchases, no?

    Irony of Greenwich mkt is land is rather cheap vs comparables in elite suburbs of SiliconValley (Woodside) or LA (BeverlyHills) or Chicago (LakeForest)….and CT’s state income tax (and low property taxes) are a huge draw for financial industry guys (those left standing) from NYC

    But agree…housing is an expense, not a good, but certainly illiquid, investment…esp in any region where desirable land is cheap and plentiful…and restrictions on new construction are virtually non-existent, as in Greenwich….have always been mystified why used houses don’t depreciate like used cars, w/base value being land value (esp if land is truly desirable and finite)…perhaps the “greater fool” or Ponzi scheme of used housing appreciation has operated for many years…but Ponzi schemes tend to eventually unravel