[melpetezrinski]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Good morning melpetezrinski: Yes

Net neutral to net positive decision means net neutral selling one house for cash and buying another house for cash of similar value. When relocating to the Villages, being a 55+ or a senior citizen, a generalization is that people are selling their working house to buy a retirement house to live in. Since Florida is a relatively lower cost housing market, most will, overlysimplified, trade one house for another, and judging on some of the IRMMA comments, easily downsized to TV, a net positive.

Once in TV, the resales are generally higher priced than new, based upon human nature of wanting a fully developed neighborhood than a more speculative to be built neighborhood. So a resale move in TV will more likely be a net positive sale with cash left over from the resale to the new. in some cases, a net neutral from upsizing by buying larger new build with the resale increase.



Agree with market timing with illiquid assets, including the relocation in the TV from preowned to new, but don't overlook the following:

All houses have a relative value, meaning that the current TV house will also decline a similar amount, maybe not an exact amount, but similar. Ultimately every buyer in TV has the choice of NEW vs RESALE. most resales are first time buyers (generalized assumption) so the resale many decline for interest rates but necessarily due to interest rates here, as most are bought from cash, but from the working house not selling or declining as well as the working house is purchased with a mortgage by a younger working person/couple.

restated: The generalized point is that TV is a bit locally different than the remainder of the country, being slightly more house affluent due to age and having owned a working house with a fully paid off mortgage, but that move to TV (TV sales slow down) isn't due to the interest rate effect here where we are looking, but at the working house where we are not looking, with some seasonality thrown in (yes, we bought our house in December on a golfing vacation trip not understanding where we were going and came back with an impulse purchased house)

You may not agree with my logic, but does my comment make more sense now?

note: if 6% on everything, including new houses in progress, that would be market related, on just houses here and there, which are slow sales, or out of favor models, then its meaningless. . and its also equal to about the sales commission on the sale of a current house. . so I am not reading much into it unless its across the board on all existing and new and up and coming houses. . .

You may not agree with my logic, but does my comment make more sense now?
Yes, it does but I definitely don't agree with the following 2 assumptions. 1. "resales are generally higher priced than new, based upon human nature of wanting a fully developed neighborhood" This theory might have held water 4-5 years ago before the major TV expansion (think Fenney and no infrastructure) but I think there are just as many homebuyers that would prefer a brand new home to start their next chapter. Recent sales volumes of both seem to point in that direction. Also, most resales are priced higher since they have made countless, financial updates. 2. "as most are bought from cash" There are many reports/graphs out there that have this % at 60. In fact, there were 4 months this year where cash buyers were at 50% OR LESS. So, the drastic increase in mortgage rates has and will continue to have a big effect on TV homebuyers.