Patrick.net

When and How Low????????

By HousingBoom   Follow   Sat, 18 Jun 2011, 10:48pm   10,221 views   151 comments
Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

1. When do you think U.S. home prices (nationally) will bottom?

2. How much further do you think prices will drop (nationally) before prices bottom?

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 72-111 of 151     Next »     Last »     See most liked comments

1. bubblesitter Follow Befriend (5) 10 threads 2,329 comments

   72   12:55pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says As long as the population keeps growing, there will be demand for real estate. I see, so during housing downturns(like 2006-2009) there was a decline in population and from 2001-2005 there was a tremendous increase in US population. Iwog, you are really funny. Very funny.

2. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   73   1:14pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Housing will bottom on December 21, 2012 when the Mayan calendar prophecies the world will end. After that, all of Apocalypsefuck's predictions will come true.</sarcasm>

3. uffthefluff Follow Befriend 2 threads 32 comments Chicago, IL

   74   1:22pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Thinking that an income of 38,449 is enough to "afford" a 174k house is just plain ridiculous. Iwog and NAR are using crazy numbers. Historically, median house prices have been less than 3 times median income. Now, I'm not going to claim that housing will fall by another 33% or something, but continued declines of 5% a year seem unavoidable for the next few years. The U6 puts about a quarter of all Americans as economically distressed, so I doubt they'll be buying homes. Tons of Americans lost their shirts when they bought during the bubble, so they can't buy again anytime soon either.

4. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   75   1:33pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   thomas.wong1986 says Didnt we have an increasing population back in 1990 and more recently, and still prices fall. Now how do you know what construction costs are for a given builder? Prices fell but the trend has always been prices gaining faster than inflation, and not just recently I'm talking about the last 60 years. I don't even understand your second question. Are you saying that there aren't huge tracts of land covered with houses that are selling for less than the cost of construction because somewhere there's a discount builder? bubblesitter says I see, so during housing downturns(like 2006-2009) there was a decline in population and from 2001-2005 there was a tremendous increase in US population. Iwog, you are really funny. Very funny. See what I wrote above. Don't confuse a real estate bubble with long term trends. The longer the housing market remains flat, the more upward market pressure you'll see.

5. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   76   1:35pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   uffthefluff says Thinking that an income of 38,449 is enough to “afford” a 174k house is just plain ridiculous. Iwog and NAR are using crazy numbers. The number of people who are single, alone, at median income, and buying a home is so small that these people can be essentially ignored. A couple making $50,000 a year can easily afford a $175,000 home. The loan payment is $1000 a month right now.

6. common_sense Follow Befriend 34 comments

   77   1:53pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Not for at least 5 yrs. You'll know when they've bottomed because everyone will be saying housing is a bad investment and they'll never buy another. Right now, too many people are still of the mind set this is just a dip, buy before it's too late yada yada. Nonsense. You want to buy when no one else wants to. Housing is still far too expensive historically compared to incomes. When renting becomes more expensive than owning, then it will make sense to buy.

7. corntrollio Follow Befriend (5) 27 threads 2,073 comments

   78   1:56pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   thomas.wong1986 says Among the communities hardest hit were parts of Hollywood, down 45.1%; Santa Monica, off 39.6%, and Beverly Hills, down 37.8%. And that's probably nominal prices, not real. iwog says There are many houses selling for less than the cost to construct them Where, other than Detroit? Are you talking about those ghost towns in Florida? Hugh Manatee says Housing will improve (appreciate) once the Republicans gain a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, while controlling both the House and the White House. Why? Please articulate your reasons and be specific. As far as I can tell, Republicans have repeated supported subsidies to housing at least as strongly as Democrats (e.g. mortgage interest deduction, FHA program, etc.). Democrats are perfectly willing to scale down FNMA and FHLMC too, other than Barney Frank, maybe.

8. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   79   2:02pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   common_sense says Not for at least 5 yrs. You’ll know when they’ve bottomed because everyone will be saying housing is a bad investment and they’ll never buy another. Right now, too many people are still of the mind set this is just a dip, buy before it’s too late yada yada. Nonsense. You want to buy when no one else wants to. Housing is still far too expensive historically compared to incomes. When renting becomes more expensive than owning, then it will make sense to buy. Housing is cheaper than ever compared to incomes. The affordability index has never been higher.

9. common_sense Follow Befriend 34 comments

   80   2:07pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Fisk says HousingBoom says Fisk says In all previous collapses in any other country that I know (and I unfortunately lived through one in the USSR and studied a few others), RE was by far the BEST investment/hedge load up on US RE and let me know how it went in a few yrs =) I did buy a house and intend to buy one or two more within the next several years. All cash, not leveraged, so can wait. But I do NOT actually expect a collapse - just rather high inflation for some number of years. What amazes me are those who DO expect collapse and run away from RE. To where - currency and bonds of collapsing government? Gold, corporate bonds, and a farm :)

10. LAO Follow Befriend 78 threads 405 comments

    81   2:12pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   bob2356 says Really? So 70 million baby boomers currently at the peak earnings of their lifetimes living in empty family homes who will retiring, cashing out all their retirement savings, selling their mcmansions, moving to nursing homes, and dieing over the next 30 years won’t matter? They will be replaced by new immigrants and children? Explain the cold hard math involved. I smell 70 million high paying job openings in UPPER MANAGEMENT.. the positions aging boomers are holding onto right now with a death grip! What's killing the economy right now isn't so much the outsourcing of jobs.. It's the 50-65 year olds who are all still working! Once they retire or die... Somebody has to be hired to fill their shoes... Corporate America has already cut their workforce to the bone... Once Boomers start retiring en masse.... Job openings will soon follow! In fact, I read an article that there won't be enough people to fill the jobs all the Boomers currently hold eventually... And that will force wages higher and put the employee in the drivers seat for wage increases and bidding wars on their talents. Fun Fact: 1) Beginning January 1st, 2011 every single day more than 10,000 Baby Boomers will reach the age of 65. That is going to keep happening every single day for the next 19 years. Now if they all decide to work until they DIE... then we might have some issues.. But sadly boomers will probably have to learn to live a lower standard of living in retirement than expected and be forced to retire with less money.

11. common_sense Follow Befriend 34 comments

    82   2:18pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   VancouverRon says We must not forget that the U.S. has been living far beyond its means for decades. I think if America was to live within its means the standard of living would be slightly higher then Mexico. America has gutted its manufacturing sector. I agree Ron, though not sure if it would be as bad as Mexico. More like eastern Europe? Canada lived beyond its means also for decades but was forced to pay the piper in the '90s when government bonds lost their high credit rating. It took about 10 yrs of Paul Martin's austerity measures but now Canada is one of the most financially stable countries. My point is... Canada's political system provided the framework to support the necessary austerity. The U.S. does not have that. Things will likely have to get much worse in the U.S. than they did in Canada before there is enough political will to do what needs to be done. And that will make the pill that much harder to swallow.

12. common_sense Follow Befriend 34 comments

    83   2:22pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says As long as the population keeps growing, there will be demand for real estate. The population won't keep growing if immigration gets cut off like so many want.

13. LAO Follow Befriend 78 threads 405 comments

    84   2:26pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   common_sense says The population won’t keep growing if immigration gets cut off like so many want. But wages would increase which would cancel out any negative effects less immigrant population growth would have on housing... Boomers just started retiring this year... Boomers Retiring = Job Openings... Most Boomers held the high paying jobs too... All jobs can't be outsourced. High Paying Boomer Jobs Openings.... Less Qualified People to Fill Jobs.... and you eventually end up with a reversal of the current job market. More jobs than people to fill those positions will eventually push incomes higher.

14. corntrollio Follow Befriend (5) 27 threads 2,073 comments

    85   2:35pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Los Angeles Renter says But wages would increase which would cancel out immigrant population growth… No it wouldn't. That's not what the studies indicate.

15. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    86   2:42pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   corntrollio says thomas.wong1986 says Among the communities hardest hit were parts of Hollywood, down 45.1%; Santa Monica, off 39.6%, and Beverly Hills, down 37.8%. And that’s probably nominal prices, not real. No comments from Iwog.. lovely....

16. LAO Follow Befriend 78 threads 405 comments

    87   3:12pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   corntrollio says No it wouldn’t. That’s not what the studies indicate. Not sure what studies you are referring to....I'm just doing basic math.. 10,000 people reaching retirement age on a daily basis. Say 50% of them are actually still working up to age 65... That should translate to nearly 2 million NEW job openings a year.... Just from Boomer population retiring. Sure the numbers are out of whack now.. with so many unemployed. But that's 20 million new job openings over the next 10 years stimulated solely by retiring boomers... Just trying to throw some positive spin on all the doom and gloom here.

17. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    88   3:18pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   thomas.wong1986 says corntrollio says thomas.wong1986 says Among the communities hardest hit were parts of Hollywood, down 45.1%; Santa Monica, off 39.6%, and Beverly Hills, down 37.8%. And that’s probably nominal prices, not real. No comments from Iwog.. lovely…. Sorry but I don't believe it. Furthermore I did a rather extensive search for Beverly Hills and 37.8% and found NOTHING other than links back to your original uncited article. My guess is that we're dealing with that median bullshit again. There are numerous small condos in Beverly Hills, and during a downturn they probably sell far more frequently than large estates. In this case, median data would be totally flawed. You might claim a 37.8% decline yet not be able to find one single home in the entire Beverly Hills suburb that actually dropped 37.8%. I invite you to try and I'd even bet real money you couldn't find one. At least this time you provided a source. I consider that progress.

18. corntrollio Follow Befriend (5) 27 threads 2,073 comments

    89   3:29pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Los Angeles Renter says I’m just doing basic math.. 10,000 people reaching retirement age on a daily basis. Say 50% of them are actually still working up to age 65… That's non-responsive. You specifically said wages would increase if immigration were choked off. The best study on the benefits of better immigration policy: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/raising_the_floor.html From the executive summary: Comprehensive immigration reform generates an increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent. Summed over 10 years, this amounts to a cumulative $1.5 trillion in additional GDP. It also boosts wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers. Mass deportations would raise wages slightly for unskilled native workers, but would hurt those who have skills and those who modernize our economy, again, from the executive summary: Mass deportation reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in cumulative lost GDP over 10 years, not including the actual cost of deportation.2 Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers, but would diminish for higher-skilled natives, and would lead to widespread job loss.

19. uffthefluff Follow Befriend 2 threads 32 comments Chicago, IL

    90   3:31pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2014e8942dadf970d-550wi We've literally lost 5 percent of our workforce. Does that really look like a recipe for higher housing prices?

20. corntrollio Follow Befriend (5) 27 threads 2,073 comments

    91   3:58pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Sorry but I don’t believe it. Furthermore I did a rather extensive search for Beverly Hills and 37.8% and found NOTHING other than links back to your original uncited article. I'm not championing this original argument at all -- and leave that responsibility to thomas.wong -- but here is Case-Shiller data for Los Angeles in that era. The nominal change is from 100 to below 75, it appears. Inflation between 1990 and 1997 was 22.8%, so the overall drop was quite significant, even though it appears flat from 1994 to 1997. I can't speak to Beverly Hills specifically because I don't have that data, but that data would probably be harder to come by, other than with respect to the data that thomas.wong provided.

21. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    92   4:29pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   corntrollio says The nominal change is from 100 to below 75, it appears. Inflation between 1990 and 1997 was 22.8%, so the overall drop was quite significant, even though it appears flat from 1994 to 1997. We go back and forth on the whole inflation indexed issue. Homes are purchased with nominal dollars, not inflation adjusted dollars. A mortgage depreciates at the exact same rate a home does. Someone who pays cash and RENTS the home is experiencing far more income than the money lost from inflation. Someone who pays cash and LIVES in the home is saving money on rents far in excess of inflation. There really isn't a good use for inflation adjusted real estate charts other than for academic purposes. I guarantee that people who passed up on buying in 1990 weren't saying "Thank god we didn't buy in 1990 and waited until 1997!" We would have lost all that value to inflation! In fact they are probably pissed because they missed 7 years of principle pay-down, they missed the 1993 interest rate low, (which wouldn't be reached again until 1999) and they lost 7 years of rents to a landlord who was probably jacking up the rent every few years.

22. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    93   4:33pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   uffthefluff says We’ve literally lost 5 percent of our workforce. Does that really look like a recipe for higher housing prices? Yes. Rents are going to increase as homes get more scarce and the number of working adults in each home increases. This will lead to higher housing prices in the long run and cap losses. One of the huge successes by the board contrarians has been rents. Because you weren't around then, let me fill you in what was supposed to happen back in 2008. Massive foreclosures, a huge surplus of rental units as underwater owners tried to mitigate damages, and a general collapse of rents. Well it's about 3 years later and guess what...........

23. corntrollio Follow Befriend (5) 27 threads 2,073 comments

    94   4:33pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says I guarantee that people who passed up on buying in 1990 weren’t saying “Thank god we didn’t buy in 1990 and waited until 1997!” We would have lost all that value to inflation! Well, people who can't do math, maybe. If you sold a house for 28% less in 1997 after buying in 1990, not only are you missing the X% per year everyone assumes housing will go up, but you're also down 28%. Inflation matters, even to people who don't consider it. The point is that people who bought in 1997 probably made more money and were far better able to afford because of inflation. In fact they are probably pissed because they missed 7 years of principle pay-down, they missed the 1993 interest rate low, (which wouldn’t be reached again until 1999) and they lost 7 years of rents to a landlord who was probably jacking up the rent every few years. The principal pay-down in the first 7 years is a joke, and the interest rate in 1993 doesn't matter if you bought for a crappy price. The "lost 7 years of rents" only applies for people who can't do math. Someone who pays cash and LIVES in the home is saving money on rents far in excess of inflation. That's just making up hypotheticals. You'd have to show us the math there to make sure. It's possible, but it's not true in every circumstance, and you have to consider things like transaction costs too.

24. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    95   4:39pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   corntrollio says The principal pay-down in the first 7 years is a joke, and the interest rate in 1993 doesn’t matter if you bought for a crappy price. The “lost 7 years of rents” only applies for people who can’t do math. Why are you ignoring most of my points? The principal pay-down is a 100% gain. That money you borrowed back in 1990???? It has depreciated right along with the house! You're paying back 1990 dollars with 1997 dollars. This is a HUGE benefit that you're totally ignoring. Knowing in advance that I would lose 28% real value from 1990 to 1997, (but 0% nominal value) I would STILL sign a 30 year mortgage and buy my own place rather than rent and I happen to be very good at math.

25. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    96   4:43pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   corntrollio says That’s just making up hypotheticals. You’d have to show us the math there to make sure. It’s possible, but it’s not true in every circumstance, and you have to consider things like transaction costs too. I don't need to do the math because most of it is a wash. A 95% FHA mortgage means that inflation is almost completely eliminated as a factor. You basically lose 28% on your 5% down and nothing more. These aren't hypothetical numbers. This is the way money works. You don't get to depreciate the real value of the house without depreciating the real value of the mortgage.

26. corntrollio Follow Befriend (5) 27 threads 2,073 comments

    97   4:58pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Knowing in advance that I would lose 28% real value from 1990 to 1997, (but 0% nominal value) I would STILL sign a 30 year mortgage and buy my own place rather than rent and I happen to be very good at math. That's not what happened, factually. I'm not ignoring your points, you are. The interest rate in 1993 doesn't matter if you paid a peak price in 1990 at the top of the bubble. In 7 years, you would have an additional 10% equity if the price had stayed nominally 0% from 1990 to 1997, but it didn't, so you lost that 10% plus some of your down payment. If you're assuming 0% nominal, 28% real value loss (even though it was 22.8%), then isn't it a wash -- you pay back 1990 dollars with 1997 dollars, but you also get 28% less asset than you had in 1990. You might pay less, but you get less for paying less. Anyway, I don't have a horse in this race and still leave that to thomas.wong. Was just point out some facts earlier, and as I've said in numerous threads, if the rent vs. buy calculation is as it should be, renting should always be more expensive than buying because renting should be the cost of buying plus a profit.

27. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    98   5:04pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   corntrollio says If you’re assuming 0% nominal, 28% real value loss (even though it was 22.8%), then isn’t it a wash — you pay back 1990 dollars with 1997 dollars, but you also get 28% less asset than you had in 1990. You might pay less, but you get less for paying less. Right, I got less for paying less thus inflation is almost a wash. I get 10% equity paydown, protection from increased rents, a tax deduction, and my own house to play with. Furthermore I wait out a flat market and am now in an excellent position to ride the bull market without worrying about realtors or bidding wars. You simply cannot evaluate real estate based on inflation adjusted values. People do not buy homes that way and furthermore a home is an income earning/income saving asset.

28. corntrollio Follow Befriend (5) 27 threads 2,073 comments

    99   5:57pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says You simply cannot evaluate real estate based on inflation adjusted values. That is an incorrect statement. Inflation being a wash (i.e. you pay less, but you get less) is only applicable to you living in a particular house with respect to the mortgage you have on that house. When you are comparing home sales over time, you absolutely must consider inflation. It definitely matters that I could buy a house in LA, according to Case-Shiller, for 28% less in nominal value, plus an additional 22.8% due to inflation in 1997 vs. 1990, even if inflation is a wash for a particular owner with respect to his/her own mortgage. People do not buy homes that way and furthermore a home is an income earning/income saving asset. People don't even know how they buy homes. They think that are "investing" but really they're mostly "saving" because the return isn't that great. The tax deduction has been discussed many times -- paying 3X interest to save 1X taxes doesn't always make sense, and must be included in overall cost. That's not really a net benefit because it's included in the cost of housing. Anyway, as I mentioned, I don't have a horse in this race because I have a more nuanced view of these things than many people espouse on Patnet. In addition, you appear to live in the Bay Area where renting is cheaper in nicer areas, and where rents haven't gone monotonically up either, so it makes it harder for you personally to make some of your own arguments.

29. corntrollio Follow Befriend (5) 27 threads 2,073 comments

    100   6:20pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says The problem with that theory is that I’m 100% financed on 5 rental homes and still have positive income flow. It wasn't a theory, but rather a statement of fact. Do you think buying is cheaper than renting in SF? What about Lafayette which is apparently where you live? The calculation has gotten closer to par where I live, but is not quite there. I don't know much about your rental homes except that they appear to be in Concord per other commenters here, and I haven't seen your calculations for both rent vs. buy for your tenants and return on income for yourself, but trust that you know how to calculate these things. [later addition to this post] N.B. iwog deleted his original post which was a response to the sentences: "In addition, you appear to live in the Bay Area where renting is cheaper in nicer areas, and where rents haven’t gone monotonically up either, so it makes it harder for you personally to make some of your own arguments." In the later post below, he is for some reason discussing places outside the Bay Area when I specifically referenced the Bay Area.

30. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    101   6:42pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   corntrollio says It wasn’t a theory, but rather a statement of fact. Do you think buying is cheaper than renting in SF? What about Lafayette which is apparently where you live? San Francisco and Lafayette are not representative of the United States or even California. The vast majority of homes in this country can be purchased right now for less or equal to the cost to rent. http://trulia.movity.com/rentvsbuy/

31. B.A.C.A.H. Follow Befriend (6) 5 threads 2,359 comments

    102   6:42pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Controllio, iwog shared with us before his tax assessment on his Lafayette residence, it was very very very low, less than 100K if I recall. It means he inherited that property. He has also been saying how the system is skewered to favor the rich and exploit the rest of us.

32. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    103   6:47pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Sybrib says Controllio, iwog shared with us before his tax assessment on his Lafayette residence, it was very very very low, less than 100K if I recall. It means he inherited that property. He has also been saying how the system is skewered to favor the rich and exploit the rest of us. I actually bought the property out of a family trust, but basically it was a family transfer that enabled me to pay such a tiny tax bill. The assessment remains the 1978 value + 2% a year + a small addition to the property that was done 20 years ago. I consider these rules to be grossly unfair and would join any movement to repeal prop. 13 for transfers. It actually makes things more complicated for me. I really want to move in two years, however the investor side of me recognizes this tax loophole to be a very valuable asset which I should not simply throw away by selling my home.

33. Cypher Follow Befriend 4 comments

    104   7:28pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Many of you are forgetting that we're on the precipice of a global financial meltdown. Think I'm chicken little? I couldn't care less. Mark 20 June 2011 in your calendar and I'll meet you here next year on the same date and you can tell me all about your awesome equity.

34. bubblesitter Follow Befriend (5) 10 threads 2,329 comments

    105   7:37pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Los Angeles Renter says But wages would increase It would be other way, when most people who lost their high paying jobs could not land another one closer to their last income.

35. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,554 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    106   8:52pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Zlxr says Wells Fargo and I also hear BofA are going to get out of the Reverse Mortgage Business. So all those who planned to retire and use the house to create the funds to support their old age may soon be out of luck if the other Banks follow. This isn’t going to help Baby Boomers retire. Wells Fargo and Bank of America probably realize that the era of falling interest rates is about over. It's impossible to sell a reverse mortgage in such an environment because it's like a time bomb that will destroy the company.

36. solver Follow Befriend 11 threads 108 comments Los Angeles, CA

    107   8:59pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   StoutFiles says solver says I’m starting to think that the idea really is to bankrupt the middle class for control purposes. Why will prices keep falling? Maybe the power elites are really out to break the system so that they can reinvent it with new standards and a greater sense of control. Was watching Money Masters (the full length version) on You Tube the other night and it really lends quite a bit of insight into the whole power structure of the world. I think that there are simple explanations to it all. We just don’t want to see the handwriting on the wall. Let me guess, you think 9/11 was a conspiracy as well? The power elites have little to gain if the middle class falls. Breaking the system just results in revolutions, not in obedient slaves to the system. I think two planes hit the towers and that's irrefutable. I also think that they may have served as a decoy. www.drjudywood.com If you can look at this and refute everything that is scientifically backed, then you should present your discoveries to her. Till then, much is in question STILL and I don't see anyone offering up 100% of the details.

37. solver Follow Befriend 11 threads 108 comments Los Angeles, CA

    108   9:03pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Anyway, I would imagine that given the average shovel ready job that was presented to the unemployed only paid slightly over minimum wage, that would represent a much much lower housing market in the near future. How else are those low wage jobs going to stimulate the economy by buying and remodeling homes. Hell, homes would have to come down like 75% for these new hires to buy. Maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we're just getting out of the eye of the storm and we're going back into it.

38. solver Follow Befriend 11 threads 108 comments Los Angeles, CA

    109   9:07pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Oh, by the way, a revolution is not to far off. If you educated yourself by keeping up with current events in the governmental system, you'll find that we really are in an Orwellian like society. It's no longer conspiracy, it's not reality and knuckleheads (sheeple) like yourself are the reason. There are some who were born to be followers and some who were born to leaders. Leaders question everything, because they know they have to in order to get the facts straight. Everything is intertwined at the hip. One thing affects another and problems usually trickle down. Why do they want to break our society? Maybe, because it represents power. How else would you explain all of our current events?

39. solver Follow Befriend 11 threads 108 comments Los Angeles, CA

    110   9:13pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I was in my bank about 3 weeks ago and I was sitting down with the mortgage specialist who was helping me sort my accounts since the other reps were occupied. I was told that their analyst had been in the day before briefing all the branches of what was coming ahead. In short I was told that they were told to simply brace themselves for something worse then what happened before. He told me that he couldn't say anything more and that he too was a little nervous. That just goes to show you, that even the employees at some of these banks are human too. It's the big powerbrokers at the top who are creating all the havoc in the system. These are bastards that will soon be getting what is coming to them. As the saying goes: "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it" and get it they will.

40. Fisk Follow Befriend (1) 8 threads 242 comments

    111   9:58pm Mon 20 Jun 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   common_sense says Gold, corporate bonds, and a farm A farm is obviously a form of RE, so you second my case. Corp. bonds denominated in what currency? That of "collapsing government"? You may well get your coupon, in nearly worthless currency. That happened with corp. bonds in Germany during Weimar times, btw. Gold is good, I agree. But govts. of all stripes, when pressed, have a nasty habit of confiscating or outlawing it as a legal tender. That has happened in 1930-s in Germany, here in the US, and many other nations. But they didn't confiscate or outlaw RE ownership. Perhaps because they can't sell confiscated RE abroad to obtain foreign exchange to pay for critical imports.

« First     « Previous comments     Next comments »     Last »