patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

eat a Realtor!

Thanks for the delicious morning breakfast. :)

MoneySheep says

Why should house price gets lower

Why should it be expensive as hell? Why should the buyer work all his/her life for the RE cartel? Screw it. Cash only!

I have no idea what the market is going to do.

2-3% interest rates is another card the PTB can possibly play to support home prices and the existing stack of $10T of housing debt.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS

A 1970s-style wage-price spiral doesn't seem too likely to me . . .

The 1970s saw the participation rate from from 60% to 64%:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USALFPRNA

which tells us the 1970s was actually a tightening labor market.

I do think we're in something of a Big Government Bubble now. All this money-pumping but unemployment is still higher now more than the worse of the 1970s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE

We're spending $5.3T on government now, that's $40,000 per household, plus another ~$6000 per household on social security payments.

Federal spending to GDP is very high now:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=zm

Raising taxes is deflationary to housing, and cutting state spending is deflationary to housing. Printing money is inflationary to commodities and thus deflationary to housing (since the Bay Area is a consumer not a producer of commodities).

Massively borrowing to pay for government might prove to be deflationary to housing too since it possibly puts upward pressure on interest rates, though with our $10T national debt we can no longer afford 5% treasury rates -- that would be a $500B/yr interest cost, $300B more than now.

Housing inflation can only come from rising real wages and/or lower monthly borrowing costs.

I kinda don't think even rising nominal wages will increase housing -- rising nominal but flat real wages just means people are getting wage increases to handle the rising cost of living -- energy, food, health care . . . if those costs keep going up I just don't see how the price of housing is going to get bid up too.

But the wildcard is the regional advantage of job distribution . . . if the Bay Area is the only regional job center, then people will pay proportionally more of their incomes to live here, since the alternative is starvation w/o a job.

If you can find a place you'd be happy to stay in for the next 10 years, I think buying now might work out fine. This is just going on a gut feeling rather than any understanding of present price dynamics.

The whole point about this thread is that with anything less than 20% down, the taxpayers become responsible for low down payment loans. FHA, Fannie and Freddie need to be disbanded and the federal government out of the mortgage guarantee business. If getting a mortgage is truly a business decision, then the borrower and the lender need to agree on terms and not have the ability to play with numbers and let the taxpayer eat any losses.
These programs are being abused daily by borrowers, builders, realtors and bankers and need to be reined in. Government (taxpayer) guarantees are total BS. These programs are designed to benefit the realestate companies, title companies, wallstreet and the bankers.
By offering people 3.5% down, they are offering a welfare program to buy homes. Most of these people should be renting.
After closing costs, they are completely underwater. With non-recourse loans, the taxpayers will be at substantially higher risks and this is not warranted. The new PMI programs are now government funded and backed by taxpayers. Non-recourse loans with less than 20% should not exist if the taxpayers are at risk. If a bank wants the risk, then let them have it.
As a taxpayer, I don't think I should back anyone's mortgage or any banks losses.
I know that the stock market will fall and the banks will suffer, but this is not our problem. Those that made the mistakes ought to pay for them..............

Disgusted Realtor says

By offering people 3.5% down, they are offering a welfare program to buy homes. Most of these people should be renting.

Landlords generally say that. This goes back a very long way, like back to "It's a Wonderful Life", where, if you remember, Mr Potter was trying to get George to stop making mortgage loans with easier terms to poor people so they would be forced into his Pottervilles.

Like I said, if we ran the landlords out of the SFH market out on a rail, I'd be willing to see the private market take over.

Until then, we need the government intervention to keep some semblance of a housing market for families and not all the specu-vestors buying up properties to wring easy money from people who actually have to work for a living.

The whole point about this thread is that with anything less than 20% down, the taxpayers become responsible for low down payment loans.

Only to the extent home prices decline from here. Plus low-down home buyers are required to pay 1.15% a year in PMI premiums, and also pay another 1.6% or more to principal, so as long as prices fall less than 3%/yr there is no systemic risk to "the taxpayers".

Prices aren't going to fall 20% immediately, so this insistence on 20% is just an artificial barrier to keep families from buying the homes that the parasitical real estate investors are scooping up now.

It is really quite disgusting, actually.

Troy says

Housing inflation can only come from rising real wages and/or lower monthly borrowing costs.

Very straight forward point that most bulls on this site don't get it and always confuse that inflation scenario will influence housing equally as all other goods and services. Without healthy rise in income of average Americans nothing can stop the slow bleeding(thanks to RE freaks pushing this on taxpayers).

MoneySheep says

Why should house price gets lower because you want to buy. There is always the other side of the trade, the current asset owners, they want the price higher.

Their concerns will be heard when the market is not overinflated. Right now, it's just echoes of the same delusional whining we've heard for years.

You're arguing against a cheaper cost of living for future homeowners. To you and all the bubble bait out there, your ability to profit from your bad purchase does not supersede the need for all others to have a quality standard of living.

klarek says

MoneySheep says

Why should house price gets lower because you want to buy. There is always the other side of the trade, the current asset owners, they want the price higher.

Their concerns will be heard when the market is not overinflated. Right now, it’s just echoes of the same delusional whining we’ve heard for years.

You’re arguing against a cheaper cost of living for future homeowners. To you and all the bubble bait out there, your ability to profit from your bad purchase does not supersede the need for all others to have a quality standard of living.

In agreement, ownership should not be rewarded.

Troy says

3.5% down is not a big deal. Every year the mortgage is paid, LTV goes down 1.6% or more — thus after only 3 years the buyer has another 5+% of “skin in the game” and has also paid 3.45% in monthly PMI, for an effective LTV of under 90% already, halfway to the magical 80% LTV of perfect safety.

How is that an "effective LTV" of under 90%? I get 8.19% equity after 3 years with 3.5% down, assuming value stays the same.

klarek says

You’re arguing against a cheaper cost of living for future homeowners. To you and all the bubble bait out there, your ability to profit from your bad purchase does not supersede the need for all others to have a quality standard of living.

Exactly, everyone would be better off with lower real estate prices. The only people who would be hurt would be those people who expected boom-time appreciation in order for their purchase to pencil out, all of whom are speculators who deserve to lose money.

Prudent people who didn't take out massive home equity loans would still make profits, albeit more modest ones, and anyone looking to buy a home would save money. It's win-win for responsible people.

"To you and all the bubble bait out there, your ability to profit from your bad purchase does not supersede the need for all others to have a quality standard of living."

There is no Constitutional right to a house or a "quality standard of living."

But if you do think everyone should have a house as a Constitutional right, there is always the Soviet Constitution:

Everyone shall have the right to a home. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of a home.

Low-income citizens and other citizens, defined by the law, who are in need of housing shall be housed free of charge or for affordable pay from government, municipal and other housing funds in conformity with the norms stipulated by the law.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

That’s a good name.

Hehehehehehehehe!

Feel free to use it ad nauseum!

HousingWatcher says

There is no Constitutional right to a house or a “quality standard of living.”

Did I say "right"? No, I said "need". As in "I need not pay $4000 in mortgage payments per month for this piece of shit house that would have cost me $2000 a month less than a decade ago whilst household incomes have only gone up 30% during that same period of time".

So to those that are unhappy about the reality of falling housing prices, that's too bad. This was written in stone from the beginning. A reversion to the mean is unavoidable and it decreases the cost of living for a lot of people.

In my opinion 20% down would be a good thing- but would probably create a nasty side effect for a lot of current homeowners since requiring such payments means a significant lowering of prices- especially in overpriced areas like here in the Bay Area. But if allowed to be enacted this would mean that...

A: People would have more financial ties to their home. That means they're less likely to jump ship and move every few years. That leads to better residents and more stable neighborhoods.

B: Slower but steady home appreciation.

C: Home prices that are more in lock-step with wages.

That said- I am almost positive that this will never happen. I pay close attention to this type of thing and have saved up a large amount of cash because I can totally see some sort of legislation passing that would basically put the US back on track with the likes of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia where home prices would once again become inexplicably unaffordable. If I get a wiff of another inflating bubble we're packing bags, moving to Austin, and buy a house for cash.

E-man says

Rememer that your local government, schools, hospitals, fire department, police department and city hall, just to name a few, need your tax dollar. Lower home prices would mean lower property taxes and less revenue for them.

This is a bogus concern. Those same city departments did just fine when home prices were much lower. When property tax revenues went up, they increased their spending to match, instead of saving money for a rainy day. I don't have that much sympathy for that, especially when you consider the insane pensions and benefits that public sector employees receive.

Public sector employees usually get raises even during recessions. Cry me a river.

"Public sector employees usually get raises even during recessions."

Have you not paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of public employees who got laid off or furloughed over the past few years? Since Obama became president, we have lost over 400,000 government jobs.

"This is a bogus concern. Those same city departments did just fine when home prices were much lower."

They did fine because at the time people had JOBS and were paying income tax. Today they don't have jobs. So there goes the income tax revenue. And that revenue msut be made up, so cities are raising property taxes.

"When property tax revenues went up, they increased their spending to match, instead of saving money for a rainy day."

That's because they had no choice but to increase spending. First, there is Medicaid, which costs states billions of dollars and its costs only go up every year. Plus, we have a growing population so services must be increased to accomodate it. More cops. More teachers, etc. Plus there was a little thing called 9/11 that forced cities like NYC to spend billions in anti terrorism expenses.

"A reversion to the mean is unavoidable and it decreases the cost of living for a lot of people."

Not really. Whatever money you save in your mortage payment you will jsut pay in higher property taxes. Municipal budgets are horrible and are only going to get worse. It's gotten so bad in some areas that now states are having to take over towns and entire counties (see: Nassau County, NY and the new emergency financial manager law in Michigan). Sooner or later, the governor of your state could take over your town and raise property taxes 25% or more.

You're full of it Housing Watcher. I work for a large city government. Even after numerous audits, the waste is sinful.

My division used to have 255 employees. We currently do the exact same amount of work with only 185 employees and less overtime. Most other government entities are exactly the same.

If tax income falls, services will only decline a little bit...most def not in proportion.

E-man says

Rememer that your local government, schools, hospitals, fire department, police department and city hall, just to name a few, need your tax dollar. Lower home prices would mean lower property taxes and less revenue for them.

This is extremely deflationary for the local, state and overall economy. The best bet/hope is for home prices to stay stagnant for a long period of time.

Some of you don’t know what you’re asking for. Be careful what you wish for :)

Stop being so naive. Home prices have always tracked with household income. Property taxes track with home values. Had there never been a housing bubble, local govts would in fact have collected LESS TAX REVENUE.

God damn, get a clue.

corntrollio says

This is a bogus concern. Those same city departments did just fine when home prices were much lower. When property tax revenues went up, they increased their spending to match, instead of saving money for a rainy day. I don’t have that much sympathy for that, especially when you consider the insane pensions and benefits that public sector employees receive.

Public sector employees usually get raises even during recessions. Cry me a river.

This. Like homeowners during the bubble, tax collectors enjoyed substantially higher returns than they ought to have had. If they saved the money, which most didn't, then they'll actually have scored from the event and are entitled to all the revenue they collected. If they pissed the money away and are now raising the taxed $/value multiples to cover their "losses", then their local constituents need to hold them accountable for their bad budget management (much like somebody extracting all their equity, spending it, and not having a plan for paying off their mortgage or heloc).

So these concerns about property tax revenues can be filed in the "don't give a fuck" folder.

HousingWatcher says

They did fine because at the time people had JOBS and were paying income tax. Today they don’t have jobs. So there goes the income tax revenue. And that revenue msut be made up, so cities are raising property taxes.

I think you need to take an econ or public finance course. Local municipalities for the most part make their money from RE and sales taxes, NOT from income tax.

HousingWatcher says

That’s because they had no choice but to increase spending.

That's b.s. When a city or county increases spending by 50% over just six years due to nothing more than a flood of revenue from overvalued housing, with no plan for cutting it's budget to match a reversion of home values (and revenue), that's utterly irresponsible.

HousingWatcher says

That’s because they had no choice but to increase spending. First, there is Medicaid, which costs states billions of dollars and its costs only go up every year. Plus, we have a growing population so services must be increased to accomodate it. More cops. More teachers, etc. Plus there was a little thing called 9/11 that forced cities like NYC to spend billions in anti terrorism expenses.

Not true. Municipal budgets went up more in the last several years than warranted due to either GDP per head or inflation. 9/11 had nothing to do with it and is just a red herring you're throwing out there.

E-man says

Rememer that your local government, schools, hospitals, fire department, police department and city hall, just to name a few, need your tax dollar. Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah I am wishing for pension != salary and free health care for life for them while my SS is on the line. They are most inefficient bunch on the planet.

"Local municipalities for the most part make their money from RE and sales taxes, NOT from income tax."

Wanna bet? Come to NYC. The city has their own income tax that you pay IN ADDITION to the state and federal income tax.

Plus, when fewer people have jobs and cut back on their spending, what do you think happens to the amout of revenue that the sales tax brings in?

HousingWatcher says

Wanna bet? Come to NYC. The city has their own income tax that you pay IN ADDITION to the state and federal income tax.

Yeah, and banksters are making record profits, so city coffers should be doing quite well.

Municipal revenue is also slightly different in California because of Prop 13. Property tax revenue is quite low, so municipalities are much more dependent on sales taxes and grants from the state (which is broke).

But none of that negates the fact that state and local governments have increased budgets by amounts not warranted by GDP per head or inflation in recent years instead of making rainy day funds. The bubble made them flush with cash, and they spent it. They are exactly like overleveraged homeowners, as someone said. Now it's time to short-sell them.

HousingWatcher says

“Local municipalities for the most part make their money from RE and sales taxes, NOT from income tax.”

Wanna bet? Come to NYC. The city has their own income tax that you pay IN ADDITION to the state and federal income tax.

Yes, I do wanna bet. More money comes from property taxes.

I see you ignored my point above that these govt pissed away the excesses brought by the housing bubble, and now they have to revert their spending amounts to account for the reality which is that housing prices can't double or triple in a decade, nor can their operating budget.

klarek says

Home prices have always tracked with household income. Property taxes track with home values. Had there never been a housing bubble, local govts would in fact have collected LESS TAX REVENUE.

Add to that govt inflated future forecasted household incomes due to tech stock and real estate bubbles increasing spending.
As you correctly stated, had the state dismissed both as abnormal in the short run and ran ops more conservatively there would not be mess as we today.

dodgerfanjohn says

My division used to have 255 employees. We currently do the exact same amount of work with only 185 employees and less overtime. Most other government entities are exactly the same.

Many government jobs basically involve being glorified paper-pushers that could easily be automated through an online process. Government has huge numbers of clerical workers that could be eliminated by technology.

The government jobs that require human-power still usually have some waste, as dodgerfanjohn pointed out. Many government jobs are restricted by work rules that discourage productivity, and many are overstaffed for other reasons.

That's why CEOs of big companies have no tolerance for governments complaining about making 5% or 10% across the board cuts or having to cut a small percentage of jobs. These CEOs have done much harder things -- much bigger cuts, all out of necessity. It's a joke that government can't do the same.

corntrollio says

It’s a joke that government can’t do the same.

Total government spending is $6.1T.

Taking out:

Pensions --$1T
Health -- $1.1T
DOD -- $1T
Interest -- $300B

That's still $2.7T, or over $20,000 per household. Given the median household income is $50,000 this means we've got to work 2 out of 5 days a week just to pay the basic bulk of government.

Of course, adding DOD and interest back in adds another $10,000 per household, or THREE days a week just to pay for basic government!

Something is really really out of whack with this.

Troy says

corntrollio says

It’s a joke that government can’t do the same.

Total government spending is $6.1T.
Taking out:
Pensions –$1T

Health — $1.1T

DOD — $1T

Interest — $300B
That’s still $2.7T, or over $20,000 per household. Given the median household income is $50,000 this means we’ve got to work 2 out of 5 days a week just to pay the basic bulk of government.
Of course, adding DOD and interest back in adds another $10,000 per household, or THREE days a week just to pay for basic government!
Something is really really out of whack with this.
“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

too bad we cannot colonize our way out of this any more. wait there is pandora

corntrollio says

Many government jobs basically involve being glorified paper-pushers that could easily be automated through an online process. Government has huge numbers of clerical workers that could be eliminated by technology.
The government jobs that require human-power still usually have some waste, as dodgerfanjohn pointed out. Many government jobs are restricted by work rules that discourage productivity, and many are overstaffed for other reasons.

The post iffice comes to mind. They should go down to 2-3 days per week residential mail delivery and lay off tons of people. How many days per week do you really need to get snail mail anyway? I bet a lot of people would opt for 1x weekly.

E-man says

Rememer that your local government, schools, hospitals, fire department, police department and city hall, just to name a few, need your tax dollar. Lower home prices would mean lower property taxes and less revenue for them.

They just need to do away with all their pension benefits, bloated payscales, and overstaffing. They don't need higher taxes.

"I bet a lot of people would opt for 1x weekly."

I would like to have mail delivery more than 1 day a week. Think of how many people will be late paying their bills if you drastically cut down delivery. Plus I get Netflix so my wait for movies would be far longer.

HousingWatcher says

I would like to have mail delivery more than 1 day a week. Think of how many people will be late paying their bills if you drastically cut down delivery. Plus I get Netflix so my wait for movies would be far longer.

Going to have to agree with you. In the case of packages that have to be signed for, what if you miss the delivery? Wait another week? That won't fly.

"These CEOs have done much harder things — much bigger cuts, all out of necessity. It’s a joke that government can’t do the same."

CEOs have cut their expenses by outsourcing jobs overseas. Are you saying the govt. should do the same thing?

zzyzzx says

The post iffice comes to mind. They should go down to 2-3 days per week residential mail delivery and lay off tons of people. How many days per week do you really need to get snail mail anyway? I bet a lot of people would opt for 1x weekly.

Yeah, although the post office isn't necessarily a great example. It's not fully a government agency for one thing.

Our postal rates are incredibly low by international standards; doubly, triply, or quadruply so if you consider how big the U.S. is. German rates are probably twice as much as here, but Germany is just over half the size of Texas. I do wonder what their revenue would be like with comparable postal rates, including how bulk mail would be affected.

The other thing is that our postal service spends a huge amount of money delivering mail to remote areas (e.g. large parts of Alaska, remote areas of Idaho, and other remote territory). If you take out the outliers, it's pretty damn efficient, especially in urban areas. In fact, the post office has recognized this and has stopped many unprofitable rural routes in the last several years, much to the detriment of these remote communities. Overall, it's probably the right thing to do, but perhaps it adds to the argument that people might only need mail once a week (i.e. when they go to the remote PO).

"and now they have to revert their spending amounts to account for the reality which is that housing prices can’t double or triple in a decade, nor can their operating budget."

They are not going to. As long as the political system remains corrupt with pay to play politics, money will be wasted. Texas has a massive budget deficit, yet they found a way to give Formula 1 racing a $25 million a year subsidy. New Jersey has a big deficit and is broke. Yet Christie found a way to give $400 million in subsidies to a shopping mall with an indoor ski slope.

HousingWatcher says

CEOs have cut their expenses by outsourcing jobs overseas. Are you saying the govt. should do the same thing?

Nice straw man. Not all CEOs have the ability to outsource jobs. In fact, some CEOs outsource jobs to the U.S. -- German and Asian car companies, for example.

Are you mostly just trolling? You're not really giving substantive responses to people, and you're mostly just bringing up ancillary points that aren't really relevant. Do you think the government budgets are perfect and there's nothing we should cut?

No, I am not trolling. I have an idea: Why don't you list specific govt. programs you would cut? It's easy to say we need to cut. But it's hard to list specific things that should be cut.

HousingWatcher says

But it’s hard to list specific things that should be cut.

Only hard for politicians.

Agriculture subsidies -- cut in full
Ethanol subsidies to the extent not covered in ag subsidies -- cut in full
Defense spending -- there are plenty of non-essential projects that are basically Cold War era projects that aren't useful now. Before the Iraq quagmire, Rumsfeld started cutting some of these projects, but Iraq changed his focus. Sometimes they get maintained by individual congressmen as subsidies to their districts.
Social Security -- raise retirement age, raise income limit
Medicare -- yes, we need rationing, even though it's a 4-letter word. Not everyone should get everything at unlimited cost.

Another one -- there are some DOJ employees who have every 10th day off. Why not just eliminate 10% of the positions?

What about the Bush tax cuts?