1
0

About Patrick


 invite response                
2009 May 16, 9:20am   101,248 views  165 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

Patrick is always happy to get suggestions on how to improve this site.
He's often available to help with website performance problems in the SF Bay Area. Patrick can be reached at p@patrick.net

BTW, Killelea is an Irish surname, originally Mac Giolla Leith in Irish. Many people ask me if it's Hawaiian.

#housing

« First        Comments 145 - 165 of 165        Search these comments

145   Â¥   2010 Oct 7, 9:01am  

^ good point, given the long-run supply and ecological issues of the current hydrocarbon economy.

146   myoute1   2010 Oct 7, 11:03am  

Pat,

I am currently underwater in my house. I have an FHA loan. I want to take advantage of the low interest rates. What do you know about the FHA streamline. Is it a good idea?

Thanks

Mike in MD.

147   rob918   2010 Oct 7, 11:59am  

myoute1 says

Pat,
I am currently underwater in my house. I have an FHA loan. I want to take advantage of the low interest rates. What do you know about the FHA streamline. Is it a good idea?
Thanks
Mike in MD.

I did a conventional loan streamline re-fi a few months ago with the current mortgage holder of one of my rental properties (have about 200K equity in the property...no cash out) and it was nothing more than a few pages of paper and no appraisal which was very simple and very smooth. I told my neighbor about this a week ago because she has a mortgage with the same company and they told her on Monday that the underwriters are no longer doing streamline refinance loans. I guess I was lucky to get in under the wire on that one, although it might be different from mortgage company to mortgage company so you're company may be doing them.....but I would think it's difficult if not impossible if you're underwater.

148   Â¥   2010 Oct 7, 12:44pm  

Mortgages should automatically re-fi every goddamn basis point down. : )

149   marcus   2010 Oct 20, 11:52pm  

shrekgrinch says

Yeah, right. The millions of jobs created under Reagan just magically appeared by happenstance then.

Prime rate hit 20.5% in december of 1980. Long bonds hit 14%.

YES OVER TWENTY PERCENT !!! LONG BONDS AT 14% !!!

This was engineered by Volker (Carter's appointee) to kill inflation.

When rates came down HARD AND FAST, allowing businesses to finance again, of course things boomed. We can not have any idea how much Reagan's terrible fiscal policies, increasing defense spending while cutting taxes hampered this boom. But attributing the boom to Reagan policies is nothing more than your foolish religious dogma.

150   marcus   2010 Oct 21, 12:09am  

I will admit that Reagan's image and communication skills were a plus. And that whole "don't worry, be happy" thing was much more fun than Carter's malaise.

151   Â¥   2010 Oct 21, 3:48am  

The millions of jobs created under Reagan just magically appeared by happenstance then

The baby boom in 1980 was aged 18 to 34. Quite a "surge" was in place to happen. This too was part of the "happenstance". Along with the interest rate drop:

and the trillion dollar deficit of 1980 becoming three trillion at the end of his administration.

152   marcus   2010 Oct 21, 12:11pm  

Troy says

The baby boom in 1980 was aged 18 to 34. Quite a “surge” was in place to happen.

Yes. I have often thought that the pain of the seventies was in part due to absorbing the baby boom into the economy, along with all the women that were starting to work. By the early eighties, when interest rates cam down, we were poised for a stunning increase in household incomes (now coming out of the recession(s) with two wage earner families).

Note: To students working on PHDs in economics, please feel free to elaborate on this. Just a little gift from me to you. Were things overstimulated to absorb the baby boomers and the women into the economy? And then the resulting inflation was too much, having to be killed by taking short term rates up, until long rates (inflation expectations) finally stopped going up ?

153   marcus   2010 Oct 21, 12:17pm  

I'm sure if it's true, it wouldn't be a breakthrough. But seems like an interesting period for research.

154   AndyW   2010 Nov 2, 12:51am  

Hi Patrick,

I stumbled on your site last night while doing a google search for "are housing prices still dropping?". I recently placed a bid for a single family house and was searching for more info to see if I should acquiesce an additional 5,000 to meet the owner's price. After reading some of the enlightening info on your site, I think I will hold firm at my offer.

I do have a question about your fundamental premise: that the value of a house is directly related to its rental potential. In NY, at least, there is a dichotomy between rental properties and live-in properties. Rentals in NY are typically designed for that purpose: converted one family houses that hold multiple families, or a house that is designed from the ground up to be a rental. These properties designed to be rentals will sell for notably less per square foot than a comparable single family house, though you may receive even more in rent from the house that holds multiple families.

I think there is a common belief (erroneous or not) that, all things being equal, owning your own home is worth the extra cost.

155   AndyW   2010 Nov 2, 12:52am  

PS- if you are a baseball fan, congratulations!

156   Patrick   2010 Nov 2, 2:29am  

AndyW says

. In NY, at least, there is a dichotomy between rental properties and live-in properties. Rentals in NY are typically designed for that purpose: converted one family houses that hold multiple families, or a house that is designed from the ground up to be a rental.

I'm talking about the difference in the exact same house. What would that particular house on that spot with the same exact quality rent for?

So it's on the top and the bottom of the ratio, and it cancels out. All that is left is whether you're spending more or less money for the exact same thing.

So places designed to be rentals may be lower quality, but that doesn't affect the calculation at all. Rent will be lower, and price should be lower too.

Same with the number of families or people. A place that holds multiple families may get higher rent, but it will also get a higher price because of that rent potential. It also drops out of the ratio.

So for you personally, the only question is this: which will cost me more, to buy or to rent this exact same quality and size place?

157   Liz Pendens   2010 Nov 2, 6:18am  

AndyW says

In NY, at least, there is a dichotomy between rental properties and live-in properties. Rentals in NY are typically designed for that purpose: converted one family houses that hold multiple families, or a house that is designed from the ground up to be a rental. These properties designed to be rentals will sell for notably less per square foot than a comparable single family house, though you may receive even more in rent from the house that holds multiple families.

I don't know where you are looking at Andy, but there really aren't one family homes that are 'designed from the ground up' to be a rental. Single family houses are simply SF homes, designs and the building codes used to construct them don't distinguish if they are for rent or not.

But, if the houses you are looking at are SF and have been illegally converted into multiple dwellings, or a basement apartment has been added to or pick up some under the table cash, then the owner can't (or, should not be able to) sell it as is without a zoning change. Good luck with that in the vast majority of homes in the metro NY area. The appliances and materials typically used to convert the illegal dwellings are Home Depot clearance specials, so they may not be terrific; electrical systems are often incorrect and under capacity. In the NY area, you are probably looking at are houses without C of O's for all units and the building endures hard wear and tear. Is what it is, but makes sense that is why the lower price.

Thoroughly check the C of O and legal status, and violation history of the home before you buy it.

158   bg1   2010 Dec 6, 3:28pm  

I was telling my husband about this site last night. He asked me what Patick's day job was. I was thinking I had read that you were a software engineer somewhere. I started reading this post to see if you had said what you did. I realized that in the middle of the post there was a huge diversion into a mean arguement about parenting. It is really weird to me where these threads wander off to find themselves. Really, a mean parenting snipefest? No offense intended, but that made no sense!

159   AndyW   2010 Dec 12, 10:19pm  

Hi Patrick,

I was wondering if you could divulge which are 'the areas' where you feel housing prices have come down appropriately (as mentioned in the beginning of your latest blog entry).

I was speaking to a loan officer a few weeks ago who said he recently bought a town-house in stamford, CT. I asked how he felt about the local housing market, and he was confident that prices would dip a little but would remain stable. His reasoning was that NYC would always have large volumes of jobs and thus, there would always be a demand for houses in the area.

Do you feel that housing prices in different metropolitan areas will have different trajectories for 2011, and is it possible that neighborhoods around NYC have stabilized?

-Andy

160   elliemae   2010 Dec 30, 12:58am  

Nomograph says

Disclaimer: Please consult your physician before shoving any medicine up your ass.

Nomo:
From what I've read, I understand that you are a physician. Obviously, the disclaimer that you've written (above) was free medical advice. So I'd like to ask for more free advice, since you seem in the mood and I'm fucking snowed in and can't even get any teevee and have no movies that I haven't seen a million times and if my dog brings me a ball to throw one more time I shall shove it up her ass... and for the record, I do realize that you have specialized in people and not dogs, but that there are certain parts of anatomy that are somewhat similar from person to canine.

So here's my question, dear doc:

What can I shove up my dog's ass without consulting a veteranarian? Is a tennis ball okay?

161   Sulli   2010 Dec 30, 4:54am  

ok friends enough with the ass remarks um i think the real estate market has made an ass out of a lot of us!
happy new year to all : )

162   The Mole   2011 Mar 2, 2:47am  

I think it's wise to CLEARLY identify the two real and actual political parties that now exist in the United States. Choose your side, but take your time deciding. One side seeks total control over society and the individual at all costs, for the grandiose goal of a perfect Utopia. The other side seeks freedom for the individual, within reason, since individual freedom is Utopia. Historically, tyranny and repression of the individual generally comes about from those who choose control over freedom.

SIDE 1: The Fabian Socialists, also known as Communitarians. Also known as the Third Way, or a cross between communism and a free republic. Note how you intentionally never hear these definitions in the Communitarian-owned mainstream media -- this is intentional as the Fabian Socialist works undercover, over a long period of time. This includes most Republican and Democrat politicians in the US today. The essence of their philosophy is that the needs of the community are always more important than those of the individual, despite that the community is made of individuals and that the freedom of the individual has moved civilization forward for millenia.

SIDE 2: The Libertarians. Not to be confused with the "Tea Party" which is an intentional bastardization of Libertarian philosophy, and was created by Side 1 which indicates the level of fanaticism and moral corruption Side 1 will undergo to pursue their goals. Libertarian ideals are best expressed through the non-racist John Birch Society, the reputation of which has been literally destroyed by the Side 1-owned mainstream media despite that the vast majority of Americans, when polled, agree with Libertarian ideals.

There you have it. If you are pro-socialist you are by default a Fabian Socialist Communitarian because there's really no other socialist game in town worth speaking of. There is no such thing as a Libertarian-Communitarian.

Patrick in his original post above seems to claim both sides. This, IMO, means he is indulging in the traditional method of the Communitarian. They decided long ago to pursue their collectivist goals at all costs, through repeated distortion and manipulation of truth.

If Patrick is a Fabian Socialist/Communitarian, I think he should come clean and let us know about it. If he is a Libertarian, we should know that, too. But there is no such thing as being both at the same time, as they completely conflict with each other on the issue of the individual vs. collectivist society. The powers that be are pushing one way or the other at this time in history. To assume both sides wreaks of the traditional Communitarian method of manipulation.

A great 6-minute video about Communitarianism as it applies to current events...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKW862_h-W4

On a similar note, it's worth mentioning that the greatest innovations that mankind has brought to civilization have generally come about through dreams -- the dreams of the individual, not of a group. The discovery of the structure of the Benzene molecule is a good example of this. In addition, historically speaking, it is the shaman of the tribe (an individual) who is responsible for the health and safety of the tribe. The shaman takes it upon himself to join the world of man with the world of spirit, for the furtherment of the community. This is something that has been going on since the dawn of man, and it still goes on today.

A collectivist society ultimately replaces the individual's dreams and the shaman's talents with the State, or a soviet (a community that leads itself through collectivism; no individual property rights, etc.). The government becomes your role model and this is under the assumption the State is capable of doing such things, which historically, it has never been able to do for any community anywhere in the world. It tries, but this is how we end up with sick society (which of course is conveniently blamed on the Libertarian).

163   Vicente   2011 Mar 2, 4:33am  

As a former Libertarian, this poster really does hit home:

From here:

http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

164   37108605   2012 Aug 12, 9:34pm  

This is a great thread, and this outline: http://patrick.net/housing/crash1.html is 150% spot on the mark! You nail every hard core fact with statistics to back it all up. Book about your stance? Yes.

165   elliemae   2012 Aug 13, 4:14am  

Ruki says

But liberals don't care...liberals only care about POWER. They DREAM of having as much power as the old communist central commitees and poliburos of the past. That's all they care about.

Ruki says

I have observed that most liberals in general either are incapable of understanding that or just DO NOT WANT to acknowledge that for ideological purity reasons. It is the main reason why I feel liberals DESERVE the title LIBTARD out of all the others.

Thank you for your refreshing point of view - not sure how you can see out of such a tiny hole, tho.

« First        Comments 145 - 165 of 165        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions