by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 42,471 - 42,510 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
Because money supply and GDP growth are not correlated.
No we are talking about inequalitycontrol point says
This is a joke. You can take a student to class but you can't make him learn. Thanks for playing, but I view this as a two way street - I learn, I teach. I can do neither with you so I give up
Don't flatter yourself you just fade away like you always do.
because no matter how hard it slaps you in the face you never give up your blind faith in the cult. You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse of others.
Can I get an AMEN!
I dunno. Did the State tell you that you may have an AMEN! Yet?
Blind faith in the cult lol
Don't flatter yourself you just fade away like you always do.
I fade away when I decide it doesn't look good to argue with retards anymore.
OK Who had Cluster Fuck?! Anyone have "Cluster Fuck" for the "I bet Obamacare turns into..." Pool?
It's all a consipiracy that will end in death camps in swiss alps when these "employees" will be screened for the perfect specimen to be beheaded to receive the frozen head of adolph hitler. Then, you will see your "death panel."
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
What's the penalty for lying? I am running a business, what else am I going to say but THE GOVERNMENT IS RAPING ME, RAPING ME, I TELL YOU, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT SHOOT EVERY EMPLOYEE AND SHIP EVERY LAST JOB TO INNER MONGOLIA just to survive the next quarter!
When a businessman makes a profit, it's due to hard work. When he loses money, it's the government's fault because they banned slave and child labor.
Everyone knows that!
Nothing will change until gene mutation ensures that there's only 1 fertile king, 1 fertle queen and everyone else a drone who will work for the colony.
OK Who had Cluster Fuck?! Anyone have "Cluster Fuck" for the "I bet Obamacare turns into..." Pool?
The problem is that the reform ran contrary to what's expected in darwinian paradise. These social engineers had the audacity to expand coverage when in reality they should have taken the opposite approach and started denying access to emergency rooms....
Why does the government need to set up Death Panels, when private insurers can deny care more efficiently?
Generalissimo Monsignor Cabron says
Why does the government need to set up Death Panels, when private insurers can deny care more efficiently?
And when hospital corporations can kill you more profitably. Even more efficient: drug companies can chemically induce people to kill themselves.
We need to define what a sick housing market is. I would argue that it means something other than an organic real estate market (regardless of what prices are), but most people in government, the finance/real estate industry, and the media use that term solely to mean that prices aren't rising.
An organic real estate market has pricing and valuation such that new home buyers are able to buy and existing home buyers can move up. It shouldn't have undue subsidies (as is the case currently) or ridiculously loose credit (think the recent boom cycle)
If you believe in an organic housing market, foreclosures after a large boom are good because they lead to more accurate pricing and provide restorative pressure to get back to a normal market. If you are a typical government, realtor, or media person, foreclosures are bad because it means a lower-priced sale has been recorded on the books. We should have had more foreclosures and short sales, but we didn't because of various subsidies and regulatory efforts to stop them. These subsidies and regulatory efforts prevent us from having an organic market and mask the "sickness."
Investor home sales are a symptom of the overall subsidies and distortions affecting the housing market right now. There should be fewer investors, but interest rates are very low, and institutional and other large investors are borrowing money cheaply and looking for yield.
Generalissimo Monsignor Cabron says
Something tells me the young generation won't be paying the boomers the prices they demand for their shacks.
Either the boomers will rot in place, with special property-tax grandfathering giving them 1990 taxes on their 2025-priced houses, or they will sell at much lower prices, as in: prices the younger generations can actually afford.
Unless there is wage inflation - hahahahahaha! - I see no sale at current prices.
That is a factor no one is paying attention to; no one can make generation Y buy homes at artificially inflated prices. The boomers can only trade up between each other for so long before they will need first time home buyers to enter the market. I've seen so some $800,000 homes labeled as "great starter homes" by the real estate agent. Just many subtleties that show the complete disconnect the people in real estate have with reality.
An organic real estate market has pricing and valuation such that new home buyers are able to buy and existing home buyers can move up. It shouldn't have undue subsidies (as is the case currently) or ridiculously loose credit (think the recent boom cycle)
If you believe in an organic housing market, foreclosures after a large boom are good because they lead to more accurate pricing and provide restorative pressure to get back to a normal market. If you are a typical government, realtor, or media person, foreclosures are bad because it means a lower-priced sale has been recorded on the books. We should have had more foreclosures and short sales, but we didn't because of various subsidies and regulatory efforts to stop them. These subsidies and regulatory efforts prevent us from having an organic market and mask the "sickness."
But what about the politicians? The budget would have to reflect the true health of our economy, and those poor politicians would never get voted in again. The ignorant majority need to see good numbers right now, at any cost. Long-term stability is not even on their radar. Do you want those poor politicians to loose their jobs? What about the real estate agents? What about the people who dream of flipping their homes and living off the sale? Some people are born lazy, it's not their fault. Do you really want to take away their right to sit on their butts? Have a heart.
Paying cash for investment is OK if you bought for 10% of asking price.
To those that take a mortgage & then rent,how long before you build any equity? How much of the payment is interest? Oh,that's right after 5 years you paid $3.75 in principal.
another (more objective) way to look at this: investors and equity firms are a lot more savvy than the average joes. if they jump in the market must have bottomed. just because most people are fearful or unqualified doesn't the mean it isn't a GREAT time to buy. face the reality!
Experts warn fundamentals just aren't there
by the time fundamentals are there, prices are no longer a bargain. that's how the market works. you buy when nobody wants to buy.
Everything is artificially inflated. A good time to buy is when things look less volatile. Investors were dead wrong before the crash, I am not gambling that they are right this time.
Also, all this speculation on why homes are not moving off the market even though inventory is low? How about a simple answer? The prices are still too high and too risky.
These "Investors" are slimey parasitic middle men, usually bankers and hedge funds who use fed induced printed money to manipulate the market and in the end produce nothing. Their greatest aspiration (they get insanely excited about this) is to flip properties as soon as they can and stick a young family or some poor sap with their "profit" bill (added in along with the realtor fee as part of the family's 30 year mortgage) Please never buy or rent from these bloated pigs.
Hey ListingAtHalfMast,
Did you re-do your double up on your double down?
I'm back to even from your look-out-below call of the century. Neener, neener, neener.
Thanks for not selling, makes the cost of shorting the shit out of this market much cheaper to me. Every cent I am saving from renting from the owner is now going on the short side. I'm talking 100's of thousands of dollars over my time in the crappy SFBA. The banquet is starting soon, hope you find a seat.
I am gambling that
1. Rents will crater when the amount of available rentals increases due to new construction of multi family dwellings comes to market, or investment properties bought to be rented are advertised.
2. Interest rates will rise and ruin the current flipper business, making it undesirable to purchase a distressed property for the purposes of making a quick profit.
3. Something terrible will happen that forces the banks to liquidate or deal with the amount of distressed properties on the books.
4. In 5 to 10 years, house prices will remain at this exact pricing, yet incomes will double based on how the financial system is acting.
1. Why would that help you? You are only paying $1000 ($2000 with the other person) on a property worth $600,000. That sounds pretty low. And do you really think rents will collapse? Is there anywhere that that has happened?
2. Maybe rates will rise. Maybe flipping won't be attractive, though I'm not sure of what importance you think that latter aspect is.
3. They've dealt with the inventory pretty well so far. Things are obviously better than they were 4 or 5 years ago, so that sounds like a large dose of wishful thinking on your part.
4. They may or may not be at this exact pricing, though I'd bet a lot of money on the fact that if salaries do double in that 5-10 year time period (they won't), then they will be substantially higher. Even if houses simply track inflation (and that isn't an unrealistic expectation if salaries follow the same path), then at the very least sale prices will be higher though not necessarily in real terms.
The prices are still too high and too risky.
May be the cash rich Chindians have finally figured that out.
If the government would openly investigate, most "truther bullshit" would
disappear
You're kidding right? Any government investigation would be immediately disbelieved. There are always "discrepancies". Most of them are easily explained, but that is irrelevent. That's why it's pointless--no matter how much effort is expended to refute the truthers, it will never be enough.
Exhibit A: bgamall.
I'm afraid I have to agree, at least for the places I've been looking. Rents are pretty much in line with mortgage payments
Mortgage payments assuming 20% down? That's quite possible, but mortgage payments are not the only cost of buying a house. If you internalize the true cost (including taxes, insurance, transaction costs, opportunity cost, maintenance, etc.), then that's probably not the case everywhere. Nonetheless, part of the issue is that people are having trouble with rents too due to the weak economy, and the move-up market seems to be relatively dead.
They may or may not be at this exact pricing, though I'd bet a lot of money on the fact that if salaries do double in that 5-10 year time period (they won't), then they will be substantially higher. Even if houses simply track inflation (and that isn't an unrealistic expectation if salaries follow the same path), then at the very least sale prices will be higher though not necessarily in real terms.
It's not particularly controversial to suggest that prices could stay flat while incomes catch up. Look at the 1989-1990 peak and then look at the bust through the early 90s until 1997, particularly in California.
another (more objective) way to look at this: investors and equity firms are a lot more savvy than the average joes. if they jump in the market must have bottomed.
Investors and private equity definitely don't always get it right. Look at the story of Stuyvesant Town in New York, where Blackrock and Tishman Speyer put miniscule amounts of money down and then walked away. The whole boom/bust cycle shows you they don't always get it right. The investors jumped on this stuff a few years ago, so even if the market bottomed then, it's not at bottom now, so I'm not sure why this matters. Simply not being right at bottom isn't a buy or sell indicator in and of itself.
Do you want those poor politicians to loose their jobs? What about the real estate agents?
You are exactly right -- this is why a "recovery" means that housing prices are up and ideally back to where they were at peak. That's nonsensical.
What a recovery really means that we've normalized the market. That might mean lower prices for a while, which produces more transactions and more normal market-clearing transactions. Real estate agents should have embraced foreclosures as clearing out the trash because it would have meant more transactions for them. They always want a higher commission through a higher price, so they always try to prop up the numbers, but a volume business is a volume business.
I'm afraid I have to agree, at least for the places I've been looking. Rents are pretty much in line with mortgage payments
Mortgage payments assuming 20% down? That's quite possible, but mortgage payments are not the only cost of buying a house. If you internalize the true cost (including taxes, insurance, transaction costs, opportunity cost, maintenance, etc.), then that's probably not the case everywhere.
I was taking all of this into account, using the "rent/buy" calculator on patrick.net (thanks, Pat!) My statement applies to the areas I've been looking, namely Rockridge, Albany, and Alameda. Results may vary by location.
WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!
Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."
Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!
And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Friday, February 7, 2014 __ Level is 101.2
WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:
And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083
WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!
To those that take a mortgage & then rent,how long before you build any equity? How much of the payment is interest? Oh,that's right after 5 years you paid $3.75 in principal.
Plus, you get to spend a bunch of money ripping out and replacing the carpet and appliances the tenants trashed as well as having to paint all the walls.... And that's before you have to fix/replace any of the major systems in the shack like HVAC, roof, Bathrooms, Kitchens, etc.
Yep, WINNING!!!
OH, but the landlord gets to keep the gain in equity... Sure, ask the landlords during the 2008 to 2012 time period how well that worked out...
Why in the hell would you bother with housing when you can sit behind a keyboard and ride the Dow Jones up up and away.
Why in the hell would you bother with housing when you can sit behind a keyboard and ride the Dow Jones up up and away.
Crap.... Now you tell me.....
How many rental homes did you buy?
What a relief, to know that you are never too old to steal vast sums bankster style.
Moron just didn't know how to get away with it.
Judges are kissing cousins to REALTORS, the judge probably admired his spirit, but gaviled him anyway.
Why in the hell would you bother with housing when you can sit behind a keyboard and ride the Dow Jones up up and away.
Crap.... Now you tell me.....
How many rental homes did you buy?
Ha Ha... None... I'm not that stupid...
I just bought the one I'm living in :)
I should of just put all the money I spent on down payments, closing costs and upgrades into the stock market.... I could be rich!!!!
Yep, Google and Apple when the Fed started pumping QE in would have done you well. Waste of time dealing with realtors, lier banks, lier inspectors, and sketchy tenants. Don't fight the Fed is what the big boys knew on Wall Street.
A real judge would do that anyway after accepting a massive bribe and a blow job.
Good. Eventually corporate healthcare will no longer be common. Then we can cast off the legacy of WWII and move to single payer.
4. In 5 to 10 years, house prices will remain at this exact pricing, yet incomes will double based on how the financial system is acting.
I'm pretty sure that incomes in the US aren't going to double in the next 5-10 years.
That's very strange. Every small businessperson I've talked to or read about generally seems very happy *after* implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
What used to happen is that employers' insurance premiums would skyrocket if even only one of their employees (or their spouses/kids) within the group plan got cancer or some other expensive illness. Now, under the Affordable Care Act, these premium rises don't occur.
That's not to say some of the same people didn't bitch about the ACA before it actually was implemented, but most of them are quite happy with the results.
A lot of this stuff is non-sense. I heard the CEO of an electric motor manufacturer complaining about environmental regulations that raised the cost of business. Really? If you're a quality manufacturer of electric motors, you should be ecstatic about environmental regulations that will require more people to become your customer. If you make crappy electric motors, well, you deserve to lose money anyway.
Some of these idiots read from the same script, no matter what the issue at hand is.
« First « Previous Comments 42,471 - 42,510 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,248,722 comments by 14,891 users - Misc, WookieMan online now