patrick.net

I agree with Patrick that house prices should keep falling and that Obama's lame attempts to stop it are foolish. But, he is buying votes here. He will try to buy the underwater soccer mom vote. He will buy the young people with student loan debt vote. He has already bought the unemployed/poor/food stamp vote.
Where I live, the people who bought the bubble were fools who were greedy. Some others were fools who were also lying on their loan apps. Ever heard of Countrywide? I personally know some of these people and I do not pity any of them. They drank the Koolaid and thought they'd be Donald Trump someday. Of course the banks are complicit, as were a whole bunch of clowns on Wall St. A pox on all of them. I would talk to my friends and ask "how long do you think that it can last, the median house price is about 15X the median salary and over 10X what a full professor makes here?" They looked back at me with their idiotic expressions and said "I don't want to miss the boat!"

clambo says

I agree with Patrick that house prices should keep falling and that Obama's lame attempts to stop it are foolish.

So you have no problem with the economy going back into recession and you losing your job?

Preventing a free fall in home prices has less to do with homeowners/keeping home prices high and more to do with the US economy.

Bring the rates to 7% and stop complete government support to banks. Just let the worst fail.

Dan8267 says

Corntrollio, how about we bury the hatchet? I'm sorry for whatever I did to hurt your feelings, but get over it man. Whatever I said that offended you was based on logic and not a personal attack.

What indicates that you hurt my feelings? Because I disagree with you sometimes? I might be more direct about that than some other people here, but that's about it. There's no agenda against you. No hatchet to bury as far as I can tell, but I'm happy to bury one.

If anything, cc0 has been saying the same thing as me. Isn't that noticeable if you read carefully?

Well I think Patrick.netters need to re-think voting for democrats again.

They are the ones heavily supporting all the bailouts/tax payer backed underwater Refis. (just this week another bailout from Obama on the underwater Refi's!!!!!)

Isnt Barack the most dissapointing democrat ever? He even has let the DEA run wild again on the medical mj dispensaries in CA. What the hell kind of democrat is he? He is a big police union democrat.

Vote for him if you are a cop with an underwater mortgage.

Can we assume one way to accelerate house price drops is to vote for republicans? I think yes.

PockyClipsNow says

They are the ones heavily supporting all the bailouts/tax payer backed underwater Refis. (just this week another bailout from Obama on the underwater Refi's!!!!!)

That's not completely true. Both parties have been willing to bail people out, just in different ways. The biggest bailouts have been under Bush thus far. The Democrats can't pass anything to do with bailouts alone because it would just be filibustered like everything else. Does that mean they haven't screwed stuff up here? Absolutely not, but both parties want to buy cheap votes, and these housing bailouts are cheap votes.

This current underwater refi program actually makes sense because it's narrowly tailored to loans that are already government-backed and that are at least 6-months current. If those loans default, it will be more expensive than this program. Some of the other bailout programs have been stupid, I agree, but this one has merits.

PockyClipsNow says

Isnt Barack the most dissapointing democrat ever? He even has let the DEA run wild again on the medical mj dispensaries in CA. What the hell kind of democrat is he? He is a big police union democrat.

This is really overblown. Obama said as a candidate that he would treat doctor-prescribed marijuana as we would treat other doctor-patient relationships. The DEA has been dealing with the gigantic dispensaries that are basically drug traffickers in disguise and don't fit under the policies put in place. The DOJ and DEA have no problem with personal-use and small scale growers, but they've always had a mandate to stop trafficking. This seems entirely consistent as long as you don't ignore the nuance.

PockyClipsNow says

Can we assume one way to accelerate house price drops is to vote for republicans? I think yes.

I'm actually not convinced of that when push comes to shove. But it'd be an interesting experiment. And it'd be the right thing to do -- less government intervention in the housing market would help it stabilize because prices would come down more.

Both Cain and Romney mentioned that foreclosures must be allowed to happen.
Someone above said that without rising house prices, our economy will continue to suck. Really? Check out Switzerland sometime and how many people own expensive houses over there.
I love using Switzerland as an example because since I visited the place I was amazed at how FREE they are and how prosperous too.
Continued efforts to inflate a popped housing bubble will always be pointless and simply delay the inevitable. American suckers: quit CRYING and realize you bought an inflated asset, you gambled and you LOST.
I would like the bank to give me new terms for my Ferrari car loan. I noticed that my car has recently become grossly underwater! If Obama would guarantee the loan, I would dearly love it.
The bonus is that my riding around in the expensive Ferrari helps our economy! Did you not know that? My living in an expensive house helps our economy! Did you not know that? Why, how silly of you if you didn't.
Housing is over, toast, done as an investment. It's a place to live. The price of the roof over your head means nothing to the economy.

clambo says

Someone above said that without rising house prices, our economy will continue to suck. Really? Check out Switzerland sometime and how many people own expensive houses over there.

I'm assuming you are refering to me. I didn't say that at all. I said that rapidly falling housing prices would lead the US back into recession. Slowly falling or relatively stable prices let the economy stumble along as it has for the past couple of years.

Again--nobody wants housing prices to go up 10%/year again. That's a straw man.

The recession will happen or will not happen regardless of the continuing drop in inflated bubble house prices.
If you go look at places like Marina, CA or Seadise CA, note how many are foreclosed. The ratio has been steadily rising for two years.
Whether or not there are jobs for the people who will transform from foreclosed owners into renters is unrelated to house prices.
Keep hoping! You can wait this out if you live to be 105.

We don't own a house yet in bay area and we are hoping for it to drop, but it's probably easier for us to say that while most of the people (most of my friends own properties) have their house underwater. As much as I would like it to drop further, but wonder the rapid decline will result huge loss of consumer confidence here (California is already bankrupt) and everything would be tightening their pockets, hence stock markets not doing well etc. You might buy a house for cheaper price, lose big in stock market or sitting on the cash where US dollars plummet against other currencies .... It just seems if everyone else spends irresponsibly till the bubble burst while you save, the money you have saved still decline in values as a result of them. Not that I'm wishing for an increase of housing price, it's just there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Everybody has something to lose if housing market crashes, stock market crashes (everything is inter-dependent) unless you have nothing to lose to start with ...

clambo says

If you go look at places like Marina, CA or Seadise CA, note how many are foreclosed. The ratio has been steadily rising for two years.

I'm not really interested in the housing situation in random communities. There will certainly be many, many areas that don't recover. They were overbuilt.

clambo says

Whether or not there are jobs for the people who will transform from foreclosed owners into renters is unrelated to house prices.

If you think the job situation is unrelated to house prices, you've got a LOT to learn.

clambo says

Keep hoping! You can wait this out if you live to be 105.

I'm not even sure what this means. I'm hoping that the US economy doesn't slip into depression. What am I waiting out?

PockyClipsNow says

Can we assume one way to accelerate house price drops is to vote for republicans? I think yes.

I think so too, LOL.

If the Republicans walk their talk -- cutting taxes on the wealthy and cutting spending on the poor -- the economy will collapse later this decade.

U-6 will be 40%, but home prices will sure be a lot lower!

Just like the 1930s -- that decade was an EXCELLENT time to buy a house (because almost nobody could).

Hipsters,

Keep not doin' what you've not been doin', not minting more Americans, so the demographic shift continues.

This would be very easy:

1. Require banks to unload homes in something like less than a month.
2. Require banks to foreclose in a reasonable amount of time (like after the first missed payment, you are out the door).
3. Remove mortgage tax deductions.
4. Ban all new mortgage loans. No using house equity either or any type of refinance of existing loans.
5. Kick out all illegal aliens.
6. Ban immigration.
7. Don't allow single family homes to be rentals.

While zzyzzx is correct, that is unpossible politically.

If you put on your 'barack obama hat' and think like a marxist you can guess what probably actually IS in store for us after his re-election (he can safely do even crazyier stuff then).

Here is my prediction what they will expand/start next as 'programs to help housing':

1. A mortgage payment for certain FHA loans will be capped at '31% of your income'. (already doing this for years with federal loan mods and this new undawata refi program). In fact they are doing this with student loans now too (capped at 10% of income regardless of how much you owe)

So what is the price of home home? doesnt matter its 31% of your income and taxpayers foot the bill for the rest.

2. More and more loan mods and undawata REFI, and down payment assistance.

3. More and more 'buy a HUD home from the feds for $100 down'.

4. More foreclosure delays, more tenants rights to rent back the same house that was just foreclosed (and/or squat)

These programs are already here, already sfaffed up, already approved, already have budgets and have been running for years. All under Obama. These programs (like most all government) will only get bigger and distort the whole economy around them even further.

Maybe you people in the Bay Area cannot afford a house due to all the S-8 renters living 'well' in your fine city. The red states all have affordable housing - the blue states punish the middle class. I would say red state is better for middle class to live and blue state is better for poor/welfare class and the very rich/well off.

"Preventing a free fall in home prices has less to do with homeowners/keeping home prices high and more to do with the US economy."

Most people fail to understand that. THey think that you can have plummeting home prices and skyrocketing foreclosures and they can just swoop in and buy for pennies on the dollar. They forget to realize that falling home prices directly increase unemployment and will bankrupt states and cities, which will mean higher taxes down the road, as well as reduced services. Less cops and more crime. Fewer teachers and lower test scores, etc.

"The red states all have affordable housing..."

Housing in Red states is not as "affordbale" as you think since wages there are generally lower.

bgamall4 says

cc0 says

Well, I'm not seeing it yet.

You have to look at the chart on this article I wrote.

That's a very confusing article. I should clarify that what I couldn't see was the claimed causality, not that it happened. Your chart and article assumes a causality which I gave alternate explanations to in my comment above.

I would like to make a request. In the article you state:

It is starting to look like the libertarians want the easy money loans, and the liberals want to control the casino [...] This seems counterintuitive, given the efforts by the libertarians to expose speculation. But the libertarian/Murray Rothbard/Ron Paul/Paul Ryan con is that in the name of freedom and restoration that comes from their massive cuts private banks, banks will be able to lend recklessly.

Easy money is the grease of innovation and bankruptcy is the lever of retribution. The argument should be made that a "bank" shouldn't be involved in the transaction at all. But we have to differentiate between the entity that takes deposits and makes loans (credit unions, S&Ls), and those entities that underwrite securities. The problem is of course that these distinctions were erased and "they" gambled with "our" money. Bankruptcy is effectively not an option because Keynesian systems don't work in reverse.

Now, "libertarians" is a broad group of people, but please don't put Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor in the same league as Ron Paul, or refer to GOP people as "his party". Ron Paul has a legitimate message for the betterment of people and nation. Republicans see only the "cut taxes" part, with a large superstitious bent, and vote in blocs. But they do have giant bags of money and a "legitimacy" that the Libertarian Party does not have. That Ron Paul is a Republican is simply a statement that the political system is driven by money, not message.

bgamall4 says

Hiding loans off balance was illegal for Enron, legal for the banks.

Enron created a related party and removed the assets and liabilities off their books to the related party. Never consolidated or disclosed the related party.

So who was the "related party" which the banks used to remove their Assets and Liabilities ?

taputu has it backwards. Employment affects house prices. Rising wages causes house prices to rise. The converse is untrue however. Lower house prices does not cause unemployment to increase. I chose Marina and Seaside, but you can look at foreclosures now in Monterey and Carmel. CARMEL!
House prices are falling and that is not a bad thing, because the rise in prices was a credit bubble, NOT based on rising income. So, this had to pop.

clambo says

Lower house prices does not cause unemployment to increase.

Really, so what happened in 2008 then?

tatupu70 says

so what happened in 2008 then?

LOL, the home ATM ran out of money.

The housing bubble blowing up was the contributory cause, but not the direct cause.

Kinda like how the 9.0 earthquake didn't cause much of Japan to become dusted with Cesium 137.

Just kinda happened! Causal chains are not important.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=33C

bgamall4 says

They hid them in SIV's. They didn't even need to create a second party, they just hid the loans from the investors completely.

Which doesnt even come close to what you orginaly said or Enron did or even NetFlix.. do you even know anything about Finance ?.

How about this .."Factoring your reveivable" the selling of your receivables to meet your cash flow...

Many do that even today from small to large companies, that too would be considered SIV. The simple case its no longer legally your receivable and you lay no claim to it. This is hardly hidding anything...

bgamall4 says

Now that is a disturbing statement. Easy money is the predatory attack of the financial community on unsuspecting main street victims.

It's context dependent and you cut out the critical bankruptcy part. Don't confuse access to capital with malinvestment. An organization that can't loose money without destroying the financial system giving money to consumers so they can pay too much is quite a different thing from going to the NSF for a grant to study chameleon reproduction or a loan to pursue an advanced degree.

bgamall4 says

He wants to cut food stamps 66 percent, balancing the abuse of banks on the hunger of children.

I don't want to get too political, but states should be able to manage their own affairs. Otherwise, why not just let the U.N. handle food stamps? But hard money could seriously disrupt bank abuses - fiat debt based money practically demands that people be abused.

bgamall4 says

[...] social security [...] a ponzi and he should not have said that.

The only difference I see between the two is that SS doesn't promise you a positive return; Medicare on the other hand .... however, it's difficult to dispute that the systems aren't founded on the same principles -- that there'll always be more money in the future. Keynesians can promise that, but that's not true in a hard money system.

bgamall4 says

Rothbard was a racist. And Rand Paul, because of his box that is libertarianism, could not support the 1964 civil rights act which allows people to eat where they want.

Well, one of those is an ad-hominem, and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves and opposed slavery. I suppose it's too bad that the Civil Rights Act didn't apply to golf courses.

cc0 says

The only difference I see between the two is that SS doesn't promise you a positive return;

You need to look harder then. SS can run indefinitely with a stable birth rate. Ponzi requires ever increasing numbers of investors.

Is Ponzi the Republican buzzword of the year or something? Every time I turn around something is being compared to or called a Ponzi scheme.

There is nothing cryptic about what I asked..

I still think that to 'accerlerate the drop in house prices' (if that is your #1 issue) then you should vote Mitt Romney.

He at least is saying 'let the foreclosures rip and dont delay em'.

Part of the 'hope' of Obama admin is hope they can reinflate the housing bubble. Why is he so loved on this blog? Isnt any policy maker who acts to keep house prices artificially high via taxpayer money working AGAINST main st and FOR the banks? Am I confused here? I would have voted for McCain but he had huge plans to 'reinflate bubble/reduce principal balance, etc' - it was shocking from a Repub but of course they are the same party arent they? they are fooling us, the banks own both parties.

tatupu70 says

You need to look harder then. SS can run indefinitely with a stable birth rate. Ponzi requires ever increasing numbers of investors.

I suggest it is you who needs to look harder. Ponzi promised a positive rate of return. If he were a bank he could even pull it off in a Keynesian system. In that light, today's banking system is a Ponzi scheme.

However, Social Security doesn't promise a positive rate of return. In fact - at least at the outset - it promised a negative rate of return. Some people would end up ahead, but most people would pay in more over their lifetimes then they would get in return. For people born in 1930 the life expectancy in the U.S. was 59 for men and 63 for women. By the time you were able to retire there was a good chance you'd already been dead for quite a few years. (To be fair, if you were ~40 you'd probably live to ~70.)

And as you stated, it does require a constant influx of money. Just because you call it "birth rate" doesn't make the requirement for constant additional input in amounts greater than the expenditures anything different. Instead of Ponzi's scheme being designed for constantly increasing "investors", SS is designed for a constantly increasing population of investors. Both are unsustainable on a finite planet.

But that's really trivial compared to Medicare. Under that program, even if you're a two income couple earning $178,300/yr you end up about $140,000 ahead in benefit payouts over your lifetime.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2011/01/05/social-security-medicare-a-bargain-for-many

bgamall4 says

If you are only for voluntary associations and apply that to public facilities, not private clubs, you are racist.

Libertarians by definition must be racist because they believe in public exclusivity.

As I said, Libertarians are a whole bunch of people, and assert that most of them believe that a government (public facility) must not unjustly discriminate against any of its own citizens. It's well accepted that justice be blind, and justice is a government service.

However, you do suffer from some seriously flawed logic circuits. Your first statement is that all voluntary associations naturally result in racist behavior. I disagree with that, and think you show much about your true nature.

"bgamall4 says

PockyClipsNow says

He at least is saying 'let the foreclosures rip and dont delay em'.

Two problems with Romney. 1. the foreclosures could be illegal. He doesn't care. 2. he has hired the Bush economic advisors. Their economic policy was supply side easy money toxic lending and war.

Those would likely be Romney's economic policy as well.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Come on man, illegal foreclosures? Basically no one is foreclosed who is current on payments. This robo signing issue is gonna be over soon (10 years probably! ha)

Also I would like to point out that "supply side easy money toxic lending and war. " is the Obama policy and the policy of probably anyone who could possibly have any chance to win. The bankers would be ok with 12 month foreclosures - under obama its now 24 months average. Really. Thats a big deal.

PockyClipsNow says

Part of the 'hope' of Obama admin is hope they can reinflate the housing bubble.

No, it's really not. It makes a nice strawman though...

cc0 says

I suggest it is you who needs to look harder. Ponzi promised a positive rate of return. If he were a bank he could even pull it off in a Keynesian system. In that light, today's banking system is a Ponzi scheme.

What the heck are you talking about? Yes, banks offer a positive rate of return on deposits. That has nothing to do with Keynes or a Ponzi scheme.

cc0 says

And as you stated, it does require a constant influx of money. Just because you call it "birth rate" doesn't make the requirement for constant additional input in amounts greater than the expenditures anything different. Instead of Ponzi's scheme being designed for constantly increasing "investors", SS is designed for a constantly increasing population of investors. Both are unsustainable on a finite planet.

You obviously didn't understand. SS isn't designed for constantly increasing population, nor does it have to be. It is designed for a steady state of population. Unfortunately, science is allowing people to live longer which makes it tricky to balance the inflows and outflows. But it most definitely does NOT require a increasing population. That's why it is completely different than a Ponzi.

cc0 says

But that's really trivial compared to Medicare. Under that program, even if you're a two income couple earning $178,300/yr you end up about $140,000 ahead in benefit payouts over your lifetime.

And changes need to be made as lifespans and medical costs have increased out of control. A single payer system ala Canada or Europe would be the obvious solution, but people here aren't smart enough to do the obvious.

bgamall4 says

I know a lot of companies are practicing off balance sheet banking,

Again what is this fabled "off balance sheet banking" ?

bgamall4 says

I don't know if Netflix is or is not upfront. I do know that lots of people were afraid to invest in the company because it did off balance sheet accounting.

As I have pointed already.. it isnt off Balance Sheet accounting. They made a commitement to purchase some movies in the future. The same goes for their operating leases which are not capitalized.

The stock tanked because it was viewed by the market Netflix overpaid for future film rights. These purchases for future movie titles have not yet been released nor has their been any liabilties incurred on Netflix part. For all purposed it was propertly disclosed and not hidden.

bgamall4 says

Netflix is much different than the banks. Read this about Basel 2 and conduits and sivs:
http://www.crmpolicygroup.org/docs/CRMPG-III-Sec-II.pdf

So far you havent given any examples of off balance sheet banking. IFRS, isnt the savior the link indicates. Our current US Gaap is heavily based on rules and governed by PACOB/SEC. IFRS principles are very loose in applying standards and may wouldl not be regulated by the US government or agency, but by a foreign agency.

Second, if you have problems reading US Financials, IFRS isnt going to make it any easier.

Netflix's problem was the people it got involved with. They put the Starz and other things on there and got their asses burnt. Not the recorded Starz but the Live Starz. They do that if you pay attention they have cable on there. They did that in the beginning of the online. Paid way to much. For way to little and it keeps getting smaller. What really should be done more and if they want more. Hey no problem I would do that for more current stuff. WTF do I have to pay the post office? The post office is obviously doing greece no fucking good at all.

So Xfinity comes along and says greece your sucking wind now. Which probably means they have postal hoarding syndrome.

The big question is whats the difference if it's cable or online movies? Cable just might dissapear the way of broadcast if that ever occured.

Look lets just forget postal fee's. Put it online. You can send flashbangs and smoke grenades to greece. Then we can get BLOCKBUSTER online. Everyone goes ooooooh aaaaaaaaaaw. Thats what we really want. Sorry to many long term leases wait your turn. Not to mention franchise fees, lawsuits etc. Hey we could all pay at the store closest to us! Now that might work. Cause downloading movies that are ripped I don't like doing. Tell you why many aren't defragged and have junk in them and screw up your computer. Not to mention the blu ray stuff that well travels at blazing speeds of well 500k or some other megabyte. I still can't figure it out it says really fast it just dosen't seem to work that way. Someones on the backbone it sure ain't the common guy. Well get internet download manager nothing will screw your computer quicker than that.

Enough about computers. What we need are current within 3 to 4 years movies online. Not ripped. But on something like Netflix or something else similar. Guys to tell you the truth it's really stupid in most cases to wait for the post office to deliver a movie. There are some that don't have Ripoffband. However it does move fast enough to deliver a movie. You can really thank however the apple OS for that one. IE it says it goes 50 mb a second but it sure don't look that way to me.

Here's a quick snapshot of what's on the market in my area right now.

Not sure what typical HH income is around here, if I had to guess it's probably around $100k/year.

Want prices to come down? Make buyers put 20% down.

20% of $200k is $40k
20% of $300k is $60k
20% of $400k is $80k

Tell people they need to bring that much cash to the table, and prices will drop real quick.

This government supported 3.5% down policy is helping keeping prices high.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

This government supported 3.5% down policy is helping keeping prices high.

to a great extent, yes, but since people qualify for loans based on the principal, higher down payments will over time result in higher home prices.

$300,000 at 3.5% down has a monthly payment of ~$1750. At 20% down, that monthly payment can buy a $400,000 house. In theory, home prices will just inflate the amount of the down payment.

If we were serious about lowering the cost of housing, we'd eject the parasitical specuvestors from the market. Let them put their money towards actual productive enterprise, not the naked rent-seeking of a landlord.

cc0 says

However, Social Security doesn't promise a positive rate of return.

Absolutely false. Here is an analysis of the rate of return from Social Security. You get the best return if you are married:

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html

I suspect you aren't familiar with the input and output formulas for Social Security.

tatupu70 says

You obviously didn't understand. SS isn't designed for constantly increasing population, nor does it have to be. It is designed for a steady state of population. Unfortunately, science is allowing people to live longer which makes it tricky to balance the inflows and outflows. But it most definitely does NOT require a increasing population. That's why it is completely different than a Ponzi.

Exactly.

ArtimusMaxtor says

Netflix's problem was the people it got involved with. They put the Starz and other things on there and got their asses burnt. Not the recorded Starz but the Live Starz. They do that if you pay attention they have cable on there. They did that in the beginning of the online. Paid way to much.

I think you have this exactly wrong -- it's the opposite of this. Netflix didn't pay enough for Starz, so Starz didn't make much off the deal. However, it was a good start for Netflix's streaming business, which started collecting steam and more and more people joined because Netflix started getting more and more streaming content. Then Starz and other content producers realized they weren't making enough and raised the fees for Netflix. That's why Netflix raised the fees on users. Now, some of the content producers have either pulled their content, charged more for it, or only put limited amounts up (e.g. only library content, but not current season or last season or two).

corntrollio says

cc0 says

However, Social Security doesn't promise a positive rate of return.

Absolutely false.

Well, gee. SS was sold as a form of insurance. I did not realize that the system promised that every investor would earn more than they paid in. If that's the case, then it is more like a Ponzi Scheme than I thought.

tatupu70 says

You obviously didn't understand. SS isn't designed for constantly increasing population, nor does it have to be.

Actually, I do understand. I just got carried away at the end. The first half of my statement still applies.

tatupu70 says

What the heck are you talking about? Yes, banks offer a positive rate of return on deposits. That has nothing to do with Keynes or a Ponzi scheme.

It's really quite simple. In order for everyone to make money above their deposits, more money has to constantly flow into the system. Eventually, all the world's money is "invested" and the program can no longer maintain that promise. The only system that can pull off that feat is our banking system, but only because it gets to print its own money.

cc0 says

Actually, I do understand. I just got carried away at the end. The first half of my statement still applies.

No it doesn't.

cc0 says

It's really quite simple. In order for everyone to make money above their deposits, more money has to constantly flow into the system. Eventually, all the world's money is "invested" and the program can no longer maintain that promise. The only system that can pull off that feat is our banking system, but only because it gets to print its own money.

There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to begin.