patrick.net

klarek says

What’s really pathetic is that his “lesson” after ten years was excluding this massive dollar gap.

My rent has risen from $800 to $1600/mo in the past 10 years.

The condo I could have bought for $350,000 in 2000 could have in mid-2003 been refi'd from 8% down to a 5% fixed 15-year ($330,000 principal), and a 3.5% 15 year fixed now ($200,000 principal).

My housing expense (including amortization) would now be $1300/mo, less than my rent for a much superior place to live. My housing expense would fall to $600/mo in 2026 when the last refi is paid off.

This condo has a market value of $450,000 or so today

SF ace says

Troy is just analyzing the numbers. I wholeheartedly agree, the 5/1 arm is the way to go. 30 year fixed is actually a pretty bad deal any way you slice it
Those who think Fannie and Freddie will go away, well, we’ll just see a future of floating rates and likely lower effective interest rates anyway.
make everyday count

It's troll day on patrick.

If you have to use an ARM to buy a house then you probably shouldn't be buying a house. As far as rent goes, well that is going to be different for everyone. I have been renting the same house for 8 years and the landlord has not raised the rent- ever. Mainly because I take good care of the place. In the meantime the house went from being valued at around 800k to now around 500k. So had I bought the house instead of renting I would not only be paying around $5,000 a month instead of the $1,600 I currently pay AND I would be close to $300k underwater at this point. Meanwhile in those 8 years I've invested in stocks, mutual funds, 401k's, bonds, and so on. The value of those investments dipped around 40% but are now back to where they were with most now gaining value- all within the space of less than 2 years. That versus housing which has been in the tank since 2006- or almost 6 years. There is no contest. I have done better financially better then if I had bought a similar property.

edvard2 says

If you have to use an ARM to buy a house then you probably shouldn’t be buying a house

Free money is free money. I don't think the Fed can close the gate on this now.

The world financial system might, but if that happens jingle-mail is a perfectly viable solution.

FWIW, I think buying now is premature. I see a 10-20% downside in housing left, and if I'm wrong it will only be because the economy has returned to late 1990s happy times and life will be easy for everyone.

So waiting for the slow crash to play out, should it come, will bring lower prices and make the wait pay off.

Waiting in a flat market is just a straight rent vs buy calculation. WIth low interest rates, a $2000 rent is about equivalent to a $600,000 house.

And if I wait and prices go up, that's not the end of the world, either.

Troy says

Free money is free money. I don’t think the Fed can close the gate on this now.

Depends on the loan. A LOT of people got into trouble using these because the interest rates ballooned to levels they couldn't afford- as in jumping from a 4% to a 12% interest rate, at which point you're getting money sucked out of your pockets. If you really can't afford current mortgage rates and can't stomach a significant down payment then you shouldn't buy. Besides- banks aren't about to let just anyone. I would not characterize an ARM as "Free money".

thunderlips11 says

Ed, I think you’re numbers are a little off. It cost me $20k to completely refurb a 1930s cottage, including roof, painting, flooring, completely new bathroom, brand new kitchen with new stove/oven/fridge/countertops, electric wiring, residing, and knocking out a few walls and repairing some rotten structural issues. Granted, it was in Oregon, but it can’t be $20k for painting in California

Yes- this is in California and from what I heard thrown around here it almost sounds like you pretty much have to have a qualified contractor to do just about ANYTHING here. The houses I've seen that get repainted around here get completely covered in an enormous tent I assume because of the concern over lead paint chips. One of my buddies tried to buy a house a few years ago: There was some sort of termite certification he was going to have to get and it was some insane amount- as in like over $10,000.

On the other hand when I was a kid me and dad fixed up a house for under 20k. Then again that was the rural south. This is California where anything and everything costs a LOT more than anywhere else.

edvard2 says

A LOT of people got into trouble using these because the interest rates ballooned to levels they couldn’t afford- as in jumping from a 4% to a 12% interest rate, at which point you’re getting money sucked out of your pockets.

Sure, the teaser rate and negative-am with 120% recast stuff was utter madness.

But ARMs themselves actually have been a good deal since 1996.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MORTGAGE1US

People who bought in 1996-2000 were adjusted down to 4-5% during the bubble, and rates only went up to mid-5s immediately prior to the crash, and since the crash rates have gone down to ~3%.

ARMs didn't cause the housing bubble or make houses suddenly unaffordable when they started adjusting.

If you really can’t afford current mortgage rates and can’t stomach a significant down payment then you shouldn’t buy.

The down payment is neither here nor there. A smaller down payment on a non-recourse loan puts less of one's capital at risk, which is a good thing.

The smaller down payment comes at the cost of carrying a larger mortgage balance with its 3% cost of capital (this includes PMI and the tax bennie).

3% interest cost on a $600,000 investment that you can walk away from doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me.

If this situation is anything like Japan's, interest rates are going to remain low for the life of a 15 year loan.

Not that this situation is necessarily like Japan's.

Troy says

The down payment is neither here nor there. A smaller down payment on a non-recourse loan puts less of one’s capital at risk, which is a good thing.

The smaller down payment comes at the cost of carrying a larger mortgage balance with its 3% cost of capital (this includes PMI and the tax bennie).

3% interest cost on a $600,000 investment that you can walk away from doesn’t seem like that bad a deal to me.

If a person fails to pay their mortgage it will wreck their credit which is why there's no such thing as having "less" risk to capital because at that point there would suddenly be far fewer options. How people assume that walking away from a debt is a good thing is absolutely flabbergasting to me.

$600,000 for a home sounds like a bubblelicious price to me but hey- if that sounds fantastic there's probably around 100+ homes in and around where I live that have owners who would just absolutely love it if someone-anyone- took them off their hands. I have no clue why the houses are just sitting there not selling - $600,000 being such an incredible deal and all- but I suppose now is the perfect opportunity to buy!

male bovine feces

thunderlips11 says

d, I think you’re numbers are a little off. It cost me $20k to completely refurb a 1930s cottage, including roof, painting, flooring, completely new bathroom, brand new kitchen with new stove/oven/fridge/countertops, electric wiring, residing, and knocking out a few walls and repairing some rotten structural issues. Granted, it was in Oregon, but it can’t be $20k for painting in California.

This looks quite off... in northern virginia. :)
One of my relative recently had new floor (engineered oak, 980sf) done at approx. 5.5K, bought new washer/dryer and refigerater at approx. 4K. Bathroom renovation will be anywhere from 5K to 20K depends on what they do. Roof... not sure how much that will be.

edvard2 says

If you have to use an ARM to buy a house then you probably shouldn’t be buying a house.

Are you sure about that? There are legitimate reasons to have an ARM for responsible people who are financially savvy. For example, if you have a proper time horizon in the proper location, it might make sense. To some extent, it could be gambling, but you can mitigate that.

For example, have you seen Pentagon Federal's 5/5 ARM? It makes a lot of sense:

https://www.penfed.org/productsAndRates/mortgages/mortgageCenter.asp

The current rate is 3.5%. When it adjusts every five years, it can only adjust up to 2% each adjustment period, and only up to 5% total. If you consider that for the next 10 years, your cap on mortgage interest is 5.5%, that's not bad. A lot of people move in 10 years. The maximum rate is 8.5%, which is still in the "normal" range of 6-9%, and you can't even hit that rate until 15 years out. This assumes that you do your proper due diligence with respect to other parts of your purchase and are otherwise living within your means, etc.

Done properly, an ARM can be beneficial (and in some countries, it's the only way you can buy property). Done improperly, as many ARMs were during the boom, it can be disastrous. But it's highly dependent on the type of loan. Some of my friends on ARMs are better off right now because LIBOR is at 0.26% right now and has been very low for a while. If you do stupid teaser rates, interest only, negative amortization, Option ARM, and other nonsense loans and you end up getting foreclosed on, you deserve it for not understanding the loan product and not living within your means, but a responsible and financially savvy person can do just fine with a conventional ARM.

Realistically speaking, if the government didn't shore up the secondary mortgage market so heavily, more and more people would be on ARMs.

corntrollio says

but a responsible and financially savvy person can do just fine with a conventional ARM.

Btw, this is also true of subprime lending. What people forget is that before the boom, there were *traditional* subprime loans with a predictable default rate that made perfect sense.

A prime loan means three things -- the 3 Cs:
1) you have good Capability to pay -- i.e. you meet income ratios and debt ratios
2) you have good Collateral -- i.e. the house is habitable, warrantable, in good repair, collateralizable, etc.
3) you have good Credit -- for prime, this means you qualify for being A-paper

A *traditional* subprime loan required #1 and #2, and also had Credit requirements for #3 that were lower -- your credit rating could be the level of B-paper or C-paper. In exchange for being B-paper or C-paper, you paid a higher interest rate to compensate, and the bond holder got paid a higher return in exchange for taking on a riskier bond. Under traditional subprime, you still met the Capability and Collateral requirements, you just had crappy Credit.

What happened during the boom, is that various types of loans started hacking away at the 3 Cs, and all of these were called "subprime" even though subprime has a technical meaning:
1) any no-doc, NINJA, stated-income loan means you haven't checked #2
2) "Alt-A" loans were meant to be an alternative to A-paper and only checked #3 as A-paper. The theory was the an extremely high credit rating could compensate for not proving Capability or Collateral, and this theory turned out to be wrong, perhaps because people's behavior with respect to debt is different for credit cards vs. home loans.
3) certain properties are not collaterizable for various reasons, and even these properties were given mortgages -- for example, there are below-market rate properties in San Francisco where you are limited to a certain amount of appreciation. Some of these BMR properties received loans above what they could be sold for -- in one case, I think the BMR program limited the sale to the $300K range, and the bank loaned out $700K on the property. STUPID. In addition, many states have various degrees of non-recourse loans -- again, not always collaterizable.

There was nothing wrong with *traditional* subprime lending. It could be securitized as B-paper or C-paper with a predictable default rate, just like prime A-paper. The problem was the new forms of loans that were being called "subprime" did not have predictable default rates, and the models for securitizing them were wrong.

HousingWatcher says

“This might be the dumbest thread ever made on Patrick.net. It couldn’t be more filled with false equivalencies and NAR-like propaganda had it been written by Lawrence Yun himself.”

So then discredit the post point by point instead of taking the easy way out.

I'd rather insert a strand of barbed wire into my urethra.

Edvard2 says

"I can buy a nice old house in Austin- a house with character and within walking distance to downtown- for under $200,000."

Under 200K and walking distance to downtown? In this case, character must be a euphemism.

Overall I like the thinking behind the article but there is one BIG factual error. It is # 4. The median family home is 1M USD in India ?! Lets consider Bangalore, the second most expensive city in India, the cost of a 4000 sft luxury apartment in the city (SE where all the high tech companies are) is about 1.5 crore rupees, that is about 300K. Nice 3 bedrooms are available at ~100K USD in very good locations. There are million dollar homes in gated communities that are very very nice, you got to see them. They equal the best in the world.

No comment about prices in China.

Before I get flamed let me tell you my background, born and brought in Bangalore, lived in the US for 13 years (Portland OR and Chandler, AZ), now I am back in Bangalore, so I have seen both sides of the world (and many other parts of the world).

Having said that there might be a bubble in India, it did cool off in 2007 quite a bit (a gentle fall ?) but the facts about prices in India are wrong, NO it has not appreciated 1000 times in Bangalore in the past 30 years, wish it were, I do own real-estate (residential and commercial) in Bangalore.

Observations about squalor are generally correct, but do remember that the country is developing still.

BTW what worries most people here is the income inequality which will eventually lead to unrest, but the overall development is keeping everyone occupied.

edvard2 says

On the other hand when I was a kid me and dad fixed up a house for under 20k. Then again that was the rural south. This is California where anything and everything costs a LOT more than anywhere else.

It was not always the case prices were always this high. Prices in CA were very reasonable before the bubble.

thomas.wong1986 says

edvard2 says

On the other hand when I was a kid me and dad fixed up a house for under 20k. Then again that was the rural south. This is California where anything and everything costs a LOT more than anywhere else.

It was not always the case prices were always this high. Prices in CA were very reasonable before the bubble.

Very correct. Friend bought a house in blue collar SFV for $179K in 2000. Cosmetic fixer, 3bd/2ba 1500 sq ft. Homes in Burbank fitting those specs were $225-275 at that time. Homes in West LA fitting those specs were $175-250K at that time as was Culver City. My parents sold their home in middle class SGV in 2001 for $210K...2000 sq ft 3bd/2ba.

I'm not sure when the revisionist history kicked in, but I'll bet someone tries to debate what I just posted.

bhaktha says

Overall I like the thinking behind the article

the thinking is a joke, full of confusing effect for cause.

but there is one BIG factual error. It is # 4. The median family home is 1M USD in India

He said SFH, not home. SFH includes a land component, and land, for obvious reasons, is rather scarce in urban India and China.

Tokyo, too for that matter. I have a friend who just paid $4000/m2 for some below-average residential land ~40 minutes out in a suburb of Tokyo.

That is $16M per acre -- Demand is willing but the supply is weak.

thomas.wong1986 says

Prices in CA were very reasonable before the bubble.

The bubble hit the bay area first -- 1997 -- but didn't get really rolling in LA area until 2002. I lent $10,000 to my sister so they could buy a condo in Fullerton in mid-2001 -- $200,000 with 5% down.

This was good timing since interest rates were 7% then, soon to fall into the 5's in 2002-2003 and the 1's and 3's in 2004-2005 due to the negative am stuff that got popular and thereby boosted prices to the moon.

Their P&I was $1200 in 2001, what their rent was, so it was a good deal.

They coulda refi'd into a 15 year @ 5% in 2004, raising their P&I to $1400 (but doable since they'd lost the PMI).

Then they could refi the 15 year into a 3.5% now, lowering their P&I to $860 for the next 15 years.

Unfortunately, they sold the place in 2004 and bought a SFH further out, zillow says its valuation is $260,000, so they're not underwater on it but they have zero appreciation since 2001 and a much higher home payment than if they had stayed in Fullerton and kept their equity.

Troy says

I’d be happy to.

$600,000 house, 3.5% down 4.3% FHA, $579,000 starting principal

Over 30 years:

P&I: $997126 ($2865 x 360) less $579,000 principal leaves $452,500 in total interest costs.

8.5 years of PMI ($6660/yr) is $56,600, for a total interest cost of $509,000. Add in the 1.25% property tax ($7500/yr, $225,000 total) we get a rough cost of ownership of $734,000.

This is all tax deductible, so net the 35.2% tax benefit this is down to $476,000 in total interest and taxes, or $1320 per month on average.

Adding in other ownership costs:

Insurance: $1350/yr
Utilities: $1200/yr
Maintenance Accruals: $2100/yr

Very interesting. Where do you find people in the 35.2% tax bracket who are not subject to AMT which would wipe out the tax deduction? Where are you going to get 579k FHA other than BA or LA? Utilities $1200, really? You manage to get water, sewage, electricity, garbage, gas all for $100 per month. Where the hell do you live? These costs will never rise in the next 30 years? Taxes will never rise? Maintenance at less than $200 per month is just fantasy, even without any increase over the next 30 years?

Someone buying a 600k house is very likely to be in their 40's and 50's. Maybe 30's but most likely 40's and 50's. So they are going to live in that house until their 70's and 80's? Very, very unlikely. If you sell any time before the last 6-8 years of a 30 year mortgage the front loading of the interest payments would double or triple your 1700 a month cost.

Where are closing costs and costs of selling? Even if you keep the house the full 30 years (highly unlikely in today's world) you will have to sell the house when you go to a nursing home or die, so these are part of the cost also. Other than the 2000 bubble real estate has pretty much matched inflation, so if that were true going forward then you would still owe the 7-8% it costs to close on and sell the house, because inflation just adjusted the currency.

Troy says

but there is one BIG factual error. It is # 4. The median family home is 1M USD in India

He said SFH, not home. SFH includes a land component, and land, for obvious reasons, is rather scarce in urban India and China.

So what is the price for SFH in downtown San Fran, Boston, or Manhattan.

#4 is a joke. Metro (carefully undefined I notice) India and China 30 years ago had almost no SFH housing stock. China was a very poor communist country with everyone living in very shoddy apartment blocks. NO ONE owned property in China then so home price appreciation there would be pretty much infinite. India was just a mess (and still is). US metro area's were fully developed first world. What is the point of this comparison? Why not compare US urban area's with other first world area's instead?

Local median average income in US metro area's doesn't include millions of people living in cardboard boxes begging for a living. Again this comparison is a joke.

What is your actual job title at the NAR rob?

bob2356 says

Where do you find people in the 35.2% tax bracket who are not subject to AMT which would wipe out the tax deduction?

MID is preserved in AMT. The tax bracket here is counting state taxation, basically the $82,400-$171,850 marginal bracket, $137,300-$209,250 for married.

Where are you going to get 579k FHA other than BA or LA?

I'm not defending $600,000 globally, just comparing it to renting.

Utilities $1200, really? You manage to get water, sewage, electricity, garbage, gas all for $100 per month.

Again, this was a buy-vs-rent comparison, so the $100 is marginal utility expense above renting. It includes doing my own yardwork, which in my case is a form of summer exercise that I desperately need.

These costs will never rise in the next 30 years?

This is a ceteris-paribus / "real" calculation. I assume future inflation will raise the wage level to cover these added costs, plus any future inflation will generally make the buy case that much more beneficial, since rents rise with general inflation while P&I does not.

Taxes will never rise?

Future tax shocks are in fact a very good reason not to buy now. California raising taxes 2%, FICA going up 2%, Medicare going to 5%, Bush tax cuts reverting and then some, will in fact utterly slaughter the economy.

It's a major reason why I'm not in any way a buyer now.

Maintenance at less than $200 per month is just fantasy

my number was $21,000 every 10 years. One major project and maybe several minor things.

Where are closing costs and costs of selling?

Closing costs get mostly paid by the redfin kickback. Cost of selling either paid by the buyer or my estate and are not my concern.

bhaktha says

The median family home is 1M USD in India ?!

Someone else said this in a prior thread, and I discredited it there also. No need to rehash. This is a bogus claim, not supported by any evidence. Whoever said that has never been to India.

Where are closing costs and costs of selling?
This is California. You don't sell, you pass your tax basis onto your heirs. Not to mention, I just learned that that the $1 million limit for non principal residence is actually $2 million taking into account both parents. All of this courtesy of Prop 58.
Further, this Proposition includes all types of real property owned by the transferor, including all the value of his/her principal place of residence and on the first one million dollars ($1 million) of the enrolled value of all other types of property. A mother and father can combine their exclusion for a limit of $2 million dollars.

corntrollio says

This is a bogus claim, not supported by any evidence. Whoever said that has never been to India.

No, I find the claim believable that median SFH in (the nice areas of) India are $1M.

If eg. Mumbai is anything like Tokyo, developers can tear down a SFH or two and put up a 5-9 story building, reducing that $1M in SFH value to a $50,000 per MFH unit valuation upon redevelopment.

The OP's point that land prices here in the US are in fact cheap compared to the ROW is in fact well-taken.

A 30,000' lot in a decent buildable area in Tokyo can sell for $9M or so.

But these comparisons are somewhat misleading due to currency exchange distortions, differing population density and zoning limits, tax levels, etc.

Troy says

No, I find the claim believable that median SFH in (the nice areas of) India are $1M.

In the nicer areas, sure? The nicer areas of Luanda, Almaty, Lagos, Bangkok, and Nairobi cost a whole hell of a lot. But saying the "median SFH in India is $1M is just ridiculous. The nicest areas of any third world city, where the foreigners tend to live and where it's safe, are all expensive. But that doesn't mean the masses live in $1M houses. Anyone telling you such nonsense has an agenda, and that agenda is not based on fact.

dodgerfanjohn says

I’m not sure when the revisionist history kicked in, but I’ll bet someone tries to debate what I just posted.

"revisionist hitory" is certainly what many natives and long term californians have been hearing for some time now.

Troy says

No, I find the claim believable that median SFH in (the nice areas of) India are $1M.

Yes, this is possible given the egos of some of seen.

corntrollio says

But saying the “median SFH in India is $1M is just ridiculous.

The OP says:

"The median single family home price in India’s and China’s metros"

Troy says

“The median single family home price in India’s and China’s metros”

Yes, and that's still ridiculous. Googling can tell you this is a nonsense claim. Find sources and statistics for this.

Thanks to everyone for the active discussion on my post.

1. I am a software professional just like Patrick (the owner of this blog site) was. Unlike him, I have been lucky to have always kept my job, and not lose it to oursourcing. I work full-time and overtime, so I cannot be active on this blog like some of you.

2. I am not a realtor, nor in any other related real-estate business.

3. Thanks to my software profession, I have had a chance to travel to India, including Bangalore, which is only the 5th largest metro in India. The reality of real estate in India and China is utterly shocking to anyone from outside Asia. The quality of everything is so utterly low - housing materials, constructions, roads around etc with little features and no beauty whatsoever. Yet the prices are shockingly high.

4. Thanks to the few that understood that I clearly said SFH to mean single family home, which includes a land component. Yes, the cost of the land is the driving factor in the absurdly high prices. A house of 1000 sqft on 5000 sqft of land, which by American standards would be considered a small house, costs anywhere from USD 500,000 to USD 2 million, depending on location within 15 miles of the heart of any of the top 5 major cities of India.

5. I would love for you guys to Google facts about Asian real estate. Here is a recent ad on CraigsList from Bangalore, India. A house on 2400sqft of land in a closer to town suburb has an asking price of USD 500,000.
http://bangalore.craigslist.co.in/reb/2393888219.html
And here is one in a far off suburb for USD 1 million :
http://bangalore.craigslist.co.in/reo/2380269841.html

Again, a visit in person would reveal the utter squalor that surrounds these high-priced "beauties". Google may reveal some of the squalor.

6. India and China are extremely and pathetically corrupt. What that means is that even if you find official figures that state that a house sold for USD 1 million, you can add at least 25% of it to bribery/corruption of registration officials and builders to get the right paperwork done. It is common for crooks and politicians to usurp other folks property by just faking the housing title. So the real costs of property are actually higher than even published figures.

corntrollio says

Googling can tell you this is a nonsense claim. Find sources and statistics for this.

I do know that apartment flats are insane in mumbai -- housing is cheaper here.

So it doesn't surprise me that SFH -- ie raw land value -- is more expensive.

Like I say, one of the reasons SFH is so expensive in Tokyo is that nearly every house can be torn down and replaced by a 3-story, 6-unit MFH.

This means every SFH has the site value of a 6-unit MFH.

I suspect zoning is similarly lax in mumbai.

RobSTL says

A house on 2400sqft of land in a closer to town suburb has an asking price of USD 500,000.
http://bangalore.craigslist.co.in/reb/2393888219.html
And here is one in a far off suburb for USD 1 million :
http://bangalore.craigslist.co.in/reo/2380269841.html

Nice try, but the first link is for sale for $100,000 at 45 rupees/dollar. Still with no indication that this is the median.

The second link is a bit over $500K at 45 rupees/dollar, which again says nothing about this being the median.

The claim was Indian and Chinese metros have SFH over $1M as a median. What about Kolkata?

Find us stats. You basically spent time where foreigners do, so you think India is expensive. That's true of any city FOR FOREIGNERS. But not true for the masses.

RobSTL says

The reality of real estate in India and China is utterly shocking to anyone from outside Asia. The quality of everything is so utterly low - housing materials, constructions, roads around etc with little features and no beauty whatsoever. Yet the prices are shockingly high.

So that's why our housing bubble was a myth, despite all reality and data disagreeing with you?

corntrollio says

Nice try, but the first link is for sale for $100,000 at 45 rupees/dollar. Still with no indication that this is the median.

I think you were referring to my second link, not my first. The USD 100k there if for their smallest lot of 1200 sqft. Thanks for looking into it. I am sure you can find a lot of such ads that gives you a pretty good idea. Also look up the suburb on Google to see how faw away they really are.

Corrupt countries like India and China in general do not publish median figures, and even if they do, it cannot be trusted owing to black money involvement. However, a reasonable way to calculate the median home price is to check prices at the heart of a city, and then check a few of its closer suburbs, and then its far suburbs. While this may not be accurate, it will get you a very good idea.

klarek says

So that’s why our housing bubble was a myth, despite all reality and data disagreeing with you?

You make no sense whatsoever with your comment there. I was talking about India there.

You have never had anything sensible to contribute to this forum, sir ! I remember you basing all your analysis on Case-Shiller, and I had to show you last year that even per Case-Shiller, home prices in many cities are now well below inflation-adjusted levels.

The amount of time that some of you spend on this blog indicates one thing clearly. People like me with a real job and meaningful posts cannot be here all day, everyday. The extremely frequent posters on both sides of the debate have an extremely strong personal agenda.

"Corrupt countries like India and China in general do not publish median figures, and even if they do, it cannot be trusted owing to black money involvement. However, a reasonable way to calculate the median home price is to check prices at the heart of a city, and then check a few of its closer suburbs, and then its far suburbs. While this may not be accurate, it will get you a very good idea."

In other words, believe what I say without proof. No, thank you. I've been to India many times and can tell you that very few people there are USD millionaires such that the median SFH is worth $1M USD. I'm sure folks who have been to China could say the same thing.

The housing market is crashing all around the world, not just in the United States. Australia, China and India are among the last to feel the effects - but feel it they will. Housing prices haven't been "real" outside of third world nations for more than 20 years, because the Central Banks have been creating "financial instruments" which are leveraged 100-to-1 for that period of time at least. Many of the people in China and India who make almost no money are also paying almost nothing for their rent...except in blood, sweat and tears. Labor in exchange for shelter. One rich man owns the whole neighborhood and the people all work for him. Eventually, there will be a revolution and heads will roll. China's real estate is crashing, alot of "rich men" will get destroyed, and the government will just let the people starve. Don't hold your breath for RE prices to go up you'll be waiting for at least another decade...and by then a cheeseburger will be 50 bucks.

Troy says:

There is no wealth store in home values. Valuation is not wealth, value is a zero sum transaction from buyer to seller. For home values to go up, buyers must part with more wealth. For home values to go down, sellers will receive less wealth.

Zero sum.

I live in the Boston area. I'd like to see how Troy would build anything around here with "zero wealth." Fact is it takes a tremendous amount of wealth to create a place to live.

klarek says

You still stand by those words?

I, myself, am still shocked that klarek all by himself was able to take down our robust financial markets and cause the biggest housing bust since the Great Depression. Bad klarek! Everyone knows that the recession was only caused by people's bad attitudes!(FN1)

FN1: As Phil Gramm has been quoted:

“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”

“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

“We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.

Mr. Gramm said the constant drubbing of the media on the economy’s problems is one reason people have lost confidence. Various surveys show that consumer confidence has fallen precipitously this year to the lowest levels in two to three decades, with most analysts attributing that to record high gasoline prices over $4 a gallon and big drops in the value of homes, which are consumers’ biggest assets.

“Misery sells newspapers,” Mr. Gramm said. “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”