May 7, 2010

More Oppressive Than Any Feudal Arrangement

It’s Friday desk clearing time for this blogger. “In 2004, the Federal Reserve began a slow and steady march toward higher interest rates, a quarter-point at a time. Many economists have questioned whether the Fed’s deliberate approach to tightening monetary policy, from exceptionally low rates in the aftermath of the dot-com bust in 2000, allowed a dangerous housing bubble to develop, The New York Times’s Sewell Chan writes. At the March 2004 meeting, the transcripts show, several Fed officials expressed strong concerns about housing.”

“‘A number of folks are expressing growing concern about potential overbuilding and worrisome speculation in the real estate markets, especially in Florida,’ said Jack Guynn, then the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. ‘Entire condo projects and upscale residential lots are being pre-sold before any construction, with buyers freely admitting that they have no intention of occupying the units or building on the land but rather are counting on ‘flipping’ the properties — selling them quickly at higher prices.’”

“Later in that meeting, Mr. Bernanke said the Fed was ill-equipped to try to identify asset bubbles, much less prick them. ‘The history of using the monetary policy instrument rate for correcting financial imbalances is a very checkered one, to say the least,’ he said.”

‘By November 2004, with the tightening several months under way, policy makers were still uncertain about how to interpret the run-up in the housing market. Gary H. Stern, then president of the Minneapolis Fed, said that at a meeting the bank sponsored on housing activity, ‘there was little overall concern about a bubble in house prices and little anticipation of a major correction in house prices in the near term.’”

“It’s a uniquely American phenomenon, this house lust, this fantasy of the perfect life in the perfect environment. In her new memoir of travels through real estate heaven and hell, L.A. Times columnist…Meghan Daum believes your home is a ‘repository for every ambition and anxiety… It’s a container for all your goals and your tastes and what you want out of life.’

“‘I bought a house in 2004. So I was climbing up the sides of the housing bubble. Things hadn’t reached the absolute apex of frenzy that they would the following year, but it was pretty intense. Open houses were jammed with buyers, and you almost always had multiple buyers competing for the same property, and the result was that you had to decide within about five minutes if you were going to try to buy something.’”

“I’ve always likened it to a form of speed dating, wherein you have, like, five minutes to decide not only if you want to date the person but if you want to marry them.’”

“A transfer in 2005 landed Air Force major Richard Hallbeck, his wife, and two kids in Southern California smack in the middle of the real estate bubble. Home prices in the area had doubled in the past five years and were still climbing. So the Hallbecks swallowed hard and bought an $845,000 four-bedroom in a suburb of Long Beach.”

“The recession cost Laurie her job, and the payment on the couple’s adjustable-rate mortgage will jump $800 in July. Next year Richard will face mandatory retirement, and his pension will be a third of his current $117,000 income. A similar home down the street lists for $655,000, $21,000 less than the Hallbecks’ outstanding mortgage. At that price, the couple would be out $231,000, including their down payment and closing costs.”

“Since Money first spoke to the Hallbecks, they have listed their home and attracted an offer of $655,000. That would’ve meant shelling out the $21,000 difference, plus some $40,000 in commissions and closing costs. So, the couple decided to hold out for more. ‘Hopefully,’ says Richard, ‘our expectations aren’t too high.’”

“This new bedroom community near the Altamont Pass windmills once seemed like an ideal investment for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Then the real estate bubble burst. Mountain House became the most ‘underwater’ community in America. The pension fund’s $1.12 billion investment in Mountain House shrank to just under $200 million in five years, Cal-PERS records show.”

“The study briefly put Mountain House in the national spotlight – unfairly, some residents say. ‘No community is exempt from what we’re going through,’ said resident Celeste Farron, who estimates her $825,000 home has lost half its value. ‘We’re just getting hit harder because we’re so new.’”

“Two years ago, Grace Murphy’s 401(k) savings collapsed. But the Gainesville, Fla., school teacher, 53, still liked her odds of an early retirement. Thanks to Florida’s robust housing market at the time, she envisioned eventually tapping into her home equity to help make a fruitful retirement a reality. ‘At that time, I really thought the real estate market down here would hold just fine,’ Murphy says. ‘I guess I was wrong about that.’”

“A few years ago, Randy Klein, 63, thought he’d retire in ‘a couple of years,’ he says. But the value of his home in Cleveland has dropped about $40,000 since then, forcing him to drop plans to sell his three bedroom house and downsize, because the savings won’t be substantial enough. He has also seen his 401(k) lose value.”

“Now Klein, a hardware store owner, says he will likely work into his early 70s to compensate. ‘I wouldn’t have considered even thinking about this a year ago,’ he says.”

“Marjorie Feldman of suburban St. Louis, retired three years ago as a systems analyst for a utility company. The stock investments in her retirement account have sunk 15 percent from 2007. The value of her home is down 20 percent. ‘I had retired assuming I’d make money’ off the investments, said Feldman, who’s in her early 60’s. ‘I just don’t feel as confident in the economy, and I never will again.’”

“Feldman’s husband works full time in academia. She has a part time job preparing tax returns at H&R Block. But her prime earning years are behind her. ‘I don’t think it will ever get back to where it was before,’ she said of her nest egg. ‘I won’t spend money the way I used to.’”

“Keith Flowers of Manassas, Va., (has) decided that the hit he took in the housing slump requires him to continue to rein in spending. He’s cut off his landline phone and has become a regular at discount retailer Costco. He isn’t worried about losing his job in business development at an information technology company. What’s led him to cut back spending is the sunken value of his condominium. He bought it in 2005 for about $270,000.”

“‘I doubt right now it’s cracking $100,000,’ Flowers said.”

“As the housing market weakened in recent years, Eliseo Carrillo’s smiling face appeared on billboards throughout the city’s Mexican-American neighborhoods. Spanish-language TV commercials featuring Mexican music and Carrillo wearing a stylish cowboy hat promised that his real estate companies — all using the name ‘Protecta’ — were friends and guardians of immigrants in need.”

“But after signing what they believed were loan papers to save their homes from foreclosure, at least four of his struggling clients have filed lawsuits alleging that they were misled into surrendering the deeds to their homes in complex ‘mortgage rescue’ schemes they didn’t understand.”

“One investor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he’s in the country illegally, was a maintenance man who wound up owning four houses besides his own, according to closing documents naming Protecta as the broker. Though the man said he initially profited about $20,000, all four of the houses now are in foreclosure proceedings.”

“In loan documents recorded by a Protecta agent, the man’s monthly income was reported to be $7,200 — more than twice the $3,400 per month his pay stubs at the time say he earned — which made it easier for him to qualify for the loans. The second investor, Sergio Villegas, received a profit of $12,438 in one Protecta-arranged transaction, according to court documents. Several properties under his name now are in foreclosure proceedings or were taken over by a bank.”

“‘My credit is ruined,’ Villegas said. ‘All of this has been very bad.’”

“Soured mortgages ballooned last year even as new defaults eased as the Obama administration pushed loan servicers to consider debt modifications and states moved to slow foreclosures. The reworked debt that homeowners are left with under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program should be called ‘Liar Loans 2,’ John Burns, chairman of John Burns Real Estate Consulting, said today in a note to clients.”

“Borrowers remain saddled with monthly debt payments including home-equity loans and credit cards that exceed 60 percent of their pay on average, and still owe more than their homes are worth, wrote Burns. ‘The modification programs have helped stabilize home prices around the country,’ he said. ‘Mostly because they have created so much confusion that people can live in their home for free for one year or more and are buying time for thousands of banks to continue improving their balance sheets with earnings from good loans, while deferring the write-off of bad loans.’”

“While Las Vegas home prices have fallen to more affordable levels, prospective buyers who plan to live in the home are being edged out by investors with cash. ‘I think that’s going to change,’ Burns said. ‘There’s tremendous investor appetite because prices have overcorrected. That’s the reality of the market. There’s a thing called a shadow inventory of homes that have defaulted but are not for sale yet.’”

“‘The Obama administration and the Treasury have these programs that require mediation for loan modifications and don’t allow the bank to take the title. Banks are trying to restructure the loans and can’t, and the administration says, ‘Try this program. Try that program.’ You’re going to start seeing distressed homes on the market in the next year,’ the real estate consultant said.”

“California’s economic challenges can no longer be kicked down the road in hopes of things getting better, a panel of economists said Wednesday. John Husing, an Inland Empire economist said the region has more than 100,000 fewer wage and salary jobs than it had in 2000. Practically all new jobs were linked to the housing boom. When the boom went bust, the state had 5 million more people, Husing said, noting that building an economy on housing is not sound strategy.”

“Fewer immigrants have moved to Southern California since the bubble burst, said Dowell Myers, director of Population Dynamics Research Group. ‘We get fewer new arrivals than we did in 1975,’ he said, noting that the state population has started to shrink.”

“During the month of March, some 1,300 single detached homes were sold in Vancouver, for a total of $1.35 billion. This was the subject of news reports because it meant the average selling price of a home in that city hit $1 million.”

“The idealization of home ownership is both an American and Canadian phenomenon. Both countries had frontiers to settle and homesteading movements. Today our home-ownership rates are identical. About 69 per cent of Americans and Canadians are homeowners - or were homeowners, because those numbers are pre-recession and, at least in the U.S., many have lost their homes.”

‘Indeed, it was the recession that prompted critics to ask whether, after all these years, governments should continue to pursue policies designed to increase homeownership. Writing in the journal National Affairs, Vincent Cannato of the University of Massachusetts traces the increase in U.S. homeownership over the past 80 years, showing how the rise was orchestrated by government elites who believed that a citizenry of homeowners made for a more civilized nation.”

“The unintended but invidious consequence was to normalize personal debt. The most notorious pro-ownership policy is the one allowing Americans to deduct the interest on their mortgages, thereby encouraging them to borrow more money. ‘Saddling people on the economic margins of society with large mortgages turned out to be a bad idea for borrowers, lenders, and the country as a whole,’ writes Cannato.”

“As the waters of last year’s economic tsunami receded, they revealed the wreckage of all those homes bought by Americans who couldn’t afford them.”

“Home ownership has long been considered an act of responsible citizenship, associated with middle-class values such as independence and personal stability. But $1 million for a house? That’s hardly the road to independence or stability for anyone in the middle class. The weight of the mortgage would be more oppressive than any feudal arrangement between lord and serf.”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

108 Comments »

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-07 05:52:36

“Home ownership has long been considered an act of responsible citizenship, associated with middle-class values such as independence and personal stability. But $1 million for a house? That’s hardly the road to independence or stability for anyone in the middle class. The weight of the mortgage would be more oppressive than any feudal arrangement between lord and serf.”

Bingo! That is the dirty little secret of the housing bubble!! Homeowners are the new serf class, and banksters are their feudal masters.

Comment by polly
2010-05-07 07:58:33

And you don’t have to get anywhere near a million bucks before it gets crazy for most people. I still maintain that without a strong expectation of inflation in housing costs (we are still dealing with asset deflation and rent deflation as far as I can see), you do no one any favors by “helping” him into home ownership when owning is more expensive than renting.

Owning served my parents very well, but only because they were able to stabilize their “put a roof over your head” costs when they were young and then it stayed approximately the same though the inflation of the 70’s. By the time I was ready for college, my dad was making more than 6 times what he made when they bought the house. The financial benefit comes from living below your means by staying in a modest residence as you climb your career ladder, not from having a leveraged asset whose equity can be liberated. I have yet to see this obvious truism acknowledged in the MSM.

Comment by CincyDad
2010-05-07 08:56:27

“By the time I was ready for college, my dad was making more than 6 times what he made when they bought the house.”

parents built my boyhood home in mid 60’s - one of the larger houses in the area. By the time I went to college, the cost of my half of an appartment was equal the the monthly mortgage payment was data was making (though he decided to just pay it off shortly after that).

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-07 12:17:33

‘I still maintain that without a strong expectation of inflation in housing costs (we are still dealing with asset deflation and rent deflation as far as I can see), you do no one any favors by “helping” him into home ownership when owning is more expensive than renting.’

With the Fed about to unwind it’s housing price support program (aka MBS purchase scheme) and the elimination of homebuyer tax credits, not to mention a possible future REO tsunami, thanks to foreclosures and ‘higher than expected’ Prime and Alt-A ARM resets, it is hard to understand the rational basis for an assumption that home price inflation is in the near-term future.

 
Comment by are they crazy
2010-05-07 13:05:42

I have always said and tried to raise my children to believe that the key to financial freedom is low overhead and little debt. Great sleeping tonic, too.

 
Comment by SaladSD
2010-05-07 14:12:13

Too true. 10 years ago we “bought” a house in a price range at least half we were told we could afford and this has saved our A$$.

 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2010-05-07 08:04:55

‘Hallbeck, his wife, and two kids in Southern California…prices in the area had doubled in the past five years and were still climbing. So the Hallbecks swallowed hard and bought an $845,000 four-bedroom’

I thought a lot about these things as I was putting it together. Sure, Hallbeck made a mistake. But wages haven’t gone up that much. Does he really want his kids to have to work a lifetime to buy a sliver of a house somewhere? Does anyone really want to live in the world the Toll Brothers CEO dreamed of, where kids live with their parents for decades to save a downpayment?

That isn’t reality. We wouldn’t have any money left for all the other things in life if it were real. So the one thing, prices, are what must come down. And we are in this bizarro world now, where the Hallbecks THINK they want prices to go back up even though that would enslave their own children. Where the govt pretends they are doing us all a favor by throwing tons of money at the ownership game, even at a time when prices are way too high for most people to comfortably afford.

I know it’s hard to understand, but this yearning for a return of peak prices isn’t any more rational than paying so much in the first place.

Comment by Wickedheart
2010-05-07 08:26:02

I really don’t understand why they bought a home in the first place. It was well known in 2003 that the Air Force was down sizing. And why would you buy an overpriced home in an area that you had no plans of settling in?

Comment by In Montana
2010-05-07 14:08:33

Welllll it’s like this..stories float around the services on how this or that noncom or officer bought a house wherever he was stationed, even overseas, fixed up and sold at a profit. I heard that stuff and it probably did work out for some of them.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Rancher
2010-05-07 17:53:35

An uncle by marriage bought a house with
every posting and rented it out when he
was transferred. When he retired about
30 years ago, he had numerous houses all
over the place that were all paid for.

For what it’s worth, he retired as Assistant
Commandant to the US Marine Corps.

Pronounced Corpse.

 
 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-05-07 08:26:33

My parents bought a condo in Los Gatos CA for $55K in 1974. They couldn’t stop bragging about how great it was that they sold in 1979 - only 5 years later - for $185K. I told my dad that this would only mean that his children would always be poor, and why would he wish such a fate on us. He stared dumbly at me and never understood what I was saying.

 
Comment by michael
2010-05-07 09:33:45

the u.s. is over 53 trillion dollars in debt if you include unfunded liabilities and you think merikans’ give a crap about the future of their children and grandchildren? screw them…i want my healthcare dammit!

I “deserve” it!!!!

Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-05-07 10:52:10

Here’s how the “unfunded pension” issue is going to play out, (since no one is smart enough, or trusts anyone else enough, to get ahead of the curve and do something about it over the next 2-3 years)……

The short version

-Pensioners will be paid, at least for starters.

-Inflation may delay the inevitable
.
-When the pension accounts start running deficits, elected officials and pension managers will do some or all of the following: raise taxes, chase higher yields, maybe even negotiate a reduction in pension payouts (I wouldn’t bet any money on that happening……).

-Taxpayers/businesses (who can) will decamp and move elsewhere when they figure out they are paying thru the nose for government retirements,and government services go away; especially as private plans become a fond memory. Tax collections go down.

-Eventually, the government entity involved will declare bankruptcy/insolvency, and some bankruptcy judge will sort out how much the pensioners will get.

Grown ups might want to work out an equitable solution now, but the reality is government pensioners are money ahead by protesting cuts to the bitter end, then taking whatever retirement hit is meted out 10-15-20 years down the road.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-07 10:56:14

Has anyone read Roger Lowenstein’s book, While America Aged, which covers the pension liability problem?

 
Comment by salinasron
2010-05-07 15:18:33

” figure out they are paying thru the nose for government retirements,and government services go away; especially as private plans become a fond memory. Tax collections go down.”

The government solution to retirement will be that the only retirement will be SS and that you will have your own 401 plan. When everyone has their own plan the stock market can then head towards 36,000 while the wall streeter’s live high.

 
Comment by Rancher
2010-05-07 17:55:42

Read Plunder by Steven Greenhut.

 
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-05-07 09:44:55

That isn’t reality. We wouldn’t have any money left for all the other things in life if it were real.

Yep all money goes to the banks.

 
Comment by EarthquakeWeather
2010-05-07 22:33:58

LONG time lurker here, since 2005. Haven’t checked the blog much in the past nine months. But just wanted to share some overheard conversations in the past two days that made steam come out of my ears.

I live in LA, it should be noted.

First, at the dog park, a woman who was selling her house in Beachwood Canyon was ecstatic that bidding wars were back, because the offers she received on her house last year would make her feel like she was… (wait for it)… GIVING it away.

Then, at a party, a woman shared how now was the perfect time to buy, because prices were about to “come back to normal.” I chimed in and said half a million for a two bedroom shack should not be normal. She and the others looked at me as if I had just taken a big dump on the rug.

An acquaintance who earns probably $30k a year said she’s tired of being a “loser renter” and wants to start looking for houses. This is in west LA, again.

Got into a conversation about renting versus owning. The consensus was that with owning, MONEY COMES BACK TO YOU, whereas with renting, MONEY FLOWS AWAY FROM YOU. I was the lone dissenter, asking WHAT MONEY was coming to them from having a mortgage. They said, wait until the market “comes back to normal” and then they can start cashing out. Again, they gave me the don’t take a crap on the rug look.

The stupid never went away, it only went into hiding. No lessons will be learned from the bubble. Instead of having generational amnesia, America can’t remember what happened thirty minutes ago.

Comment by CA renter
2010-05-08 03:13:30

Great stories, EQ watcher.

Unfortunately, what you’re hearing seems to be the common belief out there. Of course, with the govt practically promising everyone that they will do everything to keep housing prices from falling…can you blame them?

It’s unfortunate that we had to throw away this exceptionally valuable opportunity to learn a very important lesson about debt and finances. The only thing people have learned from this whole “crisis” is that the govt will sacrifice the prudent and the savers in order to “save” the fools who take on the greatest risks. It’s very disappointing how this has all turned out.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by In Montana
2010-05-07 08:24:19

Once again, correlation was confused with causation.

 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2010-05-07 12:40:08

Funny that three years ago my buddy, a Donald Trump wannabe, called me a rent slave. He owns two condos, a house in Jamaica he’s trying to sell, and 160 acres in Iowa. He only brags about his Iowa property these days. No longer calls me a rent slave.

His uncle is very wealthy and with a spread in Laguna Beach. My buddy told me since his uncle made it big in real estate, so will he. But then he did not realize “they are making a lot of land” now! Ha!

Renting is freedom.

 
 
Comment by 2banana
2010-05-07 06:10:46

Richard, 42, recalls wistfully.

Next year Richard will face mandatory retirement, and his pension will be a third of his current $117,000 income.

There has to be more to this story. The military having a mandatory retirement at age 42? Ok - who did he piss off?

Comment by In Colorado
2010-05-07 07:33:52

Some described this situation yesterday. Apparently they force most officers out the door on their 20th anniversary.

Comment by Carl Morris
2010-05-07 07:39:11

Especially if you’re still a Major after that long. If you look at the officer pay chart for O4, you’ll see that it stops going up after 18 years.

 
Comment by DennisN
2010-05-07 08:37:17

my ex brother-in-law had to quit at age 42 and he made Lt. Col. in the USAF. That was considered to be slow progress.

Chuck Yeager - as famous as he was - was retired from the AF for similar reasons. He made General in the AF reserve later on.

 
 
Comment by Wickedheart
2010-05-07 08:28:35

The Air Force has been down sizing for a long time, since at least 2003.

 
Comment by Jimmy Jazz
2010-05-07 10:02:24

The “more to the story” I’m interested in is how a guy barely cracking $100K a year had a $200K down payment AND $155K in “savings outside of retirement accounts”. This guy: 1) did really well selling a prior home, 2) had wealthy, now dead parents, 3) never spent money on anything his entire life before deciding to pay close to a million bucks for a house he was only going to live in for a few years, or 4) some combination of the above. I’m guessing 1. He got some good appreciation in another place during the boom and thought lightning would strike twice.

 
Comment by VegasBob
2010-05-07 12:12:19

So far as I know, the military has always had an “up or out” policy. This means that when the calendar hits the requisite date, the individual has either been promoted to a higher rank or that individual gets discharged.

Comment by In Montana
2010-05-07 14:13:34

that must go for enlisted too, right? We have a kid coming out after his agreed 5 year hitch but never got past E-3. I guess you don’t get promotions for good attendance…

Comment by Rancher
2010-05-07 17:57:47

Especially when it’s required.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by 2banana
2010-05-07 06:15:10

“Marjorie Feldman of suburban St. Louis, retired three years ago as a systems analyst for a utility company. The stock investments in her retirement account have sunk 15 percent from 2007. The value of her home is down 20 percent. ‘I had retired assuming I’d make money’ off the investments, said Feldman, who’s in her early 60’s. ‘I just don’t feel as confident in the economy, and I never will again.’”

Back in the BAD old days before ipods.

When you retired:

1. Nearly ALL your investments went into AAA bonds (steady income and they don’t go up and down like stocks).
2. Your house had been paid off for at least 10 years already - so you really didn’t care if the value went up and down.
3. You help the economy buy eating at places with early bird specials. And buy big cars and drive real slow.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-07 06:48:44

Don’t forget the Winnebago, purchased with social security checks representing transfers from current worker bees’ pay checks.

Comment by Rancher
2010-05-07 17:59:04

My SS check wouldn’t pay for the gas!

 
 
Comment by JLR
2010-05-07 10:02:36

yeah i dont get this. I’m no where near retirement, and when I think of the benefits of home ownership in retirement, I think about having the house paid off so that you hopefully only hve to pay modest taxes and insurance. The value of your house shouldn’t matter, and if it goes down, well hopefully your taxes do too then.

Comment by In Montana
2010-05-07 14:20:40

I know one guy it worked for, who was talked into buying his first house at age 76 by a Realtor DIL..he was a retired officer whose youngest son lived with him. He got nice newer little 2/2 on a small lot in the middle of town, right at the bottom of prices here. His payment was 400 which seemed ridiculous at the time but almost immediately rents started to skyrocket so he would have been SOL had he not done something like that. He lived another 10 years or so and his kids inherited the mortgage.

At the time it seemed pretty stupid.

 
 
Comment by oxide
2010-05-07 17:13:51

You could have the house paid off 10 years ago…assuming you goofed off in as a teen, but still got a low-skill medium pay job straight out of high school and managed to save up for house by the time you were 25. And “unemployment” meant that you were laid off from the plant for a few weeks until they called you back. You could retire without ever writing a resumé.

These days, kids need AT LEAST 4 years of college, up to 6-9 years of difficult work for a sci/eng. Now in addition to saving for a down payment, they have to look forward to paying off college loans, job insecurity, and unattainable house prices on top of it. I hope you’re not expecting the kids to “work harder.”

 
 
Comment by pressboardbox
2010-05-07 07:06:02

How to End the Fed

Three Items Required:

1) Angry mob of thousands surround building.

2) Rent large excavator and dig trench around Federal Reserve Building until power, water, and sewer connections are cut.

3) Wait patiently.

Comment by michael
2010-05-07 09:39:04

i told someone a couple years ago that if a certain something happened i was gonna set myself on fire at the steps of the federal reserve building.

i obviously didn’t have the balls.

Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2010-05-07 22:26:15

GREAT BALLS OF FIRE ;)

 
 
Comment by VinnieTheFish
2010-05-07 11:01:34

What about the helicopters? I believe they have plenty of excess helicopters laying around after delivering supplies from above like in the movie Air America.

 
Comment by pismoclam
2010-05-07 17:07:30

How to control Congress and Washington 1) Cut off ALL air conditioning and heating.

 
 
Comment by shelby
2010-05-07 07:09:56

Keith Flowers of Manassas, Va.,…isn’t worried about losing his job in business development at an information technology company.

Yep, that one of the reason’s the NoVA/DC Market won’t crater much more-

we have all the jobs here!

Don’t worry Keith - you’ll be able to be some back in a few years-

actually you should have put it on the Market this Month before the 8K expired
Manassas properties were being severely bid-up during April by first-timers…!!

Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-05-07 10:10:44

Indeed, NoVa, Maryland, and DC have infinite jobs!

Get your house at 5x your income now, or be priced out forever!

 
 
Comment by cobaltblue
2010-05-07 07:39:30

Market Ticker -

Heh, I Saw A Cop! (In Iceland)
Gee, you mean we have a police force - even if not in the US?

Reykjavik police arrested one person, who they didn’t identify, on suspicion of forgery, market manipulation and violating the law in pursuit of personal financial gain, Iceland’s special prosecutor said in a statement.

The individual is being held in solitary confinement to protect the integrity of the investigation, the prosecutor said in an e-mailed statement. The probe is supported by information from the Financial Supervisory Authority and other data, according to the statement.

Meanwhile some SMS and email messages are starting to leak out, and they’re pretty nasty. I won’t print what I have so far as I haven’t been able to authenticate it, but if and when I can…..

Kaupthing’s biggest mistake was not moving the bank’s headquarters outside Iceland in 2006, when it had outgrown the island’s economy, Sigurdsson said in the interview with local broadcaster RUV.

Uh huh - you mean you didn’t move the bank out of the nation so you could bribe some lawmakers and guarantee your safety from arrest?

Why is it that we can’t see this sort of thing here in America? Was not Jefferson County enough to know that these banks have stolen huge sums of money from the taxpayer?

There’s plenty more, of course, but do you need more? Is this not enough?

I think it both is and should be.

Again for the US and President Obama: STOP THE LOOTING AND START PROSECUTING!

Comment by CA renter
2010-05-08 03:19:50

Again for the US and President Obama: STOP THE LOOTING AND START PROSECUTING!
———————–

***applause!****

 
 
Comment by Carl Morris
2010-05-07 07:41:41

‘Indeed, it was the recession that prompted critics to ask whether, after all these years, governments should continue to pursue policies designed to increase homeownership. Writing in the journal National Affairs, Vincent Cannato of the University of Massachusetts traces the increase in U.S. homeownership over the past 80 years, showing how the rise was orchestrated by government elites who believed that a citizenry of homeowners made for a more civilized nation.”

And none of them ever thought that maybe they had it backwards, and that a more civilized nation is what creates a citizenry with a higher percentage of homeowners? Or maybe there was just a lot of money to be made and one excuse was as good as the next.

Comment by polly
2010-05-07 09:32:55

The theme of making poor people act like rich people (smaller families that get better education, care about corportate profits more than wages, vote the same way as wealthy people, etc.) has been a very very long term political strategy. So long that even the people who think they have the interests of the poorer people at heart believe it is the right thing when it comes to owning a home. I expect this comes from justified indignation about predatory landlords, in addition to some mantra about the American Dream, but that is beside the point. The thing they seem to forget is that poor people, and even up to the middle of the middle class are in very, very different financial circumstances than the wealthy. They don’t have access to large chunks of capital. Their jobs are less rare, but have limited opportunities for improvement. All of which means that what does good stuff for the wealthy is not so great for them. Being locked into a particular location is horrible for people who have to move to get a raise. If you have perfectly reliable transportation that is not a crushing portion of your household budget, you might be able to locate in an urban area and have plenty of opportunities for jobs that involve long commutes. If you can’t afford more than one gas tank fill up a week, then you had better be able to move to get a better position. If you buy a house you can barely manage which locks you into a location that has very few jobs you are qualified for and you can’t get a raise without moving, you are screwed.

CIrcumstances matter. The whole post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is a disaster in politics and social policy. I’d like to take them all back to the logic class I TA’ed in college. I’d flunk the lot of them.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-05-07 11:03:38

Exactly, polly.

And while it may be a disaster for politics and society, it’s great for the dons, er, bankstas.

Let them eat cake!

 
Comment by Captain Credit Crunch
2010-05-08 07:53:07

First semester symbolic logic course was the single best experience I had in college. It should be a core course, as it’s applicable to reading, writing and mathematics–the fundamentals.

 
 
 
Comment by GH
2010-05-07 07:59:48

Many economists have questioned whether the Fed’s deliberate approach to tightening monetary policy, from exceptionally low rates in the aftermath of the dot-com bust in 2000, allowed a dangerous housing bubble to develop, The New York Times’s Sewell Chan writes.

I believe this was a very small contributing factor. I doubt anyone cared what interest rate they were being charged, except that they could get a 103% loan for any amount of money and hope the house they purchased kept going up.

The bubble was caused by far in large part by “stated income” and Option loan products, which allowed incomes and prices to diverge in a big way.

Low interest rates played a part, but not nearly enough to account for the bubble and ensuing collapse.

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-05-07 08:12:53

‘The bubble was caused by’

After doing this for 6 or so years now, I have never heard an end to that sentence that was accurate. IMO, there was no single cause or even category of causes that sum up the global RE mania. We used to talk here way back, about manias are built on psychology. That’s close to truth, but think of all the things that influence psychology.

Comment by GH
2010-05-07 08:41:07

Agreed, of course there were a multitude of ingredients which contributed to the bubble, but you have to admit, that mania or not, if the banks and lenders had kept lending standards tight - Down payment requirements, income verification (gasp!) and standard lending products rather than option loans etc, the bubble would never have gone very far. I don’t see how it could have?

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-05-07 09:03:16

This is where I don’t think most observers are seeing the beginning of the mania:

‘if the banks and lenders had kept lending standards tight - Down payment requirements, income verification and standard lending products rather than option loans etc, the bubble would never have gone very far’

I’ve told the story here before about how I first got an idea of a housing bubble. In 1998, I moved to Austin TX to work in the dotcom absurdity. My landlord had lied about the rent house being a primary residence, so the mortgage bill came to my place. I accidentally opened the bill and saw it was close to twice what I was paying, and that was by far the highest rent I had ever paid (still is). All those lending requirements you mentioned were in place then. (Although he did commit fraud on the loan ap, and lost all of his rent houses later.)

Go forward to 2004 when I started this blog, and I found quote after quote saying, ‘anyone with a pulse can get a loan’ etc. My point is, this mania went on for so long and so broadly, it’s difficult to say, at any given point, if lending practices were leading the irrational behaviour, or following it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-05-07 09:40:44

Houses are so expensive that people were forced to borrow money. That’s what got the banks involved. The need to borrow.

However, less expensive things can bubble up just fine without borrowing and without credit and without banks.

So although they were a part of this housing bubble, banks are not a vital component of bubbles.
—-

Bubbles must have a few basic, common attributes. If i were to blame the bubble on something, it would be those… but first we need to determine what all bubbles have in common.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Carl Morris
2010-05-07 10:15:39

Houses are so expensive that people were forced to borrow money. That’s what got the banks involved. The need to borrow.

Seems backwards to me. People’s ability to borrow allowed house prices to rise. Otherwise houses never would have sold at the “so expensive” prices. At least not very many of them. And the whole point is that we wanted the economic stimulus of selling a whole bunch of them at the higher prices.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-05-07 10:42:31

A house is such a large purchase that without lending very few homes would ever be sold, anytime, anyplace, bubble or no bubble.

Lending doesn’t always form bubbles, nor does lax underwriting. Bubbles don’t always involve lending.

Lending was part of this bubble’s wardrobe. We have to strip it bare naked if we want to see what is really underneath it all.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-05-07 11:24:16

…And the whole point is that we wanted the economic stimulus of selling a whole bunch..

Now that is probably nipping at the edge of one of the root causes of all bubbles.

We must want something.

It seems like we wanted a big chunk of easy money. Flip a house and make a fortune.. buy toys.. retire young.
——

But that might be too simplistic.
We always want easy money, and yet we do not exist in a perpetual bubble. So, some other factors must have been involved.

Or perhaps our normal desires for instant wealth became unusually powerful for some reason. But what were the reasons?

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2010-05-07 12:42:49

We’ve talked about the cult of home ownership before here…people naturally want the security of “home”, a place that shelters them and their family and lets them feel just as good (or even a bit better) than everyone else. Then add in the “instant wealth” factor and it becomes pretty powerful.

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-07 13:09:01

“Houses are so expensive that people were forced to borrow money. That’s what got the banks involved. The need to borrow.”

You switched cause and effect. The banks’ willingness to lend in crazy amounts that were unlikely to ever be repaid is the reason houses got so expensive.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-05-07 13:17:22

..cult of home ownership… “instant wealth”..

I’ll go with the instant wealth thing, but so often and for so many, the home was more of a one night stand than a marriage prospect.

 
Comment by Julius
2010-05-07 13:29:33

“Lending was part of this bubble’s wardrobe. We have to strip it bare naked if we want to see what is really underneath it all.”

What’s “really underneath it all” is the fact that real economic growth in the US has been flat since at least the early ’00s and houseflipping/”investing” in RE was seen as a quick and easy way to gain high yields.

Mix with the “house prices never fall” mantra and add a dash of mania, throw in the oven with interest rates set to 6-7% and you get one big financial mess.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-05-07 13:41:43

cibt..

While much lending is required in a housing bubble, not all bubbles require lending.

All bubbles do require certain things, but lending is not among them.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-05-07 18:10:51

“not all bubbles require lending.”

To do real economic damage, bubbles do require lending or leverage.

Think back to the Beanie Baby bubble; how many people went BK or lost their day jobs over that one?

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-05-07 20:36:20

Yeah, but must “real” economic damage on the scale of national trouble be in the definition?

Damage is relative. If I blew off $10,000 on a beanie baby, and the next day it was worth $2.50, I would consider it to be economic damage.

A basic bubble definition might be reduced to: a period of unusually high volume trading while values are inflated.

——–
Maybe the elements of the positive feedback loop are always present, and pure chance favors them to be lined up in the correct order on occasion..
If so, the true cause might be unavoidable.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-05-07 21:35:53

“…pure chance favors them to be lined up in the correct order on occasion…”

After thinking about it, I don’t especially like that analogy..
—–

Circuits connect a microphone to a speaker. The elements of a feedback loop are always in the correct order.

The microphone moves around the stage. Given time, it will eventually pass too close to the speaker, and the loop is completed.

If we can first identify the “mic” and the “speaker”, we may be able to keep them apart.

 
 
Comment by CA renter
2010-05-08 03:29:27

Comment by GH
2010-05-07 08:41:07
Agreed, of course there were a multitude of ingredients which contributed to the bubble, but you have to admit, that mania or not, if the banks and lenders had kept lending standards tight - Down payment requirements, income verification (gasp!) and standard lending products rather than option loans etc, the bubble would never have gone very far. I don’t see how it could have?

——————–

IMHO, low rates are the **cause** of loose lending. When fixed-income investors “need” a certain yield (think: pension funds, insurance companies, bond funds, etc.), and IF the PTB are holding rates below their required/forecast returns over a long period of time, those investors will be forced out on the risk curve. This is why you had pension funds investing in MBSs and CDOs, etc. It’s why there was such a tremendous demand for mortgage-related securities/derivatives.

If rates are high, money is dear, and lenders will be much more circumspect WRT whom they lend their money to, and they will take fewer risks.

LOW RATES ARE CAUSING OTHER BUBBLES RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK. This cannot be emphasized enough.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-05-08 10:20:04

Agreed, and since Bubbles make the elite wealthier, rates will never rise. They need low rates to herd the sheeple into the next Bubble for slaughter until every penny has been taken.

 
 
 
Comment by pressboardbox
2010-05-07 09:20:34

Don’t all large TBTF-type companies now operate on “stated income”?

AIG just reported profit of over a billion dollars!

Every insolvent bank in America stated record profits last quarter.

Stated Income problem continues.

Comment by GH
2010-05-07 11:54:59

Stated income = REAL bonuses!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2010-05-07 08:14:52

BTW, Mr Layman, I don’t mind if you post here and put your URL in the sign in space. But what you are trying to do is simply spamming.

Comment by palmetto
2010-05-07 09:13:06

Who is Mr. Layman? Or is it Lehman?

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-05-07 09:19:14

A realtor in Houston.

Comment by bink
2010-05-07 09:30:07

Any realtor posting here must have no idea what they’re getting themselves into. I think you should let some of his posts through but change the URL to point to Lereah’s book on Amazon.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Aaron Layman
2010-05-07 09:56:23

Sorry, but I’m not a fan or advocate of the book, author. I spent over a decade in public education before working in real estate. I believe the discussion on this blog to be much more informative than any mouthpiece on CNBC.

 
Comment by bink
2010-05-07 15:49:19

No worries. I didn’t mean it as a shot against you.. just joking about replacing realtor links with NAR predictions from the bubble years.

 
 
 
Comment by pismoclam
2010-05-07 17:13:40

Where is Snaith of Florida ?

 
 
Comment by Aaron Layman
2010-05-07 09:48:09

My apologies. As a Realtor (and former teacher) I have a unique appreciation for your blog. I find it very informative. Keep up the good work. You are shedding light on topics that many in the MSM don’t want to discuss.

Comment by Rancher
2010-05-07 18:05:48

You, Sir, are an exceedingly rare bird.

 
 
 
Comment by mrincomestream
2010-05-07 08:19:47

“Since Money first spoke to the Hallbecks, they have listed their home and attracted an offer of $655,000. That would’ve meant shelling out the $21,000 difference, plus some $40,000 in commissions and closing costs. So, the couple decided to hold out for more. ‘Hopefully,’ says Richard, ‘our expectations aren’t too high.’”

In Long Beach…? I’d say that was a huge mistake…if he could afford to pay his way out he should have…

Comment by VegasBob
2010-05-07 12:17:47

A friend of mine is closing on a condo in Long Beach - he paid 140K for property that had a bubble price of around 350K…

 
Comment by Silverback1011
2010-05-08 03:30:41

I thought that it was extremely unwise of the Hallbecks to turn down that offe of $ 655,000. It may be a year before another buyer even comes along. There are a lot of choices ( ! ) for a buyer right now and who knows if someone will want to buy theirs or a similar home down the street for a little less money. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-07 08:32:26

Banks win the day in Congress; Obama calls it ‘reform’
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
05/07/10 8:18 AM EDT

With Greece burning and the Dow crashing, not everyone paid attention to the Senate’s debate on financial regulation — which is good for President Obama in his effort to mislead the country into seeing this whole battle as one of Democratic reformers vs. Wall Street lobbyists and their Republican cronies.

The President has been saying for months that he would veto any bill that wasn’t real reform. I’ve been saying all along that no financial bill will pass that doesn’t have the Goldman Sachs seal of approval. Yesterday, the President proved that he has a pretty weak definition of “reform,” and he gave further evidence that I was right.

Here were the battle grounds that the White House won’t want you thinking about:

Gutting the Fed audit

A rare issue with genuine legitimate, broad bipartisan support, this was a measure sponsored by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and backed by conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., congress’s most libertarian member, was the godfather of this effort.

The idea, roughly, was to subject the Federal Reserve Bank to the sort of transparency requirements under which government agencies operate. (But isn’t the Fed a government agency? you ask. Well, it’s complicated.) There are lots of reasons to do this: the Fed largely acts as a corporate-welfare agency, lending money to banks; also, the Fed is a bank, buying and selling securities and other financial instruments. Whom is the Fed subsidizing? How is it affecting the market?

The big banks — the clients of the Fed — obviously don’t like this. The Fed doesn’t like it, either — it enjoys operating in the shadows.

So you had a bi-partisan coalition of folks wanting more open government and more transparency in finance, and on the other side were the bank lobbyists. Obama came down with the bank lobbyists, gutting the Fed audit measure so that the vast majority of the Fed’s wheeling and dealing is still secret.

Breaking up the Big Banks

Here’s another one with some Left-Right convergence. I agree with Arnold Kling, affiliated with Cato, writing in National Review, that the single most reliable and least intrusive way to prevent both future bailouts and future systemic threats is to simply cap the size of banks. This avoids the messy, foolish reliance on regulators, which threatens to bring either inaction through capture, or gangster government. It also limits the power of the big banks.

Majority Leader Harry Reid gave a nod towards this measure, and so some liberals got excited it might pass. But honestly, think about this for a second. Is there any way this Democratic majority, with this majority leader, under this President, would break up the big banks? Reid gave a throwaway comment to a liberal reporter, and then a throwaway free vote on an amendment he certainly didn’t whip for.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/banks-win-the-day-in-congress-obama-calls-it-reform-93062039.html#ixzz0nG3mADKy

 
Comment by swguy
2010-05-07 09:25:17

No matter who gets blamed ultimately it lies at the feet of the public. They saw dollar signs at every housing tract and didn’t think about the consequences of what they were doing.

Comment by measton
2010-05-07 09:53:06

They saw dollar signs put their by Wall Street.
The dollar signs turned out to be a mirage.
By the time they got their the banks had picked their pockets clean.

 
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-07 10:06:13

Yesterday evening, I watched the DVD version of Michael Moore’s latest movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story.” My thoughts:

There were several scenes featuring foreclosed homeowners being evicted. Although there was much drama, I was struck by the lack of explanation as to why these people were being foreclosed on.

He nailed it when it came to the debt and credit card pushing that started in the 1980s. Ditto for the low pay for pilots and the nuking of their pensions. (Capt. Chesley Sullenberger’s testimony before Congress illustrated this point.)

Overall, I found this movie to be the most disjointed thing I’ve ever seen from Moore. “Roger and Me” and “Sicko” hung together a lot better.

Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-05-07 11:01:54

Everybody carped about their pensions, but they forgot that airline pilots faced mandatory retirement at age 60.

 
Comment by Va Beyatch in Norfolk
2010-05-07 13:04:15

I recommend the documentary “Michael Moore hates America.”

For someone who uses Flynt, MI so much in his movies, he was quick to turn his back on it and move to a multi-million dollar apartment in Manhattan.

Comment by jbw
2010-05-07 15:13:46

He has certainly done a great job of capitalizing on the misfortune of others, a great American pastime it would seem.

My parents made me watch some of those Moore films they rented while I visited - they have to be the dumbest documentaries I’ve ever seen. I can learn more in five minutes online. They have a lot of exploitative melodrama that apparently generates solid commercial appeal.

I miss intelligent, informative documentaries like the kind that occassionally show up on PBS.

 
Comment by jbw
2010-05-07 15:24:13

He should invite the rabbit lady to move in with him.

 
 
Comment by CA renter
2010-05-08 03:37:24

AZ Slim,

We watched that a few weeks ago, and came to the same conclusion you did. If you take out all the drama regarding the foreclosure “victims,” it’s a much better movie.

At one point in the movie when a family was being evicted, Michael was harassing (sheriff?), and the sheriff replied something to the effect: “if they had paid their mortgages, then they wouldn’t be evicted.” It was the only occasion in the whole, entire movie that somebody stated the real reason these people were “losing their homes.”

Then there was the family whose farm was in the family for a couple of generations (over 40 years at least, IIRC). Why the heck did they still have a mortgage? Sounds like serial HELOCers.

 
 
Comment by palmetto
2010-05-07 10:24:52

Bwahahahaha, anyone following the stock market today just for sh*ts and giggles? I went to my MSN page and refreshed a few times. Looks like a battle between the Plunge Production Team Vs. the Plunge Protection Team.

Who’s gonna win? Mike Shedlock (Mish) says that 1,000 point plunge was no accident, because it was pointing exactly where the market should be.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-07 10:53:49

I’ve been of the mind that the market should be around 7,500. But that’s just me.

Comment by palmetto
2010-05-07 11:20:25

Slimmie, I’m of the mind, and have been ever since the crash, that it should be 6,000. That’s right where it belongs. These companies are just not worth that much, IMO.

Rigged casino, indeed, but this little game being played out on the stock market is interesting, because it should go down and hard. I dunno if the PPT is gonna prevail, something’s working awfully hard to put the market where it should be.

Comment by VegasBob
2010-05-07 12:20:01

Actually, if the corporations and banks were forced to get rid of smoke and mirrors accounting, the DOW would probably find a level around 3,000…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by bink
2010-05-07 15:54:28

I love these threads on the blog because they always turn into a sort of reverse auction, with each poster going lower and lower.

I like identifying other cynics.

Although, maybe predicting a rise in the market makes one a cynic since the decline seems so obvious to us.

 
Comment by swguy
2010-05-07 15:59:37

VegasBob you nailed it, xlnt take

 
 
 
 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-05-08 10:24:12

Others I know who understand the market agree that this drop was a hint at where the market is going - that they slipped their hand a bit sooner than expected.

The market has been floating on hot air for a year now, based upon the “recoveryless recovery” and “green shoots.” Many common folk are happily back in the market or are considering getting back in since “stocks only go up!” Based upon past experiences, this means that the plutocrats are getting ready to shear the masses again, and a manufactured crash would help scare the gutless in Congress away from real financial reform. After all, we “need” Goldman and the rest to keep our eCONomy strong!?

 
 
Comment by pressboardbox
2010-05-07 10:31:41

God forbid somebody should actually be at fault and held accountable:

“It was the machines! They did it!”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Computers-Not-Human-Error-cnbc-1614949039.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=5d850b534a3edde74faf7b0923d236fd&ccode=mp

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-05-07 10:58:25

Reminds me of that Police album, “Ghost in the Machine.”

 
 
Comment by Chris M
2010-05-07 10:54:04

“Thanks to Florida’s robust housing market at the time, she envisioned eventually tapping into her home equity to help make a fruitful retirement a reality.”

She planned to borrow money to fund her retirement? How exactly was that supposed to work? How can people be so stupid?

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-05-07 10:57:11

‘How exactly was that supposed to work?’

See, we forget. At one time, housing prices were supposed to go up; forever. I know it sounds nuts, but MOST participants believed that.

Comment by palmetto
2010-05-07 11:24:21

“MOST participants believed that.”

Sad but true. I recall having a conversation with my a relative, who is an otherwise intelligent person. She opined, with great exactitude and firmness, that this was how it was going to be and everything was going to be sliced, diced and securitized, now and forever, amen.

Her house has declined in value. A lot of her work has dried up. What a surprise.

 
 
 
Comment by sold in 05
2010-05-07 12:01:59

prices have to go down…its simple in calif our incomes cannot support starter homes at 400k…..last spring these starter in los angeles were priced at 500k….i tell my wife lets stay patient, we have been waiting 5 years to buy again….i will nt pull the trigger why should i , i rent a beautiful home in a safe n-hood for 2k a month , it would cost me 4k a month if i would buy that house w/ 100k down……then i would truly be a SLAVE

Comment by jbw
2010-05-07 15:17:42

I don’t understand the “starter home” concept. Why would I buy a home if I didn’t want to stay there? Is it nothing more than the “flip it for profit and buy a bigger one” scam? Why perpetuate it?

Comment by Carl Morris
2010-05-07 15:25:11

You wouldn’t want to be priced out forever.

 
Comment by SaladSD
2010-05-07 16:45:35

The term “starter home” is being used to shame people into buying bigger and more extravagent homes than they realistically can afford. No way a young couple would consider a home without closets as big as a bedroom, they must have a jacuzzi, and a trophy kitchen. A far cry from Barefoot in the Park.

 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-05-08 10:17:41

Starter home may have once meant a house for a family that only had 1 child so far, but I agree - given the cost of buying and selling a house, you’re better off buying one with the intent to live there as long as you can. Of course, in this era of grossly oversized and overpriced McMansions, good luck finding something worthwhile.

Now days, yes, “starter home” is used as a shaming tactic to get people to keep upsizing their house every few years until they are deeply in debt.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-05-07 12:19:01

“Later in that meeting, Mr. Bernanke said the Fed was ill-equipped to try to identify asset bubbles, much less prick them. ‘The history of using the monetary policy instrument rate for correcting financial imbalances is a very checkered one, to say the least,’ he said.”

Don’t know about the Fed’s bubble-spotting credentials, but they seem very well-equipped for creating bubbles.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post