February 17, 2012

Not Sustainable, And Certainly Not Affordable

It’s Friday desk clearing time for this blogger. “Long before behavioural finance became a popular theme, central bankers took psychology into account. Monetary policy aims at modifying crowd behaviour. By tightening or loosening money supply and tinkering with interest rates, central banks try to nudge economies in the right direction. In the 1980s, the US Federal Reserve developed a very harsh inflation doctrine, consisting of raising rates till all inflation expectations had been squeezed out. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Fed policy swung in the opposite direction. At the slightest signs of trouble anywhere, it would loosen money supply.”

“The excess liquidity, eventually, caused a massive bubble with all asset valuations rising. Since the dollar is, for better or worse, the global default currency, that bubble affected the global economy. For the past four years, the world has been struggling to deflate that bubble without any catastrophic ramifications. India was a beneficiary of the boom. Now, it is walking a tightrope to ride out the bust.”

“Twelve European economies including Britain, Italy and France have deep weaknesses that are undermining growth and need to be tackled, the EU said on Tuesday as it stepped up its surveillance to avoid a repeat of the devastating debt crisis. From a potential real estate bubble in Sweden to a sharp export downturn in Belgium, the European Commission pointed to what it considers major structural problems that leave 12 members of the 27-nation EU vulnerable to market attacks and global shocks.”

“‘A correction is now under way … and the deleveraging process has began,’ the Commission said in reference to efforts to tackle debt as well as house prices across the bloc. ‘It is unclear how far it will go and for how long it will continue.’”

“A true speculative bubble requires impressive levels of irresponsibility from banks and regulators, something that took a long time to develop in the U.S. Canada never matched this achievement. A mere 10-per-cent or so of overvaluation, which is roughly what we have in Canada, is no bubble. Homeowners are very reluctant to sell what’s usually their biggest asset at a loss, so many will hang on like grim death rather than sell into a devalued market, making it unusual for prices to drop rapidly.”

“Apart from some overheated niches in the market, history suggests that we’ll more likely see home prices that simply go sideways for several years, allowing incomes to catch up.”

“Probably the biggest property myth of 2011 was the claim that Australia was in a ‘property bubble’ that was about to burst. I agree that to many, housing in Australia is expensive. But that’s what comes from having large dwellings in some of the best spots in the world to live.”

“The most commonly used benchmark to determine whether housing is affordable is if it costs less than 30% of the household income. A new study by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute strongly suggests that the traditional method of calculating housing affordability is outdated. I’m not saying that some people are not suffering from mortgage stress. What I am saying is that some households can easily afford 50 to 60% of their income going on rents or mortgages and still have plenty enough left over.”

“We are moving into the next stage of the property cycle. And the next stage is the stabilisation phase of the cycle. By the way, the stabilisation phase is a great time for savvy investors to get set for the upturn stage of the cycle.”

“In 2007, the price of housing in many first and second-tier cities in China witnessed an unprecedented rise, it was also the year that the city began to ban the use of ‘extravagant phrases’ in real estate advertising. At the time, Wang Qishan, currently the vice-premier in charge of economic, energy and financial affairs, was mayor of Beijing. After publicly lamenting how the excessive use of such terms as ’supreme,’ ‘luxury,’ and ‘enjoying an extravagant lifestyle’ in property advertisments were impacting on the ‘harmonious atmosphere’ of the capital, Mayor Wang went on to tell the meeting of city officials that, ‘Some people would be willing to carve the word ‘rich’ on their faces!’”

“When the market was hot, real estate companies would include phrases such as ‘Only Company Directors Can View this Property’, ‘Only for the Outstanding People of the World.’”

“But now that things are down in the dumps, the ads read like something you might find in a bargain basement store - ‘We Can’t Go Any Lower’”

“Plunging real estate prices are the root of the problem in Beverly Hills. But the dynamics of the residential real estate collapse are very different in elite neighborhoods such as this. The majority of delinquent homeowners here owe more than $1 million. Many are walking away not because they can’t pay, but because they judge it would be foolish to keep doing so.”

“‘It’s a business decision, not an emotional one which it is for normal people,’ said Deborah Bremner, owner of the Bremner Group at Coldwell Banker, which specializes in high-end properties in the Los Angeles area. ‘I go to cocktail parties and all people are talking about is whether it is time to walk away, although they will never be quoted in the real world.’”

“Bremner said she helped a client buy a Beverly Hills mansion last year that the prior owner had bought for over $4 million. He decided to stop paying his $3 million mortgage when the value of the property had dropped to $2.5 million. ‘They were able to comfortably cover the loan,’ Bremner said. ‘They were just no longer willing to see the value of the property drop.’”

“A few dozen Floridians from around the state converged in the Capitol Thursday for one reason: homeowner rights. All of them were angry about House Bill 213, which they say weakens the rights of foreclosure defendants. ‘I’m 62, and I’m homeless,’ said Marie Ogilus of Miami Gardens. ‘Foreclosed after 30 years.’”

“The stories of other frustrated homeowners were a collage of the housing crisis. They lamented the devaluation of their properties and described their battles with the banks. They say the banks are the reason foreclosures are grinding through the courts. ‘I have a property that I’m losing money on,’ said Donna Tovin, 53, who came up from West Palm Beach. ‘It’s affecting my relationships, my marriage.’”

“A three-decker currently occupied by members of the anti-foreclosure group City Life/Vida Urbana located on Fowler Street stands as a prime example of the bubble’s impact on home values. Assessed in 1985 at $40,000, the three-family home saw a nearly $100,000 increase in assessed value between 2003 and 2004 from $217,000 to $305,000, ultimately topping out at $439,000 by 2007. Since that time, the home’s value dropped to $268,000 in 2011 when it went into foreclosure and was ultimately sold at auction for $163,000.”

“With nearly 100 homes now in various stages of the foreclosure process within a 10-block area around Fowler Street, City Life activists believe the settlement, while a promising move forward, could be too little, too late. City Life-Vida Urbana’s director Curdina Hill said the majority of her organization’s members are currently paying mortgages with principles between $100,000 and $200,000 more than their properties’ actual values. A blanket payout of $20,000 to qualified borrowers would do little to improve their chances of staying in their homes, Hill said.”

“‘Most of the conversation has been people’s anger and disappointment about the fact that the banks aren’t being held accountable,’ Hill said before a meeting in Jamaica Plain. ‘They’re focused less on ‘how do I get this money’ than ‘this is not an adequate solution’ and anger that so many attorney generals were not willing to push for a bigger settlement from the banks. That’s what you’re going to hear tonight: people’s anger.’”

“Every home built in West Michigan creates three spinoff jobs, according to the findings of a study commissioned by the National Association Home Builders. Bill Roersma, president of the Home Builders Association of Greater Grand Rapids, hopes that economic impact will grow in 2012 after the homebuilding market has been digging itself out of a 20-year low in 2009.”

“The current signs of homebuilding recovery are being driven by young first-time homeowners who are not saddled with debt and eager to take advantage of low interest rates, Roersma said. ‘I anticipate growth, but it will be steady growth,’ said Roersma, a partner in Roersma & Wurn Builders. ‘It’s never going to be like it used to be.’”

“The average price for a single-family home in Toronto hit $606,000 last month. It’s not a misprint. The cost of a Toronto house is up by approximately 50% since 2005. But, fear not! According to Canadian Real Estate Association, the astronomical cost to be a homeowner in the 416 is actually still affordable to the average Torontonian. It’s not the cost of city real estate per se that has me steamed. It’s that real estate organizations like CREA are still trying to sell our uber-expensive housing as affordable. That is irresponsible in my view and, to many, insulting.”

“I’m not anti-home-ownership; the opposite, actually. I own a condo (well, the mortgage company and I share it at this point) and I hope to buy a house in the city with the fiancé after our wedding. This, of course, will take our combined incomes and a heck of a lot of scrimping and saving. And there’s nothing wrong with that.”

“What I’m against is irresponsible home ownership. That is, if you’re barely scraping by to make your monthly payments now and an (inevitable) uptick in interest rates results in a personal financial crisis of cataclysmic proportions, well then, guess what? That’s not sustainable, and it’s certainly not affordable. In a lagging economy, at a time when we are bombarded with messages of austerity, reminded over and over that the average Canadian carries too much debt and that we must start to live within our means, the fact we’re being told expensive real estate is affordable, thanks to low interest rates, is a recipe for disaster.”

“But then, we can’t expect the CREA, or any other organization with a vested interest in keeping Toronto’s real estate market red hot, to hold our hands. People have to be their own watch dogs. And we need to have informed, realistic expectations about what we can and cannot afford.”




RSS feed

83 Comments »

Comment by Dave of the North
2012-02-17 08:33:19

“A true speculative bubble requires impressive levels of irresponsibility from banks and regulators, something that took a long time to develop in the U.S. Canada never matched this achievement. A mere 10-per-cent or so of overvaluation, which is roughly what we have in Canada, is no bubble”

How did they get 10% - exclude Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver?

“A new study by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute strongly suggests that the traditional method of calculating housing affordability is outdated. I’m not saying that some people are not suffering from mortgage stress. What I am saying is that some households can easily afford 50 to 60% of their income going on rents or mortgages and still have plenty enough left over.”

Is this the 2012 version of “we’re operating off a totally new economic model”???

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-02-17 08:52:42

Canada and Australia: Only for the Outstanding People of the World

 
Comment by Debtin'Nation
2012-02-17 08:52:42

My thoughts exactly. The “permanently high plateau” came to mind.

 
Comment by michael
2012-02-17 09:01:29

It’s different there.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-02-17 10:42:59

A true speculative bubble requires impressive levels of irresponsibility from banks and regulators,

True.

Comment by Joe
2012-02-17 14:04:22

Don’t forget RE journalists!

Comment by In Colorado
2012-02-17 15:11:59

All it would have taken was for the banksters to say “no” and there would have been no bubble.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2012-02-17 16:25:56

Yes, thanks for the Friday laugh! This 10% overvaluation explains everything, like why a house a few miles across the border to the north is 2x its twin in the US. My Canadian friends are so lucky to be genetically superior.

 
 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-02-17 08:42:15

Interesting to see the global “justification”….

New paradigm of affordability in Australia.

Canada 10% overpriced? Say what? Median income in Vancouver is $40K and there isn’t a single house under $1 million on the market? $600K average house in Toronto? 10% my hiney.

China can’t go any lower. HA! Prices are still 10x what people can afford on $3 an hour.

India walking a knife’s edge. Again, HA! One of my co-workers went home to New Deli recently. He said that condos in the city were selling for the equivalent of $250K but incomes were on the order of $10K a year. Even with a full extended family with 6 incomes sharing a 2-bedroom condo, it was unaffordable. What was really happening was liquidity from China was buying up the inventory. The foreign owned condos sat empty while the residents were being forced further out of the city and getting longer commutes on ever busier, overworked transportation network. Some in his family were literally sleeping at work 5 nights a week to avoid 3-4 hour commutes into the city.

It is different in Beverly Hills. HA!

Comment by In Colorado
2012-02-17 09:54:52

What was really happening was liquidity from China was buying up the inventory. The foreign owned condos sat empty

??? So the Chinese richies aren’t satisfied owning millions of empty flats back home, they need to buy unrentable flats in New Dehli as well?

Sometimes I think we’re still in the first inning of the madness.

Some in his family were literally sleeping at work 5 nights a week to avoid 3-4 hour commutes into the city.

And for that they went to IIT?

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 08:43:44

“Monetary policy aims at modifying crowd behaviour.”

I thought monetary policy was supposed to regulate the economy through setting short-term interest rates. But nowadays there are a bevy of New Era monetary theories afloat.

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-02-17 09:03:11

Once upon a time, monetary policy was designed to flatten both the peaks and the dips. Along comes Reaganomics and Greenspan, and monetary policy became about blowing the biggest bubbles possible.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 15:11:33

I suspect Greenspan thought his liquidity injections served to smooth the rough spots in the economy, never realizing that putting a permanent plunge protection floor under asset prices might create the impulse for a massive tsunami wave of bad credit that would eventually crash down on the global economy with devastating force.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 08:47:42

“Apart from some overheated niches in the market, history suggests that we’ll more likely see home prices that simply go sideways for several years, allowing incomes to catch up.”

That sounds reminiscent of what the U.S. housing market ‘experts’ were saying, circa 2007.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-02-17 09:10:06

Yeah, and what happens when incomes go down instead?

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-02-17 09:10:52

Average incomes have been literally dropping behind inflation for 30 years.

Just how are they going to “catch up?”

 
Comment by SDGreg
2012-02-17 09:47:13

“Apart from some overheated niches in the market, history suggests that we’ll more likely see home prices that simply go sideways for several years, allowing incomes to catch up.”

Or the question back then of whether rising rents or falling housing prices would bring that ratio back into balance. To this point, it’s been mostly falling housing prices as rents have barely budged.

And just how are incomes going to catch up if the economy continues to go sideways in many places?

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 08:49:19

“Probably the biggest property myth of 2011 was the claim that Australia was in a ‘property bubble’ that was about to burst. I agree that to many, housing in Australia is expensive. But that’s what comes from having large dwellings in some of the best spots in the world to live.”

Bubble symptom numero uno: DENIAL

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-02-17 08:51:27

We Can’t Go Any Lower

 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-02-17 10:01:10

Sure, there’s a real shortage of prime, undeveloped coastline in Oz. You have a country the size of the USA with half of California’s popuation.

It has to be a land shortage.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 15:12:33

Either that, or everyone wants to live there (just like they all want to live in California and Japan).

 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-02-17 21:20:19

It’s the lack of “developable” land.

/sarcasm

Comment by Professor Bear
2012-02-17 23:13:48

If California builders could construct vast swaths of marginally habitable tract home developments on the high desert, I fail to see why Australian developers couldn’t similarly push the urban fringe into the Outback.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-02-17 10:39:04

Australia is expensive. But that’s what comes from having large dwellings in some of the best spots in the world to live.”

Bubble symptom numero uno: DENIAL

Totally. The Aussies are in complete denial. They should know that unlike Rio, Australia is in a bubble.

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 08:50:58

“The most commonly used benchmark to determine whether housing is affordable is if it costs less than 30% of the household income. A new study by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute strongly suggests that the traditional method of calculating housing affordability is outdated. I’m not saying that some people are not suffering from mortgage stress. What I am saying is that some households can easily afford 50 to 60% of their income going on rents or mortgages and still have plenty enough left over.”

OMG did the idiots who used to explain why it’s different in California all relocate to Oz?

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-02-17 09:21:52

Well, there ARE direct flights…

 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-02-17 10:05:12

A new study by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute strongly suggests that the traditional method of calculating housing affordability is outdated.

It’s true, man is the only creature to make the same mistakes over and over.

What I am saying is that some households can easily afford 50 to 60% of their income going on rents or mortgages and still have plenty enough left over

There is no doubt that this is a bankster conspiracy. They expect us to fork over 60% of our income to them.

Comment by wittbelle
2012-02-17 10:37:47

They only expect us to because we do. Supply and demand. Supply and demand.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-02-17 10:48:01

They only expect us to because we do. Supply and demand.

IMO the “Supply and demand” concept requires a free-market basis in order to work and not a manipulated market of involving massive amounts of collusion. (especially in a basic need as is housing)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by wittbelle
2012-02-17 11:08:25

The free market is at work right now. People are walking away from mortgages or being foreclosed on and housing prices are dropping. Because of economic policy, it’s taking longer than it would otherwise, but it’s still working. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that people are brainwashed. There is such a group think in this country that common sense doesn’t stand a chance.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-02-17 12:57:50

“The free market is at work right now. People are walking away from mortgages”

Keep in mind that in many other countries all loans are recourse (heck, a lot US loans are recourse) and BK laws are not as generous as in the USA. In other words, unless you leave the country, there is no “walking away”.

 
Comment by Wizard of "OZ"
2012-02-17 13:42:58

There is such a group think in this country that common sense doesn’t stand a chance..

Right on. Have a brother in Oz, that’s as smart as me ..”well nearly”. He can’t see the bubble about to burst.
Fortunatly he owns 2 homes free and clear, with no debt & substantial savings.

“But it different here,..really”

The country is totally dependant on commodity exports to China. When that stops..look out below.(down under)

 
Comment by oxide
2012-02-17 15:51:46

If it’s truly peak in Aus, your brother should sell one of those houses.

 
Comment by Jojo
2012-02-17 20:56:56

Sure there’s a bubble in Australia. But why is it about to burst? That bubble has been growing for 12 or more years and the bubble watchers have been saying it’s about to burst for the last 6 years at least.

In the US people were predicting the imminent collapse of the property bubble from 2002 on.

One common feature of bubbles is that they last far longer than people (who can see them) expect.

So I expect the Australian bubble has at least a few more years to go.

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-02-17 22:54:39

‘I expect the Australian bubble has at least a few more years to go’

Makes no difference to me, but don’t be surprised when the bellyaching starts:

‘Curdina Hill said the majority of her organization’s members are currently paying mortgages with principles between $100,000 and $200,000 more than their properties’ actual values’

‘Most of the conversation has been people’s anger and disappointment about the fact that the banks aren’t being held accountable,’ Hill said before a meeting in Jamaica Plain.’ That’s what you’re going to hear tonight: people’s anger.’

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2012-02-17 23:16:59

“Fortunatly he owns 2 homes free and clear, with no debt & substantial savings.”

Are your brother and my BIL related?

Sad thing is, BIL and Lil’ Sis bought the second home right at the peak. If they had held onto their cash, they would be looking at the chance to buy in their dream city of San Diego. Instead, they own two depreciating, devaluing real estate assets in the Midwest.

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 15:13:48

Withheld supply and nonexistent demand.
Withheld supply and nonexistent demand.
Withheld supply and nonexistent demand.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-02-17 10:54:59

What I am saying is that some households can easily afford 50 to 60% of their income going on rents or mortgages and still have plenty enough left over

———————————-
I don’t know enough about Australia to say in their specific situation, but I’d say in some countries that ratio might not carry. It might be more, it might be less.
I’d say 30% or less for the US is roughly correct, as we tend to have large outlays for, in addition to our housing payment:

health care
childcare
automobile
college loans
retirement

But in countries where some of those costs are subsidized, then a spending more than 30% on one’s house might be legitimate. It’s great if you don’t have to of course, but I’d say housing outlay is very dependant on what other stuff you also need to pay for.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2012-02-17 11:09:02

But in countries where some of those costs are subsidized, then a spending more than 30% on one’s house might be legitimate.

In a country where so many things are subsidized, shouldn’t the taxes be high enough to cover those costs, reducing the income available to spend on housing sufficiently that the cost of housing should still remain fairly similar?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by SDGreg
2012-02-17 11:30:51

“In a country where so many things are subsidized, shouldn’t the taxes be high enough to cover those costs, reducing the income available to spend on housing sufficiently that the cost of housing should still remain fairly similar?”

And the pre-bubble ratio there was 30 percent too. So what’s changed other than bubble justification for higher ratios?

 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-02-17 12:36:35

In a country where so many things are subsidized, shouldn’t the taxes be high enough to cover those costs, reducing income….?
———————–
Not necessarily, unless they are all only subsidized though indivdual income type taxes. Could also be subsidized by corporate tax/oil/gold/past plundering that wasn’t squandered.

—————————————–
And the pre-bubble ratio there was 30 percent too. So what’s changed other than bubble justification for higher ratios?
—————————————–
That would depend on the country. Could be nothing, could be a lot, could be that the 30% ratio never applied in the first place. It could be that 30% is too high if the country has few natural resources and the future is beak (Greece).

 
Comment by oxide
2012-02-17 15:52:51

Is that 30% gross or net income?

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 08:52:34

“We are moving into the next stage of the property cycle. And the next stage is the stabilisation phase of the cycle. By the way, the stabilisation phase is a great time for savvy investors to get set for the upturn stage of the cycle.”

After the fantasy stabilisation phase comes the crash phase of the cycle, which is a great time for greater fool investors to catch themselves falling knives.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-02-17 08:54:55

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=202171

Italian anti-mafia police have reportedly seized $6 TRILLION in fake US bonds. Ben Bernanke and the Fed are not going to appreciate such competition when it comes to floating worthless paper.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-02-17 09:51:51

And how do you know they aren’t fakes faked by the Fed?

 
Comment by BlueStar
2012-02-17 09:55:43

Did you see the issue dates? The bonds had a false issue date of 1934, and are believed to have been transported from Hong Kong to Zurich in 2007, where they were transported to a Swiss trust.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-02-17 10:27:29

I think the longest US bond is thirty years. I wonder how many more fakes haven’t been discovered.

 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-02-17 10:36:59

“The bonds had a false issue date of 1934″

“Old” currency and docs are faked all the time.

The kneejerk reaction is to blame another country.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 08:55:19

“When the market was hot, real estate companies would include phrases such as ‘Only Company Directors Can View this Property’, ‘Only for the Outstanding People of the World.’”

“But now that things are down in the dumps, the ads read like something you might find in a bargain basement store - ‘We Can’t Go Any Lower’”

I have a few suggestions:

1) Only a moron would buy this property.

2) Only greater fools catch themselves falling knives by investing in real estate.

3) Real estate always goes down.

4) Why buy now when you can buy for 30% less in a couple of years?

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-02-17 09:52:09

30% less? In china? I think you grossly mis-underestimate the bottom there. They would need about 90% drop from peak to match affordability to median income. We were 100% overpriced, and China as 1000% overpriced.

Comment by wittbelle
2012-02-17 10:51:40

If Apple factory wages are the norm, China is more overpriced than that!
http://tinyurl.com/2fzz45r

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-02-17 12:10:24

While I agree with the general message of the article, I think it is flawed….

“That means each worker generally costs American employers about $15.57/hour. For the sake of this exercise, let’s leave out the high cost of benefits. Even so, the typical American worker makes 30 times more than the typical Foxconn worker.

The low-end iPad sells for $499. If it were built by Americans, it would have to cost $14,970. No one would buy an iPad for $14,970. No one would buy a mid-level laptop for $23,970. No one would buy a smartphone for $5,970.”

You can’t just take the retail price and multiply by 30. There is makup at the retailer that would not need to be higher. The software is still largely developed in the USA and is already in the price. Apple’s profit is in the price and would not need to be multiplied by 30. The cost of the machinery. Electricity. etc. etc. etc.

What you need to know is what portion of the $500 is labor cost in China? Assuming a number as stupid high as 8 hours of labor to manufacture each iPad, we’re talking $4 at $.50 an hour. So, multiply that by 30 and you add $120 to the cost of the iPad, not $14,000.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-02-17 12:36:01

All these stories are pure sensationalism. The comparisons are ridiculous. When I was a kid, I got paid $1.15 an hour, about 2x what they say a worker there gets. That’s here in the US of A.
Of course, gas cost 29 cents a gallon and a pack of cigarettes was 45 cents. A loaf of bread was about 29 cents.
That was 1968. A long time ago, but this shows how much REAL INFLATION we have in the US of A. It’s been outrageous.

But the only real comparison is what .51 dollars will buy in China? I don’t know. It’s not a well developed, wealthy country by our standards, but I’ll be the rent is a lot less than $700 a month.
Trying to compare incomes there with incomes here is like trying to compare the growing season in California with Greenland.
The WIDE contrast makes it seem unusually unfair. Exchange rates between rich and poor countries are ALWAYS extreme.
I got room and board in Costa Rica in 2005 for about $8 to $10 a day. The recipients of the money didn’t feel the least bit cheated. In fact, they were thankful for the money.

 
Comment by oxide
2012-02-17 16:05:50

I’ll be the rent is a lot less than $700 a month.

Teh google…

www DOT sublet DOT com/town_rentals/china/innersuburbs_towns.asp

These are sublets intended for expats. A common 3/2 in the inner suburbs of Shanghai goes for ~2500 per month. The don’t specify if that’s dollars or renminbi yuan ($400/month). I’m guessing that these are high-end.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-02-18 10:53:16

The low-end iPad sells for $499. If it were built by Americans, it would have to cost $14,970.

I agree this is BS. The average landed cost for off-shored manufactured items is about 15% less than American made.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-02-18 11:25:18

In that article that was going around a few weeks ago about the conversation between Jobs and Obama, Jobs basically said that it’s not just the money. The mfg expertise is no longer here.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 08:57:32

“Bremner said she helped a client buy a Beverly Hills mansion last year that the prior owner had bought for over $4 million. He decided to stop paying his $3 million mortgage when the value of the property had dropped to $2.5 million. ‘They were able to comfortably cover the loan,’ Bremner said. ‘They were just no longer willing to see the value of the property drop.’”

Beverly Hills Breakdown

Comment by Professor Bear
2012-02-17 09:00:33

Let me reiterate what I said on the blog several years ago, which is that when $4 million dollar homes get repriced to $2.5 million, all surrounding less desirable (lower quality) homes that used to sell for between $2.5 million and $4 million get revalued to below $2.5 million. Think of a giant trash compactor smashing down the entire price distribution into a tightly-compressed version of the bubble-era price range, and you will have the rough idea.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-02-17 09:50:37

Two words- Price Compression

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-17 15:14:53

Reference, please? (Or if you have none, nice coinage :-) )

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-02-17 18:44:59

None. I doubt I coined the term but the multi story building is the best metaphor.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2012-02-17 10:53:54

+1. Dead on, PB…

 
Comment by oxide
2012-02-17 19:08:20

It will be interesting to see if “the entire price distribution” will be compressed. I believe that at some point, people with more income will accept buying smaller digs simply to get out from under the landlord and just have a place to live. The high end will fall hard but the mid-low end may not.

Comment by Professor Bear
2012-02-17 23:25:26

‘It will be interesting to see if “the entire price distribution” will be compressed. I believe that at some point, people with more income will accept buying smaller digs simply to get out from under the landlord and just have a place to live. The high end will fall hard but the mid-low end may not.’

1. Yes the entire price distribution will be compressed, unless buyers suddenly begin to prefer living in inferior homes located in hot inland locations over superior homes located in desirable coastal locations.

2. In equilibrium, nicer homes cost more than crappier homes, from the most desirable down to the most despised. We can argue about which part of the quality distribution will lose more value, but if the top drops by 50%, everything of lesser value will generally experience some degree of price compression towards $0.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Rich
2012-02-18 01:18:25

a $50,000 property has much less to fall to $0 than does a $2,500,000 one. The bottom here in Stockton has pretty well hit $50k in price, although what that buys is in gradually improving condition/size/etc.

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-02-17 09:06:13

The fish really does rot from the head first. The Fed promoted moral hazard by bailing out the reckless and irresponsible at the expense of responsible taxpayers and savers. Since it’s national policy to be financially irresponsible and there’s few if any consequences for dishonoring contracts, the deadbeats are going to act accordingly.

 
Comment by t3chiman
2012-02-18 10:38:54

“….He decided to stop paying his $3 million mortgage …”

I’m confused. Do lenders really make 3 million dollar loans, secured by a personal residence? And do borrowers really promise to pay 16 thousand dollars a month for 30 years? [plus 3 thousand a month property tax, etc.]

I thought jumbo mortgages topped out at $600k, and anything more than that, you had to pay cash–for exactly the reason exemplified in the story.

Comment by LasVegasDude
2012-02-18 14:25:08

There is no limit on jumbo mortgages. If the bank asses’ the property at multi-millions they will do a multi-million loan secured by that property. Though, you won’t be dealing with Fannie or Freddie as they DO have a limit.

Whitney Houston, IIRC, had a mortgage for 1.4 Million with a East Coast bank when she died.

 
 
 
Comment by Debtin'Nation
2012-02-17 08:59:16

‘I’m 62, and I’m homeless,’ said Marie Ogilus of Miami Gardens. ‘Foreclosed after 30 years.’”

And here I thought almost all mortgages were paid off in 30 years. Silly me. And of course, it would be expecting too much for some dumbazz reporter to do some “analysis” of that statement rather than just taking it at face value.

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-02-17 09:06:48

You do not attract and retain readers by insulting them. You pander to them.

Truth is not facts and figures. Truth is whatever we decide it to be.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-02-17 10:18:38

Don’t forget that even before the bubble we were encouraged to “trade up” every few years. That ensures the house is never paid off, which is just how the banksters like it. A paid off house does not generate an income stream for the Banking Clan.

Comment by wittbelle
2012-02-17 11:21:01

Tax policy, in particular, is meant to motivate consumers to doing what the government wants them to do. Trading up policy is no more. Now if you sell your house and make a profit, (over 250K/500K), Uncle Sam wants his cut. I guess the policy is telling us that if we have a lot of equity, the government doesn’t want us to sell our house.

 
 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-02-17 12:23:04

The “30 years and then foreclosure” got my attention immediately. How, I ask? Your mortgage should be PAID IN FULL by now, so I must assume you did a CASH OUT RE_FI……like so many others and made “lifestyle” changes. Like so many others, the House was a bank account with an unlimited balance, that you could draw down, and it’s “value” would magically inflate to provide an endless supply of “disposable income”. Is that more like the truth of the matter??

I know several people that mortgaged their houses and bought new cars, furniture and vacations, with the full expectation that the house would “go up” in price in the succeeding years, thereby paying for the purchases of the “homeowner”. I was aghast. I was paying down my debts, so I could live debt-free. My money was “tied up” in my house and couldn’t get out. Now, Unemployed for more than 2 years, I have no house payment and no financial stress, except I have less money in my savings account. I would like to have some income again, soon, but I just have to go without new things till that day comes, and make due with things I have to keep up.
According to the financial “experts”, I had used my money foolishly, since I should have had it “invested” in the market. Equity is meant to be invested or spent, according to the knowledgeable money managers. I will NEVER listen to an “expert”. I can see where I would be had I taken some of that advice.
I’d be like this woman……30 years and foreclosure. No. thank-you.

Comment by In Colorado
2012-02-17 13:02:25

Like I mentioned above, it could have been a case of serial “trading up”. The idea was that you would sell it when you retired and bought a nice condo with the equity.

Too bad that didn’t work out.

 
 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-02-17 09:02:50

So $6 trillion in fake US bonds pose a “severe threat to international financial stability” but Ben Bernanke’s assumption of trillions in bad banker debts and debasement of the currency through “quantitative easing” is somehow good for the US economy and its productive savers and taxpayers?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-17/record-6-trillion-of-fake-u-s-bonds-seized-in-mafia-probe.html

Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) — Italian anti-mafia prosecutors said they seized a record $6 trillion of allegedly fake U.S. Treasury bonds, an amount that’s almost half of the U.S.’s public debt.

The bonds were found hidden in makeshift compartments of three safety deposit boxes in Zurich, the prosecutors from the southern city of Potenza said in an e-mailed statement. The Italian authorities arrested eight people in connection with the probe, dubbed “Operation Vulcanica,” the prosecutors said.

The U.S. embassy in Rome has examined the securities dated 1934, which had a nominal value of $1 billion apiece, they said in the statement. Officials for the embassy didn’t have an immediate comment.

The financial fraud uncovered by the Italian prosecutors in Potenza includes two checks issued through HSBC Holdings Plc in London for 205,000 pounds ($325,000), checks that weren’t backed by available funds, the prosecutors said. As part of the probe, fake bonds for $2 billion were also seized in Rome. The individuals involved were planning to buy plutonium from Nigerian sources, according to phone conversations monitored by the police.

The fraud posed “severe threats” to international financial stability, the prosecutors said in the statement.

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-02-17 09:08:33

“By tightening or loosening money supply and tinkering with interest rates, central banks try to nudge economies in the right direction.”

…for themselves.

 
Comment by Montana
2012-02-17 09:42:35

“A blanket payout of $20,000″

Wait, I thought the payout was only $2,000?

Either way…

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-02-17 09:59:06

$2K is for people that already lost homes in foreclosure that may or may not have involved robo-signing.

The $20K is principle reduction to up to 1/10th of the underwater people that are still paying on their mortgages… of course, they’ll have to sign new paperwork, giving the banks the originals needed to foreclose in the future should those “deadbeats” stop paying.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-02-17 10:29:46

For the banksters, paying $2K for the clear and undisputed right to foreclose on the FBs, with no criminal penalties for forgery and fraud committed by robo-signers, is getting off the hook cheap.

Comment by Blue Skye
2012-02-17 16:43:26

It’s like a cash for keys program. Don’t trash us and we will give you some cash.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2012-02-17 15:21:13

“…the fact we’re being told expensive real estate is affordable, thanks to low interest rates, is a recipe for disaster.”

Yes, yes, a thousand times YES!

“But then, we can’t expect the CREA, or any other organization with a vested interest in keeping Toronto’s real estate market red hot, to hold our hands. People have to be their own watch dogs. And we need to have informed, realistic expectations about what we can and cannot afford.”

This is my beef. Not that those who peddle houses as being affordable aren’t also comtemptible, but it’s the nimrods who buy into what they’re told that really chap my a$$:

“Yes, it might still be $500k, but it’s now only $1300 per month so I can afford it!”

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-02-17 15:56:21

50% of people have below median IQ, and 99.9% are less than geniuses.

 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2012-02-17 19:08:03

Re: the payroll tax cut compromise (keeping it through the end of the year without paying for it): “Just charge it!”

Which got me thinking about the public debt:

1) US GDP is 14,586,700,000,000 USD (14.6 trillion)

2) Total government debt is 15,413,030,984,842 USD, from treasurydirect.gov, with definitions of the holders at the top of the page

3) Current yearly deficit is 1.1 trillion, from the CBO

So, let’s say… 50% debt to GDP ratio is the target. The US has never paid down any of its post World War II debt, only grown the economy (except during a year or two during the tech bubble). So, growth is the way to get rid of the over 100 percent debt to GDP ratio.

With a 3.5% sustained GDP growth, and adding 600 billion to the debt each year, in 51 years, we’ll reach 50% debt to GDP ratio.

 
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