April 6, 2012

Seeing Property For What It Really Is

It’s Friday desk clearing time for this blogger. “For young would-be homebuyers, this really is the best of times and the worst of times. Homes are more affordable now than they have been in more than four decades, according to the National Association of Realtors. On the other hand, young Americans aren’t exactly flush with cash. Newlyweds Mike and Jessica Sental landed a new home in Clifton, New Jersey, last summer. The couple was house hunting but having trouble coming up with enough for the down payment. They had about $30,000 stashed away, roughly 10 percent of the purchase price, but needed a little more to appease lenders. That’s when Mike’s parents stepped in with $15,000 worth of help.”

“‘With prices and interest rates so low, it was the perfect time,’ he said. ‘Now, we’re paying money toward something we own instead of throwing it away on renting.’”

“The median vacation-home price in 2011 was $121,300, down 40 percent from 2006, according to NAR. Many properties that were once attainable only by the very wealthy are now in range for the merely well-heeled. In Vail, Colorado, for example, a four-bedroom property listed at $2.8 million in 2009 recently sold for $1.35 million. A four-bedroom home in South Lake Tahoe, California, changed hands in early March for $540,000, after having sold for $875,000 in 2004.”

“Anecdotally, brokers report more traffic than they have seen in years. ‘There’s a confidence now that we’ve been through the worst,’ said Paul Suding, president of the Santa Barbara Association of Realtors. ‘People are ready to buy again.’ In fact, added Allison Turk, an agent with Miami Beach’s Esslinger Wooten Maxwell Realtors, ‘Buyers feel a sense of urgency to get into this market.’”

“History says prices are likely to rise. By not acting now, certain buyers run the risk of being priced out down the road. Indeed, said Suding, some are already asking, ‘Wait, did we miss it?’”

“Central Ohio’s Parade of Homes is marking its 60th anniversary by celebrating the ‘American Dream’ at the Meadows at Lewis Center. Guests will get a view inside more houses than they have in seven years, with 12 being featured. Floor-to-ceiling windows on the walls facing five acres of preserve area or a pond are a highlight of all the houses, which range from $400,000 to $700,000. Houses that average 4,000 square feet sit on half-acre lots.”

“Jim Hilz, Builders Industry Association of Central Ohio’s executive director, said another trend he hopes to bring back this year is a booming house market — also reminiscent of when the parade first began. ‘Without a doubt, the housing market in Delaware County is stronger than anywhere else in Central Ohio, and we’re excited to have the opportunity to be a part of it,’ said.”

“Nearly nine years after purchasing this home that even her real estate agent cautioned her against, Patty Benedict ’s not sorry she followed her heart. Although her house is too new to be a registered historic property, Ms. Benedict — an artist who makes Halloween miniatures — serves as president of the neighborhood association for the Harris-Kemper Historic District. She’s witnessed a growing interest in historic homes there as well as in the nearby Museum Hill neighborhood, some of which have been purchased by people who came from out of state or even out of the United States to have these homes here, she says.”

“‘I know people say ‘location, location, location,’ but you’ve also got to think about potential,’ Ms. Benedict says, noting that she sees a Harlem-like transformation as a possibility for St. Joseph’s Downtown area. ‘This is diamonds in the rough … these really cool, funky, neat neighborhoods that will skyrocket in value once our Downtown really pops.’”

“More than two dozen condominium projects, including five in Broward and Palm Beach counties, are being added to the South Florida skyline in the next few years, according to CondoVultures. By the end of 2012, as many as 10,000 units could be in the planning stages, the firm said. That’s nearly a quarter of all the existing condos that sold in South Florida last year, according to the Florida Realtors.”

“Developers insist the market will be improved, with demand for luxury units strong by the time they’re finished building. But when most of these condos are ready for occupancy in 2014 or later, they’ll be competing with the leftover supply from the housing boom. Livia Periu, a New York resident looking to buy in South Florida, said another housing bubble is possible, but she’s not overly worried.”

“‘You’d think the builders would have studied the market so we don’t fall into the same situation that we had before,’ she said.”

“Kalispell Realtor Paul Heidegger has been selling homes in Northwest Montana for 20 years, but he says he never heard of ’short sales’ here until a client asked him ‘out of the blue’ to set one up about five years ago. About 5-8 percent of foreclosed homes end up being sold by auction on the courthouse steps, Heidegger says. The rest stay with the banks. Out of 250-some cases he’s familiar with, Heidegger says he knows of only seven who successfully got a loan modification. Another 10 got their loan modified, but their monthly payments went up.”

“One thing that became apparent to him over the past four years was that the nation’s foreclosure system wasn’t working properly. A victim himself, Heidegger gets very emotional about how foreclosures hurt people. ‘People are willing to talk to the public about their stories,’ he said. ‘There’s no more shame. They’re angry about what happened to them.’”

“When a person’s home payments are ‘underwater,’ it often doesn’t make sense for people to modify their loans, Heidegger said. But people want to stay in the homes where they raised their families, which ‘creates an ethical dilemma’ for Realtors, he said. Heidegger also said he knew of cases where the bank still went after homeowners following foreclosure to recoup the difference between the mortgage and the eventual sale price.”

“‘People have emotional ties to their property,’ said Gordy Lister, a Realtor at Keller Williams. ‘But home ownership is also a business decision. Sometimes people need to wipe it clean and start all over at a new location.’”

“Nuno Pinto is 40, out of work and contemplating a step he thinks is the only way out of his family’s financial plight: personal bankruptcy. Pinto, like many Portuguese, is financially stranded. He has no income, and gets by with the help of his elderly parents. He’s close to defaulting on his mortgage and, along with his partner and 9-year-old daughter, faces imminent eviction. ‘I’m here to see if I can get what’s my last chance; personal bankruptcy,’ says Pinto.”

“Pinto is one of the more than 670,000 Portuguese who last year defaulted on their loans, a 5 percent jump on the previous year. Defaults on consumer credit amounted to (EURO)1.53 billion ($2 billion) in January, a 14 percent increase since last May’s bailout. It’s the highest level of unpaid private debt since the Bank of Portugal started keeping detailed records 15 years ago. Total debt, that taken on by the state, companies, and individuals, stood at 418 percent of annual GDP last year.”

“While everyone is trying to cool the real estate market prices for those starting a new life, the cost of a space underground for the dead is surging to incredible heights. The cost of life after death in a cemetery is rocketing. Taofeng Cemetery in Beijing’s suburban area, which is widely believed to be one of the lowest priced in Beijing for urns, costs 25,800 yuan for only 0.7-square meters of land. The exorbitant price of Beijing’s cemeteries has even has forced some residents to seek resting place for the elders in adjacent Hebei province. Even public cemeteries, financed and operated by the department of civil affairs, the price is also out of reach for most ordinary people.”

“In some extreme cases, families who cannot afford to buy a small piece of land as a resting place for their deceased even dig a grave and install a tomb in their courtyards or community. A student in Shanghai reportedly feared going back home as one of her neighbors buried his parents’ ashes in the community and installed a tomb. The man justified his move saying ‘I cannot afford to buy a grave. What can I do?’”

“Seventy per cent of under 35s in Sydney will be excluded from the housing market, a UK housing expert says. The figure makes up part of a new report, Homes for All, which found that Australia’s housing market is in crisis. Co-author Dr Tim Williams says governments need to reconsider tax incentives and policies that encourage investors to push house prices higher. It recommends that negative gearing and untaxed capital gains be reconsidered by the government in an effort to drive down house pricing for first-time buyers.”

“‘We’ve been giving more and more money effectively to people who are in homes,’ he said. ‘We’re squeezing younger people out but at the same time we seem to be enabling people to buy two, three and four.’”

“He said that about 30 years ago it took three times the median salary to buy a house in Sydney, whereas it now took nine times. This is a higher ratio than London or New York, the report said. ‘We’re constraining supply, and shovelling up demand to people who already have money, and making it more difficult for their children to access home ownership,’ he said.”

“From an outsider’s perspective, Williams says the property market is fundamentally, and uniquely, distorted. ‘I remember my head reeling when I discovered how generous negative gearing was. There’s nothing like it in the known world in terms of its generosity and in terms of its middle-class welfare.”’

“By adding to demand for housing - people’s ability and willingness to pay for housing - negative gearing had inflated house prices for decades. ”I just think it’s an astonishing gift to the wealthy and it has perverse effects on the housing market. You are squeezing young people out of home ownership while some people have two, three or four units - the incentives are just wrong.”’

“All this distortion has resulted in an astonishing fact: 22 per cent of people now own 55 per cent of the homes.”

“It’s hard to ignore the mathematics, which says only one-third of people - those who do not own a home - stand to gain from lower house prices. Politicians know this. But parents also know that their property gains come at a cost: their children’s property pain. Fixing the housing affordability crisis facing young people demands a fundamental revolution in community attitudes - away from viewing housing as a get-rich-quick scheme to seeing property for what it really is: a place to live. As any gambler knows, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.”




RSS feed

69 Comments »

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-04-06 06:55:16

Again…. who cares what NAR and Realtors say. They are unrepentant liars. They’ve lied for decades, they’re lying now and there is no reason to believe they’ll tell the truth. Ever.

Comment by Montana
2012-04-06 08:55:25

I assumed Ben posts those things for laughs.

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-04-06 09:00:42

Partly but also to document who said what and when. I don’t see how they get away with stuff like this:

‘Homes are more affordable now than they have been in more than four decades, according to the National Association of Realtors’

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-04-06 11:40:26

BJ you’re posting them for the right reasons. I’m responding for the right reasons. We’re both truthful.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by BetterRenter
2012-04-06 10:13:01

No, he posts them to watch my blood pressure spike. I truly believe this.

 
 
 
Comment by snake charmer
2012-04-06 07:09:22

When I read the first two-thirds of today’s post, it felt like 2004 again. This is starting to read like Greek tragedy. I have just returned from Bogotá, Colombia, and I will give my thoughts on the housing bubble situation there once a few more comments have accumulated.

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-04-06 07:17:15

‘History says prices are likely to rise. By not acting now, certain buyers run the risk of being priced out down the road.’

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 07:19:00

History says greater fools will continue losing their shirts by acting on misleading advice.

 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2012-04-06 12:49:20

History says those who forget are doomed to repeat, repeat and repeat…

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 07:13:00

“On the other hand, young Americans aren’t exactly flush with cash.”

It helps A LOT to be a trust fund baby, or at least to have parents who are rich enough to float a couple of hundred thousand dollars in ‘down payment assistance’ to their kids. In fact, almost everyone I know who bought since 2005 is in this category.

Comment by oxide
2012-04-06 10:37:54

(not me..)

Comment by San Diego RE Bear
2012-04-06 13:07:19

(not me..)

Have you bought?

:D

Comment by oxide
2012-04-06 17:40:52

It was all the rage this morning. :roll:

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by ahansen
2012-04-06 20:40:48

ditto

 
 
Comment by zee_in_phx
2012-04-06 11:28:28

for their sake i hope the ‘young Americans’ have a ‘home maintenance fund’ to pay for that broken A/C or water heater or a bee infestation if they don’t want the luxury of throwing away money as rent.

It amazes me to read about people scraping to get enough for a downpayment, but than what happens if the unexpected bills arrive right after they move into the new digs - gives me shudders to think of what the family in the “Jungle” went thru just trying to keep their house.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-04-06 11:42:49

House behind me was an all-cash purchase back in 2006. Buyer was a University of Arizona business student, and I doubt that he had the money laying around. More likely a parental HELOC.

Any-hoo, he tried to sell the place in ‘07. Didn’t happen. He started renting it out. Had four sets of renters in there, and two were okay. The latter two were groups of college kids, and let’s just say that I don’t miss them.

I might add that while the place was being rented to college kids, the owner made two more attempts to sell. Neither attempt was successful, and that includes the rent-to-own deal he offered in late 2010/early 2011.

After the last set of college kids moved out last summer, he and a girlfriend/wife/I’m not sure moved in. I’ve never heard a peep out of them, and I sure do like that in a neighbor.

 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-04-06 07:15:40

Here’s some interesting things:

‘the houses, which range from $400,000 to $700,000…average 4,000 square feet sit on half-acre lots. Jim Hilz, Builders Industry Association of Central Ohio’s executive director, said another trend he hopes to bring back this year is a booming house market’

‘More than two dozen condominium projects, including five in Broward and Palm Beach counties, are being added to the South Florida skyline in the next few years. By the end of 2012, as many as 10,000 units could be in the planning stages, the firm said’

As long as prices are above equilibrium, the market will create more supply than needed. And probably not match the type of housing to what’s needed. This is the fundamental flaw in what the govt is doing; digging a deeper hole.

‘parents also know that their property gains come at a cost: their children’s property pain’

Then there’s this; who will they sell to?

‘I just think it’s an astonishing gift to the wealthy and it has perverse effects on the housing market…the incentives are just wrong.’

We’re not talking about minor incentives, either.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 07:17:50

“As long as prices are above equilibrium, the market will create more supply than needed. And probably not match the type of housing to what’s needed. This is the fundamental flaw in what the govt is doing; digging a deeper hole.”

Most amazing aspect of this point you keep raising: Any government economist, much less anyone who managed to pass a first undergraduate college microeconomics course, knows it is true.

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-04-06 07:38:25

This is supply/demand curves in action. Does south Florida need 10,000 more condos? I read the other day that Miami has almost 5,000 condos unsold from before. And many of those sold the last couple of years are empty investment units.

Does Ohio need more 4,000 sq ft houses that cost 400-700k? Why are they being built? As long as there is profit, they will be built. The price has to fall, and stay down long enough, to dissuade those involved to hold off.

Why is this being ignored by economists? That Samuelson article this week may explain that; that certain economists see themselves as agents of social change.

Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-04-06 07:44:14

Ben–tried searching for the Samuelson article. What’s the title?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-04-06 07:49:56

It’s a Washington Post writers group article I found in the Times Dispatch. I misspoke, he said agents of social progress:

‘Samuelson: Causes of the financial crisis’

‘The problem for economists is that the crisis has, to some extent, reaffirmed this dour and previously discredited view. Prolonged prosperity from 1983 to 2007 bred bad habits and overconfidence. This does not mean that we know nothing or that we have no tools to combat savage recessions; after all, we did avoid a second Great Depression. But it does mean that one promise of modern economics — to extend economic expansions and shorten slumps — can create the conditions for its own failure. Although the conclusion is obvious, economists ignore it. The most likely reason is that it undermines their self-appointed role as agents of social progress.’

 
 
 
 
Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-04-06 07:34:15

“Negative gearing payments made by the Australian Commonwealth government to landlords suffering a loss went from $600 million in the 2001-02 tax year to some $3.9 billion in 2004-05. This was also a 50% increase on the previous year.”

Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-04-06 07:47:09

This is amazing. If I understand this correctly, it’s like buying stock on margin only if you lose money on your rental property, the Australian government makes it up to you. What a boondoggle.

Comment by 2banana
2012-04-06 08:40:18

I think it has more to do with rent control.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-04-06 14:15:23

Kind of hard for me to believe it’s rent control. A loss of $600 million in the 2001-02 tax year to some $3.9 billion in 2004-05 sounds more like investors paying way too much for property.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 07:15:49

“A four-bedroom home in South Lake Tahoe, California, changed hands in early March for $540,000, after having sold for $875,000 in 2004.”

(540/875-1)*100% = -38%.

Nice haircut!

Comment by b-hamster
2012-04-06 08:59:56

Living in Tahoe at that time was crazy. It’s all people talked about - from busboys to insurance salesmen. My LL there invested in three properties at the peak of the market (the busboy at Harrahs - but he was going qto inherit a cool million). A zero-lot 200sf shack on Ski Run was going for a quarter million.

Looks like it’s ready to happen again.

Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2012-04-06 12:52:06

Because rumors of Winter Olympics returning to Lake Tahoe

 
 
Comment by San Diego RE Bear
2012-04-06 13:23:53

Ok, so Vail’s fallen about 50% and Tahoe about 40%. Does anyone really believe they are done falling? These are 2nd homes and the number of people who can afford this kind of conspicuous consumer have fallen greatly from both HELOC withdrawal and the general economic downturn.

I think places like San Diego need to fall 50% to get back in line and San Diego has a real economy and jobs. Vacation holes where prices doubled, tripled and more seem like they need more than a 50% correction now that Joe Sixpack can no longer play wealthy lord of the manor.

Am I wrong?

Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-04-06 14:22:00

“These are 2nd homes and the number of people who can afford this kind of conspicuous consumer have fallen greatly”

I don’t know about Tahoe and Vail, but in Aspen there are whole neighborhoods where the houses are not just the second home, but the eighth home and are used only about two weeks out of the year.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-04-06 15:22:13

I don’t know about Tahoe and Vail, but in Aspen there are whole neighborhoods where the houses are not just the second home, but the eighth home and are used only about two weeks out of the year.

Tucson’s Catalina Foothills is like that.

And, wouldn’t ya know it, I had a friend with personal experience in dealing with such houses. He was a general contractor and said that the owners of said homes had to hire local people to, get this, air the houses out now and then.

Yep, that’s right. A paid gig to open windows and doors at somebody else’s house.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2012-04-06 19:05:16

I guess the Canadian and Chinese buyers are pinch hitting for the missing Californian slice of second home demand?

 
Comment by ahansen
2012-04-06 20:48:42

Nope. You’re not wrong. A lot of these S. Tahoe houses are second homes purchased by upper level CALPERS employees, (professors, admins, etc.

Guess where they’re going these days? Hint: It’s not skiing…. 50% haircuts since 2006, and that’s just the beginning.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 07:22:05

“‘You’d think the builders would have studied the market so we don’t fall into the same situation that we had before,’ she said.”

So many people seem completely oblivious to the efforts by the Fed and Uncle Sam to prop up the market. Shouldn’t they be aware of the risk that market manipulation will fail, over the long run?

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 07:24:26

Report from Oz: ‘We’re squeezing younger people out but at the same time we seem to be enabling people to buy two, three and four.’

So the U.S. is not the only place where smart investors are snapping up multiple houses, while young families are squeezed out of the market?

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 07:29:01

“‘We’re constraining supply, and shovelling up demand to people who already have money, and making it more difficult for their children to access home ownership,’ he said.”

My God that sounds familiar!

 
Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-04-06 07:38:56

“So the U.S. is not the only place where smart investors are snapping up multiple houses, while young families are squeezed out of the market?”

And then the young families either get to rent these poorly managed, overpriced houses or buy the overpriced dumps so that the “smart” investors can live in all the best property.

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-04-06 08:06:50

It’s happening everywhere which negates the argument it’s all our government’s fault. It’s only the governments’ fault in that any polititian that threatens standing up to this ubiquitous banking cartel are summarily eliminated from the field. What we have left are the syncophants.

Comment by Professor Bear
2012-04-06 08:31:56

It could be that governments everywhere make similar stupid mistakes.

Comment by 2banana
2012-04-06 08:42:34

Name me a country that has NOT bail out its banks and printed money like crazy?

I can think of just a handful.

Iceland is one. My guess is that housing is affordable there…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ahansen
2012-04-06 20:50:42

You’d be wrong.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 12:21:19

OPINION
October 3, 2008

How Government Stoked the Mania
Housing prices would never have risen so high without multiple Washington mistakes.
By RUSSELL ROBERTS

Many believe that wild greed and market failure led us into this sorry mess. According to that narrative, investors in search of higher yields bought novel securities that bundled loans made to high-risk borrowers. Banks issued these loans because they could sell them to hungry investors. It was a giant Ponzi scheme that only worked as long as housing prices were on the rise. But housing prices were the result of a speculative mania. Once the bubble burst, too many borrowers had negative equity, and the system collapsed.

Part of this story is true. The fall in housing prices did lead to a sudden increase in defaults that reduced the value of mortgage-backed securities. What’s missing is the role politicians and policy makers played in creating artificially high housing prices, and artificially reducing the danger of extremely risky assets.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 12:56:30

This is a truly awesome article and one that I had never seen before. Russell Roberts used to be a professor at my wife’s alma mater.

…before we conclude that markets failed, we need a careful analysis of public policy’s role in creating this mess. Greedy investors obviously played a part, but investors have always been greedy, and some inevitably overreach and destroy themselves. Why did they take so many down with them this time?

Part of the answer is a political class greedy to push home-ownership rates to historic highs — from 64% in 1994 to 69% in 2004. This was mostly the result of loans to low-income, higher-risk borrowers. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, abetted by Congress, trumpeted that rise as it occurred. The consequence? On top of putting the entire financial system at risk, the hidden cost has been hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the housing market instead of more productive assets.

Beware of trying to do good with other people’s money. Unfortunately, that strategy remains at the heart of the political process, and of proposed solutions to this crisis.

Mr. Roberts is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a scholar at the Mercatus Center. His latest book is a novel on how markets work, “The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity” (Princeton University Press, 2008).

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2012-04-07 07:55:55

from 64% in 1994 to 69% in 2004. This was mostly the result of loans to low-income, higher-risk borrowers. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, abetted by Congress ??

I would like to see the numbers because I don’t believe that this is accurate…As I recall, the Dot-Com rage did have some impact on home prices but I do not think it had that much impact on the percentage of home ownership…

The real change started in early 2000’s…Specifically around 2004 was when I noticed it…At that time I was selling a few townhomes that I owned…I was brought zero down offers by realtors and I rejected them…I never saw such a thing and did not believe it could be done..I had seen minimum down with FHA or VA but never had I seen 100% financed transactions with a 80% 1st and a 20% 2nd…All by the same lender on top of that !!

Well, after doing some research I did find that these transactions were closing so I relented and accepted a few and they did in fact close…It just got worse as the years went by with both ridicules financing and escalating prices..

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by 2banana
2012-04-06 08:32:50

Better be able to call Mike’s parent’s at least once per year for another gift.

Your property taxes ALONE are going to $15,000/year in Clifton, NJ

Newlyweds Mike and Jessica Sental landed a new home in Clifton, New Jersey, last summer. The couple was house hunting but having trouble coming up with enough for the down payment. They had about $30,000 stashed away, roughly 10 percent of the purchase price, but needed a little more to appease lenders. That’s when Mike’s parents stepped in with $15,000 worth of help.”

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-04-06 08:50:38

‘property taxes ALONE are going to $15,000/year in Clifton, NJ’

But at least they won’t be throwing money away on rent.

Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2012-04-06 12:53:38

Ha! Another generation being brain washed to buy because renting is throwing away money

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 19:07:14

It boggles the mind how so many people can be so dumb, yet can afford to buy homes that cost mega $100Ks.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by nickpapageorgio
2012-04-06 22:16:09

It’s funny, I have been throwing my money away on rent since 2005 but I seem to have more liquid cash and less debt than any of my colleagues, friends and family who “own” homes.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 23:22:56

Interestingly, my three sisters all own homes; one owns two homes free and clear, a second has a paid-off home, and a third one owns a condo with a very manageable monthly payment.
One upshot is that our household is the only one among those of four siblings which has thrown away money on rent since 2005; a second upshot is that all of us are employed, and none of us are drowning in debt. Though not rich, we are blessed with the virtues of frugality and financial stability, for which I thank my parents and grandparents for setting outstanding examples.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by nickpapageorgio
2012-04-07 00:13:46

You’re lucky. I am the only member of my family not drowning in debt, I tried for years to push the others towards the light, I failed. They need lottery money, very sad.

 
 
Comment by JQ
2012-04-07 22:09:33

Gives you a strange feeling doesn’t it? By resting society’s pressure to buy a home you’re actually better off.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by 2banana
2012-04-06 08:36:49

Does anyone ever realize that Harlem was THE place to live in NYC. That is where all the rich used to have to buy a house? Of course, that was the 1880s-1930s.

I wonder what those housing conversations were like back in the day?

“‘I know people say ‘location, location, location,’ but you’ve also got to think about potential,’ Ms. Benedict says, noting that she sees a Harlem-like transformation as a possibility for St. Joseph’s Downtown area. ‘This is diamonds in the rough … these really cool, funky, neat neighborhoods that will skyrocket in value once our Downtown really pops.’”

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-04-06 09:07:21

I was just thinking about Harlem the other day and whether it’s possible to have a civil discussion on social norms and property values. And why Harlem isn’t insanely expensive when it has everything going for it.

Comment by polly
2012-04-06 10:23:42

Harlem is insanely expensive. It wasn’t in the early 90’s, but that was because it was fracking dangrous back then. And no functional grocery stores.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-04-06 12:30:16

Really? What about relative to the rest of Manhattan?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by polly
2012-04-06 15:42:49

I lived on 119th and Morningside for two years. You could hear gun shots in the park. The rest of New York? It was a little more “interesting” (business mix) than it is now, but I had no problems that couldn’t be handled easily by a short woman who is no athlete. I used the subway late at night/early in the morning with no issues and walked all over the place to get to whatever I wanted to see. But when I wanted to take the subway through Harlem to get to a chorus rehersal, one of my classmates who was also in the chorus informed me that I was going to travel with him, no arguments. He was right.

I tried to get groceries at the store that was north of my apartment (just into Harlem) rather than going south toward the university only once. The shelves were 70% bare.

In a public health class I took years later, the morbidity stats for the South Bronx (pretty similar to Harlem at the time) were comparable to (I think it was) Bangladesh.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-04-06 15:48:47

I meant expensive-wise.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2012-04-06 11:01:27

“… the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.”

Is the hair-of-the-dog hangover cure going out of fashion?

More Subsidies for Housing? Sounds Like a Hair-of-the-Dog Cure
By Kevin Villani
FEB 14, 2012 1:32pm ET

The housing market continues to suffer from a painful and prolonged hangover commensurate with its worst binge in U.S. history and many politicians and Fed officials are anxious for a housing rebound to pull the rest of the economy along.

This hangover has thus far been nursed with more of the same cheap money and lavish subsidies on which the housing market previously binged. During his State of the Union address President Obama promised additional subsidies to about 3 million refinancing homeowners of an average of about $3,000 annually — to be paid for with a “small tax” on the too-big-too-fail commercial banks — estimated at $5 billion to $10 billion per bank.

Several weeks earlier, a Fed white paper also proposed a variety of other new housing subsidies recently supported in congressional testimony by Chairman Bernanke before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises chaired by Congressman Scott Garrett.

The HUD budget shows an average outlay of about $30 billion annually for housing subsidies during the last decade, but this is only the tip of the iceberg as most housing subsidies are provided with a combination of tax and regulatory favoritism that total about several hundred billion dollars annually.

The federal mortgage interest tax deduction is the largest of these, averaging about $60 billion. In addition, the federal government provides a variety of tax credits for low income housing, historic preservation, etc., and the biggest tax subsidy for rental housing is the ability to shield income by accelerating non-cash “passive” losses due to depreciation on rental housing and paying the lower capital gains rate on deferred recognition of income. These tax benefits cost about the same in total as the homeowner mortgage deduction. State and local housing subsidies provided by tax credits, tax exempt financing, and low-income set-asides for redevelopment agencies also contribute opaquely

Low capital requirements for mortgage lenders are the single biggest and least transparent source of home ownership subsidies, providing about $50 billion annually during the last decade to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and an additional $30 billion annually to commercial banks. Equity capital is more expensive than debt both because interest — but not dividends — are deductable and because equity requires a higher yield to compensate for the additional risk. About half of this subsidy reflected the tax savings and half the implicit backing of debt provided by agency status and deposit insurance that made debt cheap, as Fannie, Freddie, the large banks and investment banks were all considered too big to fail. Capital subsidies have likely grown to more than $100 billion annually as the government role has expanded to cover about 95% of the home mortgage market.

All housing subsidies drive up prices, but it was the increase in capital subsidies that caused the recent bubble in house prices, predominantly in the areas with restrictive growth covenants. Bursting this bubble was the immediate cause of the U.S. financial crisis, which spread systemically and precipitated the global economic recession.

The new proposed subsidies are small in comparison to existing subsidies of approximately $250 billion annually, but house prices still haven’t reached their pre-bubble trend line and are propped up by massive ongoing capital subsidies as well as the myriad forbearance and legal roadblocks to foreclosure and the Fed’s ongoing zero interest rate policy. The U.S. housing market remains addicted to subsidies and the withdrawal pains will undoubtedly be severe. Mortgage borrowing costs will likely rise by several percent to cover the higher cost of capital, and house prices will continue to fall, possibly well below their long term trend line for several years. This will increase the pain of negative equity for existing borrowers, further reducing bank profits. Keynes quipped that “in the long run we are all dead,” and more Keynesian stimulus may well dull the short run election year pain, but we may already be approaching the long run when additional subsidies prevent detoxification and recovery.

Comment by Professor Bear
2012-04-06 11:28:48

Kevin Villani was senior vice president and chief economist at Freddie Mac from 1982 to 1985.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-04-06 11:45:55

In other words, consider the source. Far be it for anyone from Freddie Mac to say anything bad about homeownership.

Comment by Professor Bear
2012-04-06 11:52:27

I was also interested in the time lag between when he worked there and now. I suspect a lot of paradigm shifting has gone down at Freddie Mac since 1985.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-04-06 14:38:22

“a housing rebound to pull the rest of the economy along”

Here we have this gem again. As many have commented, mistaking the cart for the horse.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 19:08:29

Mistaking the string for the string pusher…

 
 
 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2012-04-06 12:59:14

Hurry buy now before prices and interest rates go up:

Going fast: Strong demand has melted away inventory in some housing markets

http://realestate.msn.com/going-fast-strong-demand-has-melted-away-inventory-in-some-housing-markets

Sorry forgot how to shorten web page address

Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-04-06 14:44:07

And according to the article, one of the top 10 cities where demand is highest is Birmingham, AL?! I didn’t know everyone wanted to live there.

 
 
Comment by San Diego RE Bear
2012-04-06 13:03:53

Dear God I’m going into diabetic shock from all the Kool-Aid being consumed here.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-06 23:24:51

It was a pretty overwhelming day of posts…

 
 
Comment by NYCResident
2012-04-07 01:44:55

Harlem has experienced quite a boom over the past couple of decades, but even brand new condos are cheaper there then in the most desirable areas of Brooklyn. Non-Americans or Americans who gentrified once scary neighborhoods like the Lower East Side are more likely to gamble on owning in Harlem. I’ve known some who’ve abandoned efforts. A lot of young Americans go straight to Brooklyn or else bypass Harlem for Upstate Manhattan (Washington Heights).

 
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