Who the f*ck in their right mind would be out signing their name to a mortgage on a depreciating asset today?

September 02, 2007

Who the f*ck in their right mind would be out signing their name to a mortgage on a depreciating asset today?

Just wondering...

71 comments:

Paul E. Math said...: You've sort of answered your own question, Keith. This whole bubble occurred because people were not in their right minds. That's the nature of a mania - everyone latches onto the same false and irrational belief at the same time.

What's that quote from Charles McKay? "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one".; September 02, 2007 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: OJ Jurors

Bush supporters

Yankee fans; September 02, 2007 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Greg Swann clients; September 02, 2007 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: People who listen to Jim Cramer,what a bald-headed morrin!; September 02, 2007 3:40 PM
Osman said...: Obviously, you should use caution in a market with massively bloated inventory and slow sales (i.e. a former bubble market). But that doesn't describe everywhere in the country. So, off the top of my head, here are some of the motivations behind a few our recent clients (and friends).

- Plan to be the home for a long time, kids attend local schools, won't move in the foreseeable future.

-Former renters who anticipate steady/increasing income, at a minimum that will keep pace with inflation and who anticipate much higher interest rates/inflation in the future (i.e. want to lock in a fixed rate now).

-Buyer/former renters who have an ownership mindset and who realize that in most cases, buying beats renting in the long term. Couldn't imagine renting. Didn't want to fix up a rental, the social stigma of renting, or deal with landlord issues.

-Buyer/sellers who have cashed out of much more expensive markets on the coasts and see Colorado as a great place to retire. Could invest the cash but at 6.5% (or less), their other investments beat the mortgage market handily.

-Buyer/sellers who have moved here for work and can't imagine renting a home. Don't have that mindset. See renting as transitory. Their move is permanent.

-Buyer/sellers whose overall wealth has increased from investments and promotions and now wants more space, more luxury (closed last week on both properties).

-Sellers who bought a run-down home, enjoy the process of fixing it up into a turn-key home, and are now selling it. It's a project (80% completed).

-Seller/Buyers whose work/education commitments require relocation. Bought in their new town. Property is on the market here.; September 02, 2007 4:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Masochists?; September 02, 2007 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Blue state morons who think $400K for is cheap for a studio condo; September 02, 2007 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: OJ Jurors

Bush supporters

Yankee fans

September 02, 2007 3:30 PM

Man, I had a whole tirade going, but it can't get any simpler than this.

Last week my wife met the first Bush supporter ever that actually said so in public. A dearest friend of childhood. It almost caused a fist fight at the funeral.; September 02, 2007 5:02 PM
Anonymous said...: And the answer is -- Kids in their twenties with good-paying jobs who want a house NOW and don't listen to their older co-workers who tell them "Wait at least a year, home prices have nowhere to go but down".; September 02, 2007 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: You're all thinking like middle-class peons. In my city luxury homes and condos are still selling like crazy. The top end isn't going to feel a bit of discomfort over this little economic debacle, they'll continue snapping up condos and lofts in every cool city in the world.

After all, the top 5%-er's share of the pie has grown to consume most of it. They don't worry about downturns or interest rates. After 30 years of republican and republican-lite economic policies the New Feudal System is thriving in America.

Enjoy, peons! You voted for it!; September 02, 2007 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: I heard casey serin is back to flipping homes again.He is looking for underpriced homes with potential for quick gains.I think there are some investors comeing back into certain markets too.

Caveat Emptor!!!!!!!!!!; September 02, 2007 5:33 PM
Anonymous said...: my brother; September 02, 2007 5:42 PM
robert said...: Osman said...
“Obviously, you should use caution in a market with massively bloated inventory and slow sales (i.e. a former bubble market). But that doesn't describe everywhere in the country.”

Yea, yea, yea. Real estate is local. So I guess these “local” folks will just buy and sell to each other making everyone rich and eventually, end up in their original home.

“Real estate is local” was a REI mantra from a few months back and it help Joe Sixpack feel good about his potential purchase or, tried to validate his asking price. These “locals” count on new folks coming to the area but do not/did not realize that “new” folks have homes to sell from which they came, and guess what? It’s still on the market and losing value. First time buyers are simply priced out of the market given the tightened lending standards and that goes for the new folks to the area as well.

So yes, real estate is local, but national factors affect local prices. If not, why the national bail out? I didn’t hear GW mention specific states/towns that the FHASecure program was geared towards.; September 02, 2007 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: The stupid money hasn't left the market yet.

Remember it was only back in February where things just started to change with mortgage funding- up until then, literally *anybody* could get a loan for seven times their income with a 600 FICO. Now they are having a hard time getting funded- but they are still signing contracts (and still unable to close).

There are still a limited number of people who do qualify, and who get their financial "help" from greedy salespeople who claim to be advisors, agents, and economists:

http://www.amazon.com/All-Real-Estate-Local-Sellers/dp/0385519222

...all with the mantra that "while a few neighborhoods in the Inland Empire or Las Vegas may see some lack of appreciation, it's 'different here' in $DESIRABLE_LOCATION!" Then they go home to think about it, and watch another episode of Flip this House, and life imitates the Suzanne Researched This ad.

http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2007/08/22/suzanne-researched-this-part-2/

...and then they buy a $500,000 starter condo in a city with a median income of around $66,000.; September 02, 2007 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I love being a renter in metro Boston.

The more recent (post 2001) RE owners have all gone silent and don't talk to anyone anymore. It's the sound of the after office happy hour simply being about the Celtics trades or Sox postseason hopes but nada on the weekend home improvement projects. What a shift in mindset.

The others, who'd bought in the early 90s or 80s are simply annoyed with the whole property taxes scam (since they know that their little shacks aren't really worth $650K) but have to pay that 1-2% per annum regardless, while the renters, who're watching local mainstay companies like Boston Scientific, Fidelity, and Gillette pack up jobs and send them to the midwest/south (or even abroad), are looking pretty because paying at worst 3 months rent, to break a lease while maintaining the top shelf landlord "reference", isn't a biggie. Plus, since I pay rent a day before month's end, he's my best friend and always arrives promptly to fix the sink or window curtain. We have no fear of having to pack it up and move, to keep an income stream, whereas the others are petrified of layoffs and long term job dislocations.

My rent's $1200 for an 1200 sq ft place (heat/water included) whose cost of ownership was $450K or $2.7K (mortgage/tax/fees) per month with 15% down and no utilities.; September 02, 2007 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: A: People who have large precious metal positions.; September 02, 2007 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...: My nearing retirement aunt...; September 02, 2007 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Who's Greg SWan?; September 02, 2007 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Me for instance...

A. Gotta have a place to line, renting permanently is not acceptable to the spouse although it was OK betweening selling the old place and building the new one.

B. Bubble profits from sale of first house = roughly 30% cost of new. Basically free money, didn't have it 10 years ago and if it goes away over a couple years we're where we started.

C. Pretty enticing incentive packages by the builders, compared to 2 years ago you're getting a 20-25% better deal.

D. Mortgage less than 50% of puchase price, less than 2 times income, fixed rate 6.25%.

Like I said, don't really care what happens this year, next year or the year after. 20 or 30 years is my time horizon...; September 02, 2007 7:37 PM
Frank R said...: Easy:

Insecure people, the type who reside in Scottsdale, Arizona for example.

They believe that home debtorship is the ultimate status symbol, and without being able to say "I own! I own!" they feel inferior and worthless.

Just my .02 based on 7 years of living in Arizona.; September 02, 2007 7:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do blue state morons think $500,000 starter homes are cheap? I thought these were supposed to be sophisticated, worldly, and highly educated people? Don't worry, Hitlary will bail out you village idiots.; September 02, 2007 8:08 PM
Unknown said...: The same type of dumb people who got us in this mess.

I have a buddy who is a podiatrist and wife is RN nurse. They make a decent wage together, but whatever they make, they borrow 10x the bring home.

They live in an apartment yet drive a brand new 120k Porsche GT3 and brand new 90k E63, and park it in the street.

I can't knock them for living in an apt, but in this case it's not by choice :)

They say they're looking into buying a million dollar house though, looking for 100% financing.; September 02, 2007 8:08 PM
Frank R said...: Since osman is obviously a realtor (or very pro-realtor) I felt the need to respond ... the arguments you put up are entirely based on emotion, not logic, and that is what gets people into trouble:

-Former renters who anticipate steady/increasing income, at a minimum that will keep pace with inflation

These are exactly the kind of people who are going bankrupt now, because they bought more house than they could afford with the pipe-dream that their incomes would magically go up and they'd be able to make the payments.

- Couldn't imagine renting. Didn't want to fix up a rental, the social stigma of renting

Ah-ha! You said it! You're talking about the insecure loser types of people in places such as Scottsdale, who have severely fragile egos and just couldn't imagine going to a cocktail party or some pretentious nightclub and admitting to renting!!!

These people drove the housing bubble in the riskiest markets, all in the name of status and ego, and now they're getting wiped out hard.

You're also saying "don't want to fix up a rental" when in reality it's owners who have to fix crap, not renters; if something breaks I call the landlord and by law they have 24 hours to fix it.

The idea that all rentals are fixer-uppers is laughable when I'm now renting a $1.2M brand new McMcMansion for less than 1/2 what it would cost me to "buy" it ... and that's not even counting the down payment, taxes, insurance, etc etc etc.

-Seller/Buyers whose work/education commitments require relocation. Bought in their new town.

Actually, anyone with half a brain rents in a new, strange city first to get the lay of the land and decide where they want to settle down. I relocated to Orange County six months ago and the #2 reason I'm renting (#1 is that I'm in a depreciating market) is because the choice of nice places to live around here is staggering and overwhelming and the only way I could possibly decide for sure is by renting first and checking out the area.

This is the case with any intelligent person who relocates, except of course those who are egomaniacs and pretentious and, as you said, "don't want the social stigma of renting."

(I'm still wondering, WHAT social stigma? I certainly don't suffer from that. But then again, I'm not some status-conscious insecure person.)

-Buyer/sellers whose overall wealth has increased from investments

These types of people are the ones who are smart enough not to buy right now. Anyone who has worked for their money will look at the hard numbers and see that renting is a better deal right now. Is buying better in the long-term? Yes, *IF* the fundamentals are there, and right now they're not.

The bottom line is that your post demonstrates people who buy for EMOTION and not LOGIC, and that is who gets killed in markets like this. I like what Kiyosaki says: "The purchase of a home is an emotional thing, and as emotions go up, IQ goes down."; September 02, 2007 8:10 PM
Anonymous said...: The same people who have upside-down car leases and don't know a thing as basic as Time Value of Money.; September 02, 2007 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: ": Blue state morons who think $400K for is cheap for a studio condo"

I didn't know that FLORIDA and ARIZONA became blue states. Thanks for the heads up, Republican-family values public restroom pervert-jesus freak sheeple. Now go check under the bed to see if there's any bogeyman terrorist hiding. If so, call Giuliana to "save" you from the bogeyman.

Man, this country is going down fast with these hicks allowed to vote. Please, do the planet a favor and don't breed!; September 02, 2007 8:17 PM
Anonymous said...: .Who the f*ck in their right mind would be out signing their name to a mortgage on a depreciating asset today?

Last fall a similar question was asked "Is there anyone dumb enough to be out shopping for a house right now???"

I learned later that one of my friends was, in fact he bought a few weeks later. I think now he realizes it was a major f'up.

Too bad, he should have read housing panic.; September 02, 2007 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: BUSHIES; September 02, 2007 8:21 PM
Anonymous said...: The Baby Boomers who are destroying earth.; September 02, 2007 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Keith, could you post the youtube video from miss South Carolina to illustrate what's wrong with the US?; September 02, 2007 8:24 PM
Anonymous said...: The New World Order plan is right on track:

"Housing troubles worsen for the poor

The numbers of low-income families devoting high levels of income to housing costs are soaring, according to a new study.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The housing boom may have ended, but even at its peak, it left legions of low-income, working families worse off in its wake.

According to a new study from the Center for Housing Policy (CHP), an affiliation of the National Housing Conference (NHC), the percentage of low income households forced to spend more than half their earnings for housing needs exploded as housing prices boomed.

From 1997 to 2005, the study said, the number of low-income workers who rented their homes and spent more than half their income on housing more than doubled to 2.1 million from about 1 million.

Most experts recommend not spending more than 36 percent of your net income on housing costs.

Low-income homeowners fared slightly better; there were 2.4 million of them in 2005, 75 percent more than the 1.4 million in 1997, according to the study.

Many people mistakenly think affordability problems are limited to the hottest markets, such as California and New York, according to Barbara Lipman, research director for the NHC. "No place is immune," she said. "It occurs even in very reasonably priced housing markets, like Pittsburgh and Indianapolis."

The median price of a single family house soared by about 86 percent from 1997 to 2005, according to statistics from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Housing prices hit their peak in 2005, when they jumped almost 13 percent for the year.

"Home prices went up far faster than any wage growth," said Lipman, "especially among low-income families, whose real wages have either risen anemically or actually fallen."

Median U.S. wages inched up only 25 percent in nominative dollars over the eight-year period, according to the CHP study, while the cost of living increased 22 percent.

The percentage of low-income homeowners - those earning at least the minimum wage but no more than 120 percent of the median income for an area (in a hot market like Los Angeles) - who spent more than half their income on housing reached 31.9 percent in 2005.

Rents did not climb quite as quickly as home prices did during the years from 1997 through 2005, but, by 2005, more than 20 percent of low-income renters still devoted more than half their wages to housing costs in Anaheim, Calif. (20.6 percent) and Los Angeles (20.3 percent), according to the report.

The CHP report, which covered 31 metro areas, also found that 24.2 percent of working class homeowners in New York spent more than half their income on housing."; September 02, 2007 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Those idiots who are in competition/show-off with their cousines, sisters, brothers, co-workers and name it.; September 02, 2007 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Lots of small midwestern towns didn't really participate in the boom, and therefore prices are only up about 1-2% per year. In those markets, buying can be an okay deal.

In Minneapolis, by contrast, prices have outpaced rents, but only by a little. If home prices come down about another 10-15% (additional), then buying is about break-even with renting, even before tax considerations.; September 02, 2007 9:18 PM
Frank R said...: I didn't know that FLORIDA and ARIZONA became blue states.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Arizona actually *has* become a blue state. That's why I left for California after seven years. If I'm stuck with true blue through and through, I'd rather suffer by the beach instead of in the desert.; September 02, 2007 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: The same fools that want incentives like cars, vacations and big screens included in the purchase price of their home so they can pay higher property taxes and home insurance.; September 02, 2007 9:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Quote: Sellers who bought a run-down home, enjoy the process of fixing it up into a turn-key home, and are now selling it.

Maybe that will be good business in a few years, when all those empty unflipped houses have decayed a bit?

Maybe i should stock up on tools, nails, lumber etc now before there's a price bubble in hardware?; September 02, 2007 10:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Talk to my brother in law and sister in law.

They are dead set with buying an overpriced home in Boston.

I tried to talk to them about what is going on. We even went to the classifieds and found lots of nice $750000 - $1 million dollar homes that they could rent for $2800 - $3500/month. It didn't matter, everything I said they just countered with "that's not a real listing - it's a bait and switch" and "median home prices are only down 1%".

Even when I told them they should look at foreclosure auctions(I sent them an article showing 1/3 of all homesales in Boston have been foreclosure sales this year) as an option to save some money, they immediately dismissed it because they said the only areas that have foreclosures are places they wouldn't want to live anyway.

They were absolutely convinced that things were different in Boston. They've already made up their minds.

The only good thing here is that they're waiting until the spring and they still have to sell their 2 bedroom condo before they can buy anything.

I'm hoping that by the spring they'll see what I've been telling them and maybe they won't make the biggest financial mistake of their lives.

It also doesn't help that my father in law and mother in law think I'm the black sheep because we sold our house in Santa Fe last year and are waiting for the market to correct before buying again (probably 2009).

Jymkata; September 02, 2007 10:28 PM
Anonymous said...: SoFla, where most of the bubbling oozed, is blue. Palm Beach, Dade and Broward is where those morons couldn't figure out how to use a ballot. That is also ground zero of the dot-condo craze. The Arizona and Vegas flippers came from Clownifornia.; September 02, 2007 10:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Dummycrats are still paying $500K for starter homes in Clownifornia and begging for bailouts.

The same morons who couldn't outsmart a butterfly ballot are having the same problems reading loan papers. What a surprise.

Don't worry, Hitlary Clintoon and Barrack Osama will bail you out after they finish bailing out Goldman Sachs; September 02, 2007 10:39 PM
Anonymous said...: bailout for the subslime scum who lost their american dream of lifetime debt slavery

empty suit osama obama will save you; September 02, 2007 10:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Me! Will wait about two more months then dive in. Just tracking the price of houses in Southwest Florida (Naples area), the house I liked a year ago has fallen from around $320K to about $250K, with text in the listing like "Must sell now!", "Bank owned property" and "Pre-foreclosure".

Everyone likes a deal, particularly if it has Southwest Florida weather and a pool with a lanai!; September 02, 2007 10:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Equity locusts from California are invading the Pacific NW and buying homes because they look like a good deal comparatively. Hope they like the rain, meth and unemployment.; September 02, 2007 11:15 PM
Anonymous said...: So, HP has apparently been invaded by the anti-war, anti-bush, anti-family weirdos. The conservatives we know are ALL debt free and living modestly, even though we are "breeders" (jealous?). The libs we know are all living off the government teat and are constantly looking for a hand out. True conservatives don't expect (or want) the government to get involved. Save it for dailykos, please. This is about housing and about facts. If I wanted lies and liberal, anti-christian slants I would be watching or reading MSM.; September 02, 2007 11:20 PM
Anonymous said...: I need a house for my Hummer; September 02, 2007 11:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Through-out most of the world now, housing prices have *far* exceeded salaries - creating a barrier of entry for those wanting to get into a first-time house, even with very good salaries.

Now, we're seeing why this was such a huge mistake.

The level-headed economists out there know that's it's in the best interest for *all* if we let the market perform price corrections.

As 2008 approaches we'll start seeing the housing correction move into over-drive.; September 02, 2007 11:46 PM
Anonymous said...: they still signed and they're in their right mind. the only thing is they couldn't figure it out, because they're stupid.; September 03, 2007 12:09 AM
Anonymous said...: "The bottom line is that your post demonstrates people who buy for EMOTION and not LOGIC"

You know, MOST women I run into think emotionally and not logically.

My best friend Jenny, and all her friends bought a house, and NOW I WANT ONE !!!! Im entitled to a house dammit !!!!!!!

Suzanne: You SUCK ! And I hope you lost ALL your friends!

snicker.; September 03, 2007 12:20 AM
Anonymous said...: You are not going to believe this one, I live in Fresno, CA, a textbook bubble town.

Some family members have come up with the genius idea of raiding all their savings, retirement accounts, etc. and pouring it all into a million dollar home which will "surely be worth $2M when we are ready to retire in 10 years."

It ain't gonna be pretty.; September 03, 2007 12:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Home Prices May Drop by Half in Some U.S. Cities, Shiller Says

Homes may lose as much as half their value in some U.S. cities as the housing bust deepens, according to Yale University professor Robert Shiller.

``The examples we have of past cycles indicate that major declines in real home prices -- even 50 percent declines in some places -- are entirely possible going forward from today or from the not too distant future,'' Shiller wrote in a paper presented today at an economic symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Depreciating real-estate values may undermine consumer spending by spurring households to save more and by preventing them from tapping home equity. Residential property prices slid by the most in at least two decades in the second quarter as sales declined, a private report showed this week.

Because price gains were larger and more widespread this time compared with past speculative booms, the risk of ``substantial'' price declines is greater, wrote Shiller, also the chief economist and co-founder of MacroMarkets LLC.

``The implications of this boom and its possible reversal in coming years stands as a serious issue for economic policy makers,'' Shiller said in his presentation to the conference, which is organized by the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said earlier in his opening speech to the conference that the Fed ``will act as needed'' should a sustained tightening in credit threaten the economy.

Worst on Record

The home-price gauge that Shiller and Wellesley College economics professor Karl Case established based on research from the 1980s fell by a record in the second quarter. The S&P/Case- Shiller index dropped 3.2 percent in the period after falling 1.6 percent the previous three months. The series goes back to 1987.

Shiller noted that 50 percent declines in the worth of some cities' homes wouldn't be unprecedented. Prices in London and Los Angeles fell by almost that amount from the late 1980s to mid- 1990s.

U.S. home values, adjusted for inflation, rose 86 percent from the end of 1996 to early 2006, the peak of the most recent housing boom, Shiller said. Economic factors such as rents and construction costs don't appear to explain the jump in prices, suggesting ``speculative thinking'' and a ``boom psychology'' was at work. ``Extravagant'' expectations for future price increases since the late 1990s fueled the bubble, Shiller said.

Higher borrowing costs, declining affordability and a jump in the number of defaults among subprime borrowers have since sapped housing demand, leaving a glut of unsold properties. Excess inventories have taken the steam out of home prices.

Hit to Growth

Declining residential construction has subtracted from overall economic growth in each quarter since the beginning of 2006, cutting 0.6 percentage point off the expansion in the three months through June.

Shiller said it's still possible the declines in U.S. home values could soon reverse. The recovery in London prices in 2005 shows that speculative markets ``are inherently unpredictable.''

Some economists see the prospect for improvement in housing as prices come into line with demand and excess inventories are worked off, which may happen as early as mid-2008. Lawrence Yun, senior economist at the National Association of Realtors, said an increase in sales and prices of existing homes in the Northeast during July may herald improvement.

Still, Shiller said it's ``not improbable'' there will be big declines stretching over many years in cities that saw large increases during the boom, he said.

``Since the number of cities involved in the recent boom is so much larger than in the last boom, we could see much more than the 15 percent real drop in real national home-price indices that we saw'' in the last housing recession in the 1990s, Shiller wrote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=20601068&sid=aji
DypEbLf5s&refer=economy; September 03, 2007 12:48 AM
Anonymous said...: TAX CHEATS AND CRIMINAL SCUM WHO DO NOT WANT TO VERIFY THEIR ILLEGAL INCOME; September 03, 2007 1:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Special people in seattle/bellevue; September 03, 2007 1:56 AM
Anonymous said...: I am absolutely convinced that the Democrats will save America. They are for the working people and will put an end to capitalism. The NASDAQ will come roaring back like 1999 and all will be well again. Make love, not war.; September 03, 2007 2:21 AM
Anonymous said...: "They were absolutely convinced that things were different in Boston."

Yep, I've heard it all before.

'We have Harvard, MIT, top hospitals, Fidelity Investments, State St Bank, yada, yada.' (a.k.a Boston Area Cult of Personality Mantra).

Now, here's the bad news...

MIT/Harvard startups have to have an offshoring partner for VC angel funding. I've heard this from local MCs and people who'd worked for places like Charles Rvr Ventures. In other words, the chances of a future DEC or Boston Scientific employing in the many thousands, in eastern MA, is over. It'll be mainly boutique, elite school graduate R&D shops with overseas partners from Singapore to Poland.

Next, Fidelity is moving 2K jobs, out of state, within the next five years. This is a fact, not a fantasy. Likewise Gillette (now owned by P&G) and Boston Scientific (USA's top medical stent firm) are also downsizing. Now, imagine when this subprime debacle filters into the town's largest pension/banking trust firm, State St (http://tinyurl.com/yrtsj6)?

Yes, Boston's different. It's experiencing a major decline for the first time in its modern history whereas Detroit, Philly, and LA had a head start. I suspect that it'll become a bigger New Haven down the road, an elite college, a few cutting edge research boutiques, but not much else in terms of sustainable growth.

-Boston Anon Rent, September 02, 2007 6:46 PM; September 03, 2007 2:53 AM
Anonymous said...: I work in the Mortgage industry and saw this storm coming a year and a half ago, so we signed a 2 year lease, which costs us less than HALF of what it would to purchase the same place.

Have to admit, I am getting tired of renting, because I really want to buy an awesome house and deck it out, but I can't let my emotions get the better of me, because it would be SO stupid to buy in Northern VA now. Prices are going to plummet over the next year, and we will swoop in when it's right!
Good luck to everyone in this shytt storm!!; September 03, 2007 4:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Damn it--I want my McMansion, and I want it NOWWW Bob Toll, but alas, patience will be key over this next year...
We will see MAAAJOR price declines over the next 2 years in most areas...guaranteed. If you bought recently, you are a SUCKA!!; September 03, 2007 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: "You're also saying "don't want to fix up a rental" when in reality it's owners who have to fix crap, not renters; if something breaks I call the landlord and by law they have 24 hours to fix it."

Where do you get your information? I agree with about two of the points on your thesis, but this is the point where I have to say - huh? By law? I own several properties and have very good tenants, however I can't think of any state's Landlord Tenant law that dictates by legal mandate that we HAVE to fix anything! The only time we must fix things is if it a safety or health issue. It is a good law of economics to keep your tenant happy, but your WAY out of line that ANY landlord has to fix something wrong in 24 hours by LAW.

And as far as the reasons you state that someone is pro realtor if they do not agree with you that everyone must rent or they are a loser is ridiculus. I am a landlord, and would love it if everyone rented. Demand would go up, supply would go down, and I would have a lot of money, but you need to understand - not EVERYONE buys a house as an investment. And if your time frame of purchase is 5 years or more, and you like it, then go for it. You live in a house. Or you invest in a house for the long term. This mess was caused by banks first, then Realtwhores second, then people third. If the banks did't give away money, the realtors would not have been able to "sell" what they did and the people would not have qualified no matter how broke or how much they lied. Property values would have remained tied to fundamentals, and the bubble would not exist.

Please lie blame where it belongs, but don't insult people that may just want to own a home.; September 03, 2007 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: the wheels are slowly grinding to a halt. (emphasis on slowly).

Just do not be here when they stop.; September 03, 2007 6:36 AM
Anonymous said...: The 30 million illegals, that is who.

Bank of America is taking the lead but other lesser known lenders must be loaning money to illegals just to make paper and stay in business. So what if the loans go bust?

No social security number = no risk for messing up your credit.; September 03, 2007 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Anybody with an IQ below 50. Sounds like alot of the flippers I know.; September 03, 2007 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Their ancestors bought tulips, runs in the family.; September 03, 2007 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: My mom has a friend who's husband died recently. This couple bought a house in Fremont,CA in January 07'.

This elderly friend of my moms mentioned that she wants to sell this house because it's now too large for her, and wonders if she can get a new loan for another home....she's 79 years old!!

She will be for a rude awakening when she finds out that:

1)The house is worth less than what they paid for it.

2) She now lost her husbands half of the 250K exemption. Capital gains will be higher

3)No bank in their right mind will give an 80 year old widow a new loan.; September 03, 2007 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Resisting Husband said:"Some family members have come up with the genius idea of raiding all their savings, retirement accounts, etc. and pouring it all into a million dollar home which will "surely be worth $2M when we are ready to retire in 10 years."

I believe it...I heard of people drained their 401K's to buy a house.

Wasnt the law changed to allow a 401k "cash out" to purchase a house, college or for medical hardship?

Thanks Greenspan!; September 03, 2007 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: One word: SHEEPLE!; September 03, 2007 5:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Laurav:

There is no longer a need for an over-55 capital gains rule. In May of 97 the republicans removed cap gains on any house sale no matter how old or young you are. That contributed greatly to the boom.; September 03, 2007 6:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Boston Anon Rent, you said it correctly about the Boston area...it is in a decline...for all the reasons you stated. I came to this conclusion a few years ago when i lived there (born and raised in the 128 suburbs). few big, meaningful companies are headquarted in beantown anymore. they are leaving or getting acquired by even bigger companies. in terms of hi tech firms...you have hit it right on the nose. there will be no more big ones in boston because the model is to offshore most of the programming when the products get enough traction (i work in hi-tech and did the whole startup/vc things). so, there will be a lot of small, maybe some medium-sized, tech companies there but no more EMC's, DEC's, etc. it will just be left-wing looney professors/students, socialist healthcare professionals, unethical r&d biotech firms with few products, and lots of fishermen and clammers. not a good economic support structure.

i moved from Boston for a number of reason a couple of years ago...many others are leaving too. i work in marketing (to businesses) and do lots of events all over the country, and in my planning for the year i demoted boston to a tier 2 city status from tier 1 b/c of the decline in population and big companies there. i moved up houston and dallas-ft. worth to tier 1 from tier 2 b/c they are growing. Charlotte is probably not far behind.

what i'm saying by all this is that beantown is in decline, and housing will be too for many, many years.

So long Boston, it was good to know ya!

Go Sox! (still a die-hard fan...); September 03, 2007 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: My ex wife and her boyfriend are looking at houses right now this labor day weekend in FUCKING TUCSON ARIZONA!!!!
I've beEn trying to convince her to tell him that not only are we seeing a crash right now but Tucson is the hottest miserable place in the USA...She told me that they saw no other buyers at open houses. He thinks that there are great deals right now...,..IDIOT!!!!; September 03, 2007 7:01 PM
Anonymous said...: "So, there will be a lot of small, maybe some medium-sized, tech companies there but no more EMC's, DEC's, etc."

Absolutely, and it's amazing that no one talks about it either. The problem is that no one's irked by the recent Boston Scientific's slide into mediocrity but instead, are simply silent about the lack of long term viability for the region.

I mean eastern Mass was the corporate development powerhouse of the northeast corridor, not the rust belt of the applied sciences. If you remember, when we were young, the region was wall-to-wall with the likes of Polaroid, DEC, John Hancock, Wang, Arthur D. Little, Stone & Webster, Data General, Prime, Banyan, MITRE, Serono, Gillette, Lincoln Lab, Reebok, TJX, Putnam, Sandoz, the Thompson firms, Lucent/AT&T, Intel, you name it. That's practically the entire industrial base of a cluster of western Europeans nations like Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, and Italy, nevermind a single US metro area. My... how things have gone awry?!

"what i'm saying by all this is that beantown is in decline, and housing will be too for many, many years."

I'd say a 40-50% decline in RE, once State St announces its first round of MA exodus. That'll be the lynch pin that'll start the chain reaction downward. Right now, the river in Egypt is hanging in there.

"So long Boston, it was good to know ya! Go Sox! (still a die-hard fan...)"

Yeah, a great sports town like no other (unless you're a Bruins fan).

When the Celts were winning in the 80s, the optimism about the future in Mass was unparalleled. The condo bubble back then almost made sense, from an economic projections p.o.v., whereas today, it's pure hype and speculation.

Boston Anon Renter; September 03, 2007 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: social stigma of renting???
what planet are you from?
and
I think that you are unclear on the concept of our discussions here.

when its cheaper to rent, and the landlord supplements your rent to make the mortgage payment on a declining asset, I have to assume the only stigma is stupidity in buying in this market.

but...that said, I have some rentals I would be happy to sell you in phoenix or vegas or miami or.....; September 04, 2007 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: buying vs renting is a rational cost/benefits analysis.

do the math and then you can see if buying vs. renting makes sense.

the "stigma" comment just about made me lose my lunch from its abysmal stupidity. but then, the sheeple have been so dumbed down by our so called educational system, nothing should surpise me anymore.

buying should not be an emotional decision, or manipulated by the spouse type nonesense,that sort of thing used by the realtywhores to convince you that the badly built piece of shit you are buying actually has any real value.

go to a subdivision under construction and see how your house is built. flimsy crap with nice packaging. buy since you are so convinced that USA=#1, go ahead and buy. after all, we will be here to fund you when you cant make the payments.; September 04, 2007 8:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Real Estate really *is* local.

My area (Raleigh-Durham) is growing both economically and in population.

I bought my house in 1992. The average growth rate from then until now on my house? 6% at the estimated current sale price of the house.

Yes, there are lots of places ready to implode and I think it will drag down the economy pretty badly. I even expect housing prices to come down here. However, we didn't experience any real bubble, either.; September 04, 2007 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Bitter renter said:"There is no longer a need for an over-55 capital gains rule. In May of 97 the republicans removed cap gains on any house sale no matter how old or young you are. That contributed greatly to the boom".

Thats very true BR, maybe I'm explaining it in the wrong way. Its the 500k exemption that changes when one spouse dies-it turns into 250K, the remaining spouse has to now pay more in taxes when they sell a house as a widow...; September 04, 2007 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: " Thats very true BR, maybe I'm explaining it in the wrong way. Its the 500k exemption that changes when one spouse dies-it turns into 250K, the remaining spouse has to now pay more in taxes when they sell a house as a widow... "

So, the widow probably needs to sell the house in year 2007 as a tax return must still be filed for the dead spouse, and so the dead spouse presumably still has their $250K exemption.; September 04, 2007 7:17 PM