Author Topic: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate  (Read 206470 times)

Andy55

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
What Trump's victory means for the US property market
« Reply #600 on: February 10, 2017, 01:31:40 AM »
some opinion on the real estate market and how to buy property in the coming Trump-era

https://tranio.com/world/news/what-trumps-victory-means-for-the-us-property-market_5219/
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 05:07:31 AM by Andy55 »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #601 on: June 04, 2017, 02:59:35 PM »
From tax issues, GM: "Between this and California's new and exciting single payer, Crafty is going to have to think real hard about where to live."

Crafty's not going anywhere but if I had to leave beautiful ocean views behind, I would insist on beautiful mountain views.  Train at 10,000 ft.  Or 14k when you hike up.  My 2nd home town. Views of the two highest peaks, 37 acres, <$200k.  Colorado taxes.  
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Meredith-CO-80461/fsba,fsbo_lt/pmf,pf_pt/house,land_type/2106188201_zpid/93408_rid/150000-200000_price/552-736_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.492913,-105.733796,39.035719,-106.858521_rect/9_zm/
« Last Edit: June 04, 2017, 03:01:33 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #602 on: June 04, 2017, 04:04:11 PM »
Not bad.  How long is the drive into Denver?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18259
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #603 on: June 04, 2017, 07:22:42 PM »
Not bad.  How long is the drive into Denver?

About 3 hours, if the roads are clear. I actually have ancestors that settled in that area.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #604 on: June 04, 2017, 10:41:56 PM »
Not bad.  How long is the drive into Denver?

90 miles, 90 minutes to the edge of Denver, same as Vail, mostly freeway crossing the continental divide twice.  Snow in winter, crisp nights, beautiful summers, 300 days/yr of sunshine.  Near Turquoise Lake, surrounded by national forest, mountain peaks, hiking trails.

http://www.pigseye.com/mm/4corners/leadville2.jpg
http://thewanderingchick.com/images/colorado-first/colorado%20116.JPG

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #605 on: June 05, 2017, 07:41:13 AM »
A man could go further and do worse.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18259
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #606 on: June 05, 2017, 11:55:10 AM »
Is that by Hwy. 24 to I-70? I was thinking down to "Buenie" and up 285.

Not bad.  How long is the drive into Denver?

90 miles, 90 minutes to the edge of Denver, same as Vail, mostly freeway crossing the continental divide twice.  Snow in winter, crisp nights, beautiful summers, 300 days/yr of sunshine.  Near Turquoise Lake, surrounded by national forest, mountain peaks, hiking trails.

http://www.pigseye.com/mm/4corners/leadville2.jpg
http://thewanderingchick.com/images/colorado-first/colorado%20116.JPG

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #607 on: June 05, 2017, 01:29:06 PM »
quote author=G M
Is that by Hwy. 24 to I-70? I was thinking down to "Buenie" and up 285.

Colo 91.  Coming from Denver, I-70 then exit at Copper Mountain/Leadville/Independence Pass.  Hwy 91 for 20 miles. 

From Leadville you can travel the Top of the Rockies Scenic Byway to Vail Valley over the Eagle River (below) or to  Aspen over Independence Pass .
https://www.codot.gov/travel/scenic-byways/south-central/top-rockies\


Do the drives in daylight!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Low income housing- 'affordable' housing is Basic Economics
« Reply #608 on: June 10, 2017, 07:45:02 AM »
Important piece about "affordable housing".  This is not rocket science but it is very seldom reported on accurately or helpfully.  Almost all we ever hear about is a government imposed solution to a government imposed problem.  This makes sense.
---------------------------------------------------------
How to Think about Low-Income Housing  by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON  June 9, 2017

The problem is on the supply side. Well, raise my rent! Here’s a great big Muppet News Flash from the Washington Post: Average-priced goods are relatively expensive for low-wage consumers. Seriously.

Today’s entry in the great national stupidity sweepstakes comes from Tracy Jan, who is relaying the findings of the latest report from the National Low-Income Housing Association. The report’s basic claim takes a familiar form that falls somewhere between intellectual sloppiness and intellectual dishonesty: People earning the minimum wage cannot afford the average one-bedroom apartment without spending more than 30 percent of their incomes . . . pretty much anywhere in the country. There are some variations on the theme: Sometimes, the rent considered is for a two-bedroom apartment, and sometimes the income considered is the federal poverty line or some figure related to it.

All of these so-called studies — they are not really “studies” in the true sense of the word — suffer from the same error: comparing a low wage to an average rent.

The NLIHA paper Jan relies on is methodologically slightly better than most entries in this genre, but only slightly. The usual technique is to consider minimum wage vs. median rent, as in this much-cited report from Zillow: “Zillow analyzed median rents and the income necessary to afford them in 15,099 cities and towns nationwide. In the least expensive city — Beecher, Michigan — a single renter would need to earn $10.64 per hour to afford the city’s median rent of $532 per month without exceeding the 30 percent limit, significantly above both the federal minimum wage and the Michigan state minimum wage of $8.15 per hour.”

The median rent is the rent at the 50th percentile, i.e. the price point at which half of all rents are lower and half are higher. If you consider the median rent, then you just saw off the cheaper half of the market in its entirety. You know where low-wage people go looking for rental properties? In the half of the market that is below the median, most often. Why ignore the actual rents on the actual apartments that actual minimum-wage workers actually rent? For one thing, acquiring that data is hard work. For another, it does not produce nearly enough angst and hysteria.

The NLIHA paper makes almost the same error, but instead of the median rent in various communities it uses a “fair market rent” calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That number, according to the report, “is typically the 40th percentile of rents that a family can be expected to pay” when that family is moving today, “not what all current renters are paying on average.” That is significant because, according to HUD’s own reporting, families moving to a new rental property with a relatively short timeline for securing new housing typically pay slightly higher rents than do families that haven’t moved in a while, typically about 6 percent more. So the 40th percentile of rents for families paying a 6 percent premium — that won’t be the dead median, but it will be in the neighborhood. It’s the same basic problem: Comparing the incomes of minimum-wage workers against an average rent that includes all families moving into new rental properties, i.e. putting exclusively low wages on one side of the scale and weighing them against the expenses of households with incomes across the spectrum.

Needless to say — but the report does say it — these comparisons do not “reflect the rent variation within a metropolitan area or nonmetropolitan county.” Which is to say: They’re basically useless. Which you might begin to suspect when you consider the fact that low-income people who can’t afford to live anywhere mostly manage to live somewhere.

How does that happen? Hippie magic? Low-income people who can’t afford to live anywhere mostly manage to live somewhere.

One of the remarkable things about people who don’t have very much money is that they have so much money — which is to say, individuals and families with relatively low wages may not have tons of economic power as individuals, but as a market they are enormously powerful. America’s largest private employer, Walmart, represents a truly enormous accumulation of capital organized to address the problem of providing low-cost goods to people who want or need them. Walmart doesn’t keep its prices low because it loves low-income people, but because low-income people spend a great deal of money, and if Walmart doesn’t give them what they want at the price they want, somebody else will.

How this works in the real world is obvious to everybody who doesn’t write for the Washington Post: The median cost of a new car in the United States is about $34,000, which is well out of reach for most minimum-wage earners. You know how minimum-wage earners get around that problem? They buy cars that cost a heck of a lot less than the median — or they buy used cars, share cars, take the bus, etc. Minimum-wage workers solve the problem of relatively high rents by choosing accommodations that are well under the 50th or 40th percentile — or by having roommates, living with their families, etc. The relationship between the minimum wage and the median or near-median rent is an entirely artificial problem cooked up by organizations that want more federal spending on low-income housing (NLIHA) or by politicians arguing for a higher minimum wage. The latter is especially popular during campaign season.

But there is much more to this than a pliant Washington Post reporter getting taken by an intellectually sloppy propaganda “study.” That happens all the time. There’s a much more interesting aspect to all this that’s worth considering. If you drive around most American cities and their suburbs, you might conclude that there seems to be a fair amount of apartment construction going on. You’d be wrong: Multi-family construction hit a six-year low in May. And the construction that is going on is not, for the most part, meant for the lower-wage end of the rental market. From NLIHA: “Household income has not kept up with the rising cost of rental housing. From the housing crisis of 2007 to 2015, the median gross rent for a rental home in the U.S. increased by 6 percent, after adjusting for overall inflation, while the median income for renter households rose by just 1 percent.”

Why aren’t we building more housing for low-income people?

It’s not because there’s no money to be made selling goods and services to low-income consumers: I doubt the French Laundry does as much business in a year as McDonald’s does in an hour, and Honda makes a lot more money selling economy cars to regular folks than Lamborghini does selling exotic cars to guys with yachts. Walmart makes a heck of a lot more money than Hermes or Louis Vuitton. Somebody out there would love to be the Walmart of low-income housing. What’s stopping them? It isn’t, strictly speaking, an economic of technological problem: Mobile homes (which start around $30,000 new), trendy “tiny houses,” and low-income housing developments abroad all show that we can build decent housing at prices within the reach of those with more modest incomes. But construction is moving toward the higher end of the market.

The basic problem is that politicians won’t let developers build housing for poor people. They don’t put it that way, but that’s what they do. Restrictive zoning and development rules in places such as New York City and San Francisco artificially restrict the supply of housing, often for purely aesthetic reasons. The old housing “covenants” were racial; the new ones are economic, with nice rich liberals in Pacific Heights basically saying: “We like things just how they are, thanks, so why don’t you poors beat feet on down to Stockton or wherever it is we warehouse you, right after you’re done cutting my grass?”

The only way to make housing more plentiful is to make housing more plentiful. What that implies, especially in the case of our big cities, is denser development. But our big-city governments — which are almost exclusively under Democratic control — will not allow that. New York City’s population density is less than half that of comparable European cities (and much less than many comparable Asian cities) and, in spite of its reputation as a city of skyscrapers, fewer than 2 percent of its residences are in buildings 20 stories or taller, much lower than the figure for comparable cities globally. In New York, the progressives aren’t working to allow denser development and, hence, cheaper housing: They’re doing the opposite, proposing to cap the number of tall buildings in the city. Forget New Jersey — there are a fair number of New Yorkers who commute from Pennsylvania. San Francisco, Austin, Los Angeles, the parts of Chicago or Philadelphia you might actually want to live in . . . similar story. They’ll call it historic preservation or “defending the character of the neighborhood” or whatever, but it’s basically economic segregation, which, it’s probably worth noting, is still a pretty good proxy for racial discrimination: San Francisco’s black population has decreased by one-third in recent years, and diversity-loving Portland saw its black population shrink by 11.5 percent in just four years. The only way to make housing more plentiful is to make housing more plentiful.

By way of contrast, our friends at the Los Angeles Times were surprised to learn that Houston, way down in right-wing Texas, is the most diverse city in the United States. Everybody knows what Houston has what people want — jobs — but part of the attraction is something that Houston doesn’t have: zoning laws — not very much, anyway. That makes housing in Houston relatively cheap, which makes the area attractive to all sorts of people, including young people, immigrants, and others earning relatively low wages.

At this point, our progressive friends will ask an inevitable question: “Instead of making the whole country look like Houston, which is a horrifying prospect, why not make it more like lovely San Francisco, and then just raise the minimum wage so that people can afford to live there?”

That really isn’t a caricature. Here are the nice Bernie Sanders enthusiasts at feelthebern.org making basically that argument. There’s some high-test, weapons-grade economic illiteracy built into that question, the short answer to which is: “Raising the minimum wage will not magic more housing into existence, it just sends a larger pool of money chasing the same quantity of goods, which is the classical formula for inflation.”

But the fundamental error at work here informs so much misguided progressive economic thinking that it is worth considering at some length, starting with the basic economics.

There is in economics something called Say’s Law, which could be summarized as: “People produce in order to consume.” What does that really mean? Consider the most basic and primitive economy, a small band of hunter-gatherers at the dawn of mankind. (The date of which we have just moved back by about half again, apparently.) Why did those hunter-gatherers hunt and gather? It was not for the love of hunting and the thrill of gathering, but for a much more obvious reason: to eat. The basic facts of economics are far removed from abstraction: The point of fishing is fish, and the point of picking coconuts is eating them. That holds true until the level of production and social organization is high enough to allow for the emergence of our old friends specialization, the division of labor, and comparative advantage, all of which is another way of saying that once Throg has more fish than he wants to eat and Grug has more coconuts than he wants to eat, they start swapping fish and coconuts between them. And then Warg figures out how to make useful tools out of flint, which is good for a lot of fish and coconuts, and Yawr learns that she’s better at making thorns into fishing hooks than anybody else in the caveman clan, which is of great interest to Fisherman Throg, and eventually you get Corvettes and Google.

It’s the money that confuses people.

Money is basically information technology. It is a record-keeping system. One of the interesting implications of Say’s Law — that we produce in order to consume — is that there are not really any objective economic values: Everything that is produced and consumed is valued relative to everything else that is produced and consumed. If one mackerel is worth six coconuts or four fishing hooks or one-tenth of a flint chopper, then that can get to be a lot for your average caveman to keep up with. But it’s even more complicated than that: Not only is everything that is produced and consumed valued relative to everything else that is produced and consumed, everybody has different preferences, meaning that there are as many economic-value hierarchies as there are people — and those preference hierarchies can change from day to day or second to second. Again, this is easier to understand if you stick to the physical world rather than get mired in abstraction: You know whose kids get sick of apple pie? Those of the guy who owns the apple orchard. There’s no metaphysically “correct” exchange rate between apples and oysters and shoes and arrowheads — everybody likes what he likes and wants what he wants and — here’s the part that gets overlooked — has what he has.  

Because we produce in order to consume, we value what we have in terms of the things we want. The emergence of money as a record-keeping technology makes that a lot easier to think about, but money is not the point: The things that money gets are the point.

This is important to understand because those valuations exist independent of money. That’s how inflation happens: We value what we value just the way we value it, and introducing more money into the system does not change those value judgments; it just makes money worth less in terms of fish or coconuts. Conversely, taking money out of the system (less of a problem, usually) doesn’t change those value judgments, either: It just makes money worth more in terms of fish or coconuts. You do not change the underlying value relationships by changing the record-keeping system.

That is where so much progressive economic policy goes wrong. Ignoring the physical facts of supply and demand in the real world, progressives attempt to game the record-keeping system in order to produce advantages for politically favored clients or disadvantages for politically disfavored rivals. That’s what raising the minimum wage is all about: The guy who owns your local Burger King franchise values one hour of 17-year-old fry-guy labor just the way he values it. That calculation is inescapably complex — so complex that it never ends up being an actual calculation — taking into account what the product of that hour’s labor can be traded for and the value of that trade relative to the price of the labor. What an hour’s fry-guy labor is worth is bound up in a vastly complex web of value judgments, and the boss’s value judgment isn’t necessarily the most important one: Customers have a say, too. So does the guy who wants your job and is willing to do it for a little less money or who is able to do it a little bit better for the same money. So does the guy who figures out how much interest to charge the boss on the loan with which he buys his new BMW. All of those things are, for lack of a better word, real.

Money is just how we keep track of them.

Passing a law that says you have to pay the fry-guy x + y instead of x does not change the value of the fry-guy’s labor relative to everything else that is produced and consumed. Not really. Ultimately, it is just a change to the record-keeping system. You could pass a law that says we have to pay 15-year-old baby-sitters eight times what we pay hedge-fund managers or brain surgeons, but that is not going to change how we actually value their respective labor. Government can get pretty aggressive about this stuff, which results in fairly predictable market distortions: When the federal government instituted wartime wage controls, employers looking to get the labor they actually valued on terms consistent with their actual valuation of that labor started paying employees in health insurance and company cars instead of paying them in money. The modern practice of offering “fringe benefits” in the form of paid sick leave, vacation time, and other employee perks is a direct response to the policies of the War Labor Board in the 1940s. (It is a big part of why our health-care system stinks.) The lesson: Even in times of war and the heavy-handed economic interventions associated with them, reality finds a way of sneaking around the record-keeping system.

People who earn low wages don’t just have labor that is lightly valued in terms of money: They have labor that is lightly valued in terms of everything for which money can be traded. That includes, among other things, housing. But it also includes education, health care, cars, shoes, food — and fish and coconuts and flint caveman axes, too. You can mess with the money, but those underlying value hierarchies will reassert themselves, sometimes in obvious ways, sometimes in unexpected ones.

With that in mind, let’s reconsider the question: If we are unhappy about the relationship between the price of certain kinds of labor and the price of renting an apartment, what should we actually do about that? We could try changing the price of labor through legislation, or we could try changing the price of renting an apartment through regulation and subsidies — meaning that we could try messing around with the record-keeping system.

Or we could build more apartments.

— Kevin D. Williamson
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 10:12:00 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
Trumps's HUD
« Reply #610 on: January 10, 2018, 04:08:05 AM »
At Ben Carson's HUD it is business as usual:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455292/ben-carson-secretary-housing-urban-development-unimpressive-start

 :cry:

he wonder if he is too kind hearted to ruffle feathers

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #611 on: January 10, 2018, 10:41:11 AM »
Please post on Bureaucracy and Carson threads

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
January existing home sales
« Reply #612 on: February 21, 2018, 10:04:25 AM »
Existing Home Sales Declined 3.2% in January To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 2/21/2018

Existing home sales declined 3.2% in January to a 5.38 million annual rate, below the consensus expected 5.60 million. Sales are down 4.8% versus a year ago.

Sales in January fell in all the major regions. The drop was entirely due to single-family homes. Sales of condos/coops rose in January.

The median price of an existing home fell to $240,500 in January (not seasonally adjusted) but is up 5.8% versus a year ago. Average prices are up 4.7% versus last year.

Implications: Existing home sales fell for the second straight month in January, as a lack of options for buyers continued to weigh on activity. Sales of previously-owned homes fell 3.2% in January to a 5.38 million annual rate. Going forward it is important to remember that home sales are volatile from month to month. Despite January's weak headline number, sales in 2017 posted their best year since 2006, an upward trend we expect will remain intact. That said, the major headwind for existing homes has been inventories, now lower on a year-over-year basis for 32 consecutive months, and down 9.5% from a year ago. In fact, inventories hit their lowest level for any January since at least 1999, when records began. It's no wonder then that January also posted the largest annual drop in sales since 2014. The months' supply of existing homes – how long it would take to sell the current inventory at the most recent sales pace – rose to a still extremely low reading of 3.4 months in January (from December's record low reading of 3.2 months) as inventories rose and sales slowed. According to the NAR, anything less than 5.0 months (a level we haven't breached since 2015) is considered tight supply. Despite the lack of choices, demand for existing homes has remained remarkably strong, with 43% of homes sold in January remaining on the market for less than a month. Higher demand and a shift in the "mix" of homes sold toward more expensive properties has also driven up median prices, which are up 5.8% from a year ago. The strongest growth in sales over the past year is heavily skewed towards the most expensive homes, signaling that supply constraints may be disproportionately hitting the lower end of the market. Tough regulations on land use raise the fixed costs of housing, tilting development toward higher-end homes. Although some analysts may be concerned about the impact of tax reform on home sales, few homeowners exceed the new thresholds for deductibility. Finally, though mortgage rates may be heading higher, it's important to recognize that rates are still low by historical standards, incomes are growing, and the appetite for homeownership is starting to move higher again.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Who makes Housing unaffordable?
« Reply #613 on: March 06, 2018, 09:44:04 AM »
Okay, posting this chart into a third thread, my current industry - housing.  During the mass-theft of our language, Leftists re-named any housing that is unaffordable - affordable housing.  It means subsidized, free or legislated housing.  Government interfered housing.  Exactly the opposite is true, all housing was affordable to its owners BEFORE the government got involved.  Everything that government does to make housing more 'affordable' makes it less affordable for all but the ones who are having someone else (taxpayers and other homeowners) pay for it.  The combination of over-regulation and massive money infusions just drive the cost further up and the theft of those resources from the private economy compounds the problem.



Notice in the chart below that it is the high-inflation items that are most influenced by government.  The items that are not growing in price are more purely market-driven.
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/inflation-and-honest-data
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 09:48:46 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
March Single Family Homes
« Reply #614 on: April 24, 2018, 10:49:53 AM »
New Single-Family Home Sales Increased 4.0% in March To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 4/24/2018

New single-family home sales increased 4.0% in March to a 694,000 annual rate, easily beating the consensus expected 630,000. Sales are up 8.8% from a year ago.

Sales rose in the West and South, but fell in the Northeast and Midwest.

The months' supply of new homes (how long it would take to sell the homes in inventory) fell to 5.2 months in March from 5.4 months in February. The drop was due entirely to a faster sales pace. Inventories remained unchanged in March.

The median price of new homes sold was $337,200 in March, up 4.8% from a year ago. The average price of new homes sold was $369,900, down 3.8% versus last year.

Implications: New home sales surprised to the upside in March, beating even the most optimistic forecast by any economics group to post the second highest sales pace since 2007. Sales of new homes rose 4.0% in March, and are now up 8.8% from a year ago. Significant upward revisions to prior months also helped pull the Q1 sales pace into positive territory, now up at a 7.1% annualized rate versus the Q4 2017 average. Note that the gains in new home sales have been made in spite of rising mortgage rates over the past year, which many analysts claimed would derail the housing recovery. Looking forward, prospects remain good for further growth over the next few years, though month-to-month volatility is to be expected. Prior to the end of the housing bubble, sales of new homes were typically about 15% of all home sales. They fell to around 6.5% of sales at the bottom of the housing bust, and now have recovered to 11%. In other words, there's plenty of room for growth in new home sales, which means room for home building to grow as well. At first glance, inventories sitting at a post-crisis high would seem to refute this. However, completed units are now at their lowest portion of inventories since recording began back in 1999. And jobs continuing to grow at a healthy pace, wages accelerating, and the tax cut taking effect all support optimism about home building in the years ahead. Although the new tax law trims back the mortgage interest deduction for some high-end homes, the value of the mortgage interest deduction was affected more broadly by the marginal tax rate reductions in the 1980s, during which housing did well. Yes, the new tax law also trims back state and local tax deductions, including the property tax, but we think that's going to affect where people live, not overall home building nationwide. The US economy is looking up, and home sales will continue to trend higher. In other housing news this morning, the national Case-Shiller index reported home prices were up 0.5% in February and are up 6.3% versus a year ago, an acceleration from the 5.6% gain in the twelve months ending February 2017. In the last year, price gains were led by Seattle and Las Vegas. Meanwhile, the FHFA index, which measures prices for homes financed by conforming mortgages, increased 0.6% in February and is up 7.2% versus a year ago, an acceleration from the 6.7% gain in the twelve months ending February 2017. Finally, on the manufacturing front, the Richmond Fed index, a measure of mid-Atlantic factory sentiment, fell unexpectedly to -3 in April from +15 in March, its first negative reading since late 2016. Look for a rebound into positive territory in the months ahead.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Re: March Single Family Homes
« Reply #615 on: April 24, 2018, 12:40:10 PM »
"Note that the gains in new home sales have been made in spite of rising mortgage rates over the past year, which many analysts claimed would derail the housing recovery."

That works both ways.  The Fed says there will 3-4 increases this year so some of these are people motivated to jump ahead of those increases.  No slowdown now, but it could still could be after the scheduled increases.

"New single-family home sales increased 4.0% in March to a 694,000 annual rate, easily beating the consensus expected 630,000. Sales are up 8.8% from a year ago."

7-10% of those are built to replace a home by tearing one down, meaning 90+% of the new homes go toward increasing the supply of housing.  Housing stock increases at 8%/yr.  The population is increasing at 0.7%.  Paraphrasing liberals, that's unsustainable.(?)  It looks to me like we are (eventually) heading into another (downward) turn in the government tampered, housing market.
http://eyeonhousing.org/2018/03/new-nahb-estimate-58600-single-family-tear-down-starts-in-2017/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/us/usa-population-growth.html

Only consistently good economic growth can delay the next housing downturn. Half the market is already declining: "Sales rose in the West and South, but fell in the Northeast and Midwest."
 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
May housing starts
« Reply #617 on: June 19, 2018, 10:03:07 AM »
Housing Starts Increased 5.0% in May To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 6/19/2018

Housing starts increased 5.0% in May to a 1.350 million annual rate, easily beating the consensus expected 1.311 million. Starts are up 20.3% versus a year ago.

The gain in starts in May was due to both single-family and multi-unit starts. In the past year, single-family starts are up 18.3% while multi-unit starts are up 25.1%.

Starts in May rose in the Midwest, but fell in the Northeast, West, and South.

New building permits declined 4.6% in May to a 1.301 million annual rate, below the consensus expected 1.350 million. Compared to a year ago, permits for single-family units are up 7.7% while permits for multi-family homes are up 8.6%.

Implications: Housing starts rebounded sharply in May, easily beating consensus expectations to reach the highest level since 2007. Starts rose 5.0% in May to a 1.350 million annual rate, and are now up 20.3% in the past year. The Midwest was entirely responsible for the gain, surging 62.2%, while other regions had declines. This May was unusually strong relative to the trend, while May 2017 had the slowest pace for housing starts in all of 2017 - that pushed the year-over-year gain above trend. We expect further gains in the year ahead, although we expect the pace of gains to slow. One way to cut through the monthly noise is to compare the first five months of 2018 versus the same period in 2017. By that measure starts are up 10.2% from a year ago. New single-family construction continues to be the main driver of trend growth, as the chart to the right demonstrates. We expect further strength from single-family starts in the years ahead, and a continued transition to more growth in single-family construction from multi-family will be good news for the overall economy. On average, each single-family home contributes to GDP about twice the amount of a multi-family unit. The worst news in today's report was that permits for future construction fell 4.6% in May, as both single-family and multi-unit permits showed declines. That said, overall permits are still up a healthy 8% in the past year. Further, the horizon is brightening, with the number of units currently under construction at the highest pace since 2008. Developers are also completing units at the fastest pace since the recession, freeing them up to start construction of new homes. Housing starts are still up in spite of a significant uptick in mortgage rates, which some analysts claimed would derail the housing recovery. As we have argued, higher interest rates can be sustained as long as jobs and incomes are rising. Based on population growth and "scrappage," look for housing starts to rise to an average of about 1.5 million units per year by late 2019. And the longer this process takes, the more room the housing market will have to eventually overshoot that mark. That said, there are a couple factors that seem to be holding this process back. The National Association of Home Builders claims 84% of developers cited labor shortages and the rising cost of building materials as one of their biggest problems in 2018. Both these issues seem set to continue as an increasingly tight labor market keeps the number of job openings in construction elevated and tariffs on lumber, steel, and aluminum drive up input costs. Highlighting these issues, the NAHB index, which measures homebuilder sentiment, fell slightly to 68 in June from 70 in May, primarily reflecting concerns about rising lumber costs that have added an estimated $9,000 to the price of a new home since January 2017. We understand why some would look at this as a negative, but the Homebuilder Index is still at a high level and we remain bullish on housing in the year ahead.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
July Housing Starts
« Reply #618 on: August 16, 2018, 10:54:00 AM »
Housing Starts Increased 0.9% in July To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 8/16/2018

Housing starts increased 0.9% in July to a 1.168 million annual rate, well below the consensus expected 1.260 million. Starts are down 1.4% versus a year ago.

The gain in starts in July was due to both single-family and multi-unit starts. In the past year, single-family starts are up 2.7% while multi-unit starts are down 11.6%.

Starts in July rose in the Midwest and South but fell in the West and Northeast.

New building permits increased 1.5% in July to a 1.311 million annual rate, just above the consensus expected 1.310 million. Compared to a year ago, permits for single-family units are up 6.4% while permits for multi-family homes are up 0.2%.

Implications: Hold off on housing starts for a moment, and take a look at this morning's reading on initial jobless claims which fell last week to 212,000, just 4,000 above the lowest reading since December 1969. Meanwhile, continuing claims fell 39,000 to 1.72 million. These are the types of fundamentals we focus on – rather than prognostications from the pouting pundits of pessimism – to determine if the current "trade war" is really hurting the US economy. With that said, on to housing starts, which eked out a small gain in July, but continue to disappoint. Following June's decline to the slowest pace of starts since the disruptions caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, new construction rose a tepid 0.9% in July, coming in below even the most pessimistic forecast. That said, we don't think this is the beginning of the end for the housing recovery, and it's important to remember that data on housing starts are very volatile from month to month. One way to cut through the noise is to compare the year-to-date pace of starts in 2018 to the same period in 2017. By that measure starts are up 5.9% from a year ago. Now, some analysts are blaming the recent weakness on higher mortgage rates, but if that were the truly the case, the faster pace of starts so far in 2018 wouldn't have happened. But, there are some real headwinds that may temper growth. The National Association of Home Builders said 84% of developers cited labor shortages and the rising cost of building materials as their biggest problems in 2018. And both these issues look set to continue as an increasingly tight labor market keeps the number of job openings in construction elevated and tariffs on lumber, steel, and aluminum drive up input costs. Cost and labor concerns were also echoed in yesterday's NAHB Index, but were offset by strong buyer demand, leaving builder optimism at historically elevated levels. One additional reason to be optimistic going forward is that the pace builders are receiving permits for new construction continues to surpass the pace of actual groundbreaking. This is the reverse of what you would expect if builders saw demand for new units as likely to dry up in the future. Together, the data points towards a trend higher in homebuilding in the year ahead. On the manufacturing front this morning, the Philly Fed Index, a measure of East Coast factory sentiment, fell to +11.9 in August from +25.7 in July, remaining in positive territory and signaling continued optimism from manufacturers, although not as much as in July.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
10 years since the government-intervention-caused housing crisis
« Reply #619 on: September 12, 2018, 06:43:05 AM »
Make no mistake, it was not a financial crisis. It was all about government intervention preventing markets from working.
Read.it.all.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/09/11/dont_be_fooled_there_was_nothing_financial_about_the_2008_crisis_103409.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
October existing home sales
« Reply #620 on: November 21, 2018, 10:29:57 AM »
________________________________________
Existing Home Sales Rose 1.4% in October To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 11/21/2018

Existing home sales rose 1.4% in October to a 5.22 million annual rate, narrowly beating the consensus expected 5.20 million. Sales are down 5.1% versus a year ago.

Sales in October rose in the West, South, and Northeast, but declined in the Midwest. Sales of both single-family homes and condos/coops rose in October.

The median price of an existing home fell to $255,400 in October (not seasonally adjusted) but is up 3.8% versus a year ago. Average prices are up 2.3% versus last year.

Implications: Existing home sales finally rose in October following six consecutive months of declines. While the hurricane season shifted the timing of activity over recent months, we are now moving towards a more "normal" environment, and the months ahead will give us a clearer picture of housing market health. That said, the biggest problem for existing home sales has been a lack of supply. The months' supply of existing homes – how long it would take to sell the current inventory at the most recent sales pace – declined to 4.3 months in October and has been below 5.0 since late 2015 - the level the National Association of Realtors (NAR) considers tight. The good news is that inventories may finally be turning a corner, rising on a year-over-year basis for the third month in a row after 38 straight months of stagnation and declines. If sellers really are changing their behavior, a reversal in the steady decline of listings we've seen since mid-2015 would be a welcome reprieve for buyers, boosting supply and sales, as well. Even with the current lack of choices, the demand for existing homes has remained remarkably strong, with 46% of homes sold in October remaining on the market for less than a month. Higher demand and a shift in the "mix" of homes sold toward more expensive properties has also driven up the median sales price, which is up 3.8% from a year ago. Many analysts are suggesting rising mortgage rates are signaling the end for the housing market recovery. However, continued strength in the job market, rising wages, and a turnaround in housing inventory should offset higher financing headwinds going forward. It won't be a straight line higher, but any fears that the housing recovery is over are overblown.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
WSJ: Fannie and Freddie to get new overseer
« Reply #621 on: December 10, 2018, 12:44:05 PM »
y Kate Davidson and
Andrew Ackerman
Updated Dec. 10, 2018 11:26 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The White House is preparing to pick a vice presidential aide and critic of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the post responsible for overseeing the housing-finance companies.

The Trump administration is expected to soon announce that it plans to nominate Mark Calabria to become the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator for the two companies, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Calabria currently serves as chief economist to Vice President Mike Pence.

If nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Calabria would replace Mel Watt, an Obama-appointed official whose term is up in January. The FHFA post will be the final post overseeing the financial sector to turn over to Trump administration control.

No final decision has been announced and President Trump has been known to change his mind when it comes to high-level appointments.

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment. Mr. Calabria didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Calabria has been critical of some of the basic foundations of the U.S. mortgage market, advocating for elimination of the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and for banks to hold more of the loans they originate. He would play a pivotal role over the biggest unresolved legacy from the financial crisis: what to do with the failed mortgage-finance companies a decade after their government takeover at the height of the financial crisis.

Mr. Calabria’s nomination would be a loss for the housing industry, which had been pushing the White House to consider someone other than Mr. Calabria, who might advocate for more incremental steps to reduce the companies’ footprints in housing.

The housing market is experiencing its longest slump in four years, weighed down by a combination of rising mortgage rates, higher home prices and a new tax law that reduces incentives for homeownership. Housing industry officials fear abrupt policy changes from Washington could further dampen the industry’s performance.
Newsletter Sign-up

White House officials separately have told industry groups they are fleshing out a proposal for how the administration plans to overhaul the companies. Mr. Calabria would likely have the power to implement parts of that plan administratively if Congress doesn’t act with legislation to revamp the companies. Congressional efforts to overhaul housing finance have repeatedly sputtered, most recently this year, and split control of Congress next year makes a deal unlikely.

As FHFA chief, Mr. Calabria could raise the fees the companies charge lenders to guarantee loans, potentially making it more expensive for borrowers to complete a loan backed by Fannie or Freddie. He also could decrease the maximum size of a loan that the companies could purchase, reversing increases during Mr. Watt’s tenure that allowed larger loans to get Fannie and Freddie’s backing.

Such moves could drive more of the mortgage-finance business to the private sector and impact expensive coastal states such as California and New York, according to housing experts.

Mr. Calabria has in the past called for abolishing Fannie and Freddie and has also rejected piecemeal changes to the companies. “If we choose to retain the current system or make only cosmetic changes, we guarantee a repeat of the recent recession,” he told House lawmakers in 2013.

Though recent efforts to overhaul housing finance have centered around maintaining the traditional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at low rates, Mr. Calabria has said such loans are inherently risky and urged greater reliance on loans that have far shorter maturities.

Mr. Calabria also has questioned the legality of the current arrangement by which the Treasury Department collects the profits of Fannie and Freddie in exchange for its nearly open-ended support of the mortgage-finance giants since the 2008 crisis. That position sides with shareholders of the firms who have challenged in court the FHFA’s administration of the companies.

A housing-policy expert, Mr. Calabria was previously director of financial regulation studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He also served as a senior staffer on the Senate Banking Committee from 2001 to 2009.

—Peter Nicholas contributed to this article.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Housing/Real Estate, Zillow information economy flipping
« Reply #622 on: February 15, 2019, 08:56:46 AM »
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-14/zillow-wants-to-flip-your-house?srnd=businessweek-v2
Zillow is part of a new breed of high-tech home flippers, sometimes called “iBuyers,” that also includes Silicon Valley startups and a small group of adventurous real estate brokerages that have instant-offer operations. Armed with Wall Street and Silicon Valley capital and algorithms designed to make granular predictions about home prices, these investors are buying homes on a massive scale

[Where is our PP for comment?]

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #623 on: February 15, 2019, 09:13:34 AM »
Let's see if we can lure him back!  I just emailed him.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate, nothing down, what could go wrong?
« Reply #624 on: March 10, 2019, 01:06:59 PM »
I didn't realize FHA still requires only 3 1/2% down, Fannie Mae 3% down.  The same government made savings obsolete says you need no equity to own a home. What happens after periods where home prices are driven up artificially for too long?  Did we learn nothing from the last real estate crisis? 

The government starts with 97% ownership of your house and your share quickly goes to zero if there is any downward fluctuation or trend.  You and a whole lot of your neighbors are upside down in your mortgage with the slightest downward move and real estate values fluctuate all the time.

These fluctuations aren't always in random directions; downward movement can be systemic.  The Fed and other parts of the government actually want home values to drop, if you judge them by their actions.  The Fed wants interest rates up and has been actively increasing them.  When that hits mortgage rates, home prices go down (assuming all other things remain equal).  Federal taxation put limits on so-called SALT deductions, directly increasing the cost of housing many with potential to knock down values in some markets and price ranges.  It is economically dangerous to federally insure mortgages and make (near) zero equity loans in a market widely described as "cooling".

The only thing that made values go up beyond recovery from the previous crash is increasing wages and prosperity.  Voters signaled in 2018 they want an end to that. 

"HomeReady™ [Fannie Mae] applies to certain low-income census tracts; and areas with high minority concentrations. ... The Conventional 97 program is meant to help homebuyers who might other qualify for a loan but lack the resources to make a five percent down payment."
https://themortgagereports.com/16976/97-mortgage-low-downpayment-3-mortgage-rates

What could possibly go wrong?   

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
contrast BEn's philosophy
« Reply #625 on: May 22, 2019, 07:25:33 AM »
of individualism self reliance and responsibility VERSUS  the endless victom, race ,  expecting big brother to do all the paternal care on display:


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/05/22/ben-carson-hearing-n2546669



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Chinese investors flee US real estate, Housing sales up!
« Reply #627 on: August 22, 2019, 07:47:43 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/moving-out-chinese-investors-flee-us-real-estate_3011329.html?utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=b3ef5a181f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_22_09_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-b3ef5a181f-239065853

As the article says, Chinese currency is declining, investment money is disappearing and US house prices are increasing, so they buy less.  That reflects on weakness in China and strength in the US.
---------------------------

US existing-home sales spike to a 5-month high, bucking signs of an impending recession
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-existing-home-sales-increase-5-month-high-recession-implication-2019-8-1028463924

1st month of Q3, housing spiked upward.  WHO KNEW?  All the news is that Trump and his advisers are being pressured to admit a recession that hasn't happened.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Housing/Mortgage: Fed Govt has 33% more exposure than before housing crisis
« Reply #628 on: October 03, 2019, 08:53:35 AM »
"The federal government has dramatically expanded its exposure to risky mortgages, as federal officials over the past four years took steps that cleared the way for companies to issue loans that many borrowers might not be able to repay. Now, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration guarantee almost $7 trillion in mortgage-related debt, 33 percent more than before the housing crisis, according to company and government data. Because these entities are run or backstopped by the U.S. government, a large increase in loan defaults could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-government-has-dramatically-expanded-exposure-to-risky-mortgages/2019/10/02/d862ab40-ce79-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

"A growing number of homeowners face debt payments that amount to nearly half of their monthly income, a threshold many experts consider too steep.  Roughly 30 percent of the loans Fannie Mae guaranteed last year exceeded this level, up from 14 percent in 2016, according to Urban Institute data. At the FHA, 57 percent of the loans it insured breached the high-risk echelon, jumping from 38 percent two years earlier."

"The binge in high-risk lending"...??    - What the hell are we thinking?  Have we learned absolutely nothing - again??  PP: comment?

My view:  Govt should focus on making way for private income growth.  If they did, housing would take care of itself.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 09:09:19 AM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Housing/Real Estate, Boomers about to sell 21 million homes
« Reply #630 on: November 26, 2019, 06:17:53 AM »
OK Boomer, Who’s Going to Buy Your 21 Million Homes?
Baby boomers are getting ready to sell one quarter of America’s homes over the next two decades. The problem is many of these properties are in places where younger people no longer want to live.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ok-boomer-whos-going-to-buy-your-21-million-homes-11574485201

The U.S. is at the beginning of a tidal wave of homes hitting the market on the scale of the housing bubble in the mid-2000s. This time it won’t be driven by overbuilding, easy credit or irrational exuberance, but by an inevitable fact of life: the passing of the baby boomer generation.

The Boomer Bubble
Seniors are expected to vacate roughly 21 million homes over the next two decades. That’s more than the amount of new properties sold during a previous two-decade period that ended with a housing boom.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
ghost real estate owners
« Reply #632 on: December 18, 2019, 04:38:41 AM »
"Healthy, vibrant communities aren’t created by the ghosts of offshore bank accounts. Americans deserve to know who their neighbors are."

Something I never knew or thought about.

I wonder how many are foreigners ?

Yet it is public record to look up my name when I lived in my house and how much I paid....


I agree that this is a problem .


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Re: Secret Landlords?
« Reply #633 on: December 18, 2019, 07:16:01 AM »
https://www.revealnews.org/article/unmasking-the-secret-landlords-buying-up-america/

"All-cash transactions have come to account for a quarter of all residential real estate purchases,"

   - All-cash transaction means the buyer is one property ahead in terms of debt.  Borrow against what you already own and you negotiate the price with cash.  Cash is the only way to buy below market and 'market' prices right now in many areas seem to me to be too high to make sense.

"nearly 3 million U.S. homes and 13 million apartment units are owned by LLC, LLP, LP or shell companies – levels of anonymous ownership not seen in American history. "

   - LL*  means 'limited liability'.   Everyone should do that.  Costs $155 in MN, $50 in Colo.  Yes you can list the mailing address as an attorney's office but I have never found the owner hard to find.  People find me pretty easily.  I don't know how you assert your ownership without publicly listing that you own the underlying company.

If you rent it out (in Mpls) you must disclose, person of responsibility, birth date, address (not a PO Box), email, cell phone of that person, etc.  Not exactly anonymous.
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@regservices/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-143382.pdf

"First-time homebuyers are denied the opportunity to buy affordable homes with bank loans because those properties already have been scooped up by shell companies."

   - Oh good grief.  One buyer gets a 30% discount for cash as is and another 'buyer' doesn't have the money or even a significant down payment, offers a myriad of contingencies including buyer's inspection (rigged to lower the price), contingent on appraisal and securing the loan, and has about ten cents in "earnest" to hold the property through a long, difficult process.  The market can't sort that out the difference?

"Tenants can’t figure out to whom to complain when something goes wrong. Local officials don’t know whom to hold responsible for code violations and neighborhood blight. ... With anonymity comes impunity, and, for vulnerable tenants, skyrocketing numbers of evictions."

   - Those points are contradictory.  You can't evict anonymously, you must list a plaintiff.  Cities CAN and do hold landlords accountable.  The CITY is the landlord's biggest fear, (along with the IRS).  Most evictions are caused by non-payment of rent.  That skyrockets in a welfare mentality where people think they shouldn't have to pay and cities and states think it should be really hard to get your property back in default.

“It reminds me of Moldova after the fall of the Soviet Union: oligarchs running wild, stashing their gains in buildings,”

   - What?

“Among the tenants Hannity’s property managers sought to evict,” The Post reported, were “a double amputee who had lived in an apartment with her daughter for five years but did not pay on time after being hospitalized; and a single mother of three whose $980 rent check was rejected because she could not come up with a $1,050 cleaning fee for a bedbug infestation.”

   - Tough situation - and tough journalism.   Is double amputee hospitalized with bed bug infestation indicative of the housing problems in America??  Circumstances remove the obligations of a contract?  Eviction papers actually help people to get the financial assistance they need from agencies and charitable organizations.  Must it all come from the landlord?  I just evicted a tenant who ran into hard times.  I let her fall 3 years behind and pay nothing at all her last 3 months before I filed.  Every time I called her she just had another surgery "yesterday".  Could be true but she looked pretty good in court.  How long should you wait?  Forever or else you are a money grubbing ogre if you ever want your property back?  In what other business can you steal the merchandise and keep coming back and steal more and the law prevents the proprietor from stopping you?

The attack on Sean Hannity is unwarranted.  He has people responsible and accountable for all facets of running his properties.  With the law and the press 100% against the landlord, why would you put up a banner that says 'sue me here'?  Like any other incorporated business, your claim against a company is generally limited to the assets of the company.  What is so unique about that?  Did we get to sue each individual owner of Boeing, Delta, United, when the airplane went down?  Who would invest if you could?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 07:44:56 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18259
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #634 on: December 18, 2019, 11:29:12 PM »

   "- LL*  means 'limited liability'.   Everyone should do that.  Costs $155 in MN, $50 in Colo.  Yes you can list the mailing address as an attorney's office but I have never found the owner hard to find.  People find me pretty easily.  I don't know how you assert your ownership without publicly listing that you own the underlying company."

Heh. Tell me who really owns "Skinwalker Ranch" in Utah and I'll buy you a steak dinner. The person, not the shell company.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #635 on: December 19, 2019, 04:47:40 AM »
I am not sure I understand

All of a sudden Sean Hannity is named at the end of article
Is he the one who owns the properties used as an example in the LLC talked about?

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/republicans/sean-hannity-net-worth/

Got to admire his salesmanship skills......  he could sell an eskimo an ice cream cake.........

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
Wesbury: Yes there was a housing bubble, but not now
« Reply #636 on: February 24, 2020, 12:47:17 PM »
Yes, There Was a Housing Bubble, But Not Now To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 2/24/2020

One of the worst bipartisan policy decisions in the past generation was the aggressive government push in the 1990s and 2000s to promote homeownership, beyond what the free market could handle. Policymakers encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to gobble up lots of subprime debt, in turn boosting lending to borrowers who couldn't handle their loans.

But now a bizarre idea is making the rounds that, looking back on it, maybe there wasn't a housing bubble at all!

The theory is that home prices are already up substantially from where they were at the prior peak during the "bubble," so maybe those "bubble" prices were not that high after all. Compared to the prior peak in 2007, the national Case-Shiller index is up 15%, while the FHFA index, which measures the prices of homes financed with conforming mortgages, is up 24%.

But a great deal has changed since the prior peak, which makes it much easier to justify the higher prices of today. To assess the "fair value" of homes, we use a Price-to-Rent (P/R) ratio, which compares the asset value of all owner-occupied homes (calculated by the Federal Reserve) to the "imputed" rental value of those homes (what owners could fetch for their homes if they rented them, as calculated by the Commerce Department). Think of it like a P/E ratio: the price of all owner-occupied homes, compared to what those same homes would earn if they were rented.

For the past 40 years, the median P/R ratio is 16.0. At the peak of the housing bubble, the ratio hit a record-high of 21.4. In other words, prices were 34% above fair value. During the housing bust, the ratio plunged to 14.1, meaning national average home prices were 12% lower than you'd expect given rents. Temporarily, that made sense: prices had to get below fair value to clear the excess inventory.

Today, the P/R ratio stands at 17.0, which means home prices are 6% above their long-term average relative to rents. That's well within the normal historical range, and no reason to sell.

Comparing home values to replacement costs shows a similar pattern. That median ratio in the past forty years has been 1.58, compared with 1.59 today (almost exactly fair value) and 1.94 at the peak in 2005 (23% above fair value).

Either way you slice it, bubble era home prices really were far in excess of what you'd expect given rents and replacement costs, while prices today look reasonable.

We expect home prices to keep moving higher, but not as fast as in the last few years. Meanwhile, the climb in average home prices will diverge at the local level. Due to the limit on state and local tax deductions, expect high tax states to show flat home prices (on average), while low-tax states experience stronger price gains.

One of the reasons we remain optimistic about economic growth in general is the continued recovery in home building.

Housing starts bottomed in 2009, when builders began just 554,000 homes, 73% below the 2.073 million pace at the peak of the housing boom in 2005. Since 2010, the number of housing starts has increased in every year, hitting 1.300 million in 2019.

Starts have been much higher in recent months due to the unusually mild winter weather throughout much of the country. And while we may see a pullback in the coming months as weather patterns return to normal, we anticipate at least a few more years of gains in home building. Given population growth and scrappage (knock downs, fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes...etc), builders have simply started too few homes since the bust. Now it looks like they need to overshoot to make up for lost time. In turn, expect new home sales to follow starts higher.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
March Home Sales down 15.4%
« Reply #638 on: April 23, 2020, 01:45:41 PM »
Data Watch
________________________________________
New Single-Family Home Sales Declined 15.4% in March To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 4/23/2020

New single-family home sales declined 15.4% in March to a 627,000 annual rate, below the consensus expected 644,000. Sales are down 9.5% from a year ago.

Sales fell in all major regions.

The months' supply of new homes (how long it would take to sell all the homes in inventory) rose to 6.4 months in March from 5.2 months in February. The increase was due to both the slower pace of sales and an increase in inventories of 9,000 units.

The median price of new homes sold was $321,400 in March, up 3.5% from a year ago. The average price of new homes sold was $375,300, up 0.7% versus last year.

Implications: Forget about new home sales for a minute. Workers filed 4.43 million new claims for unemployment insurance last week, continuing the trend of catastrophically high readings we've seen since government shutdowns of the economy to fight the Coronavirus began a little over a month ago. The (semi-)good news is that initial claims fell 810,000 from the week prior and it looks like we saw the peak three weeks ago at 6.87 million. Continuing claims, data which lags initial claims by one week, hit a record high of 15.98 million and are likely to rise again in next week's report. Plugging these figures into our models suggests the unemployment rate for April will be in the vicinity of 18.0%. Turning back to the housing market, new home sales posted the largest monthly decline since 2013 as the effects of shutdowns and social distancing began to hit activity. We expect sales to continue to weaken in April as well as buyers stay home, followed by an eventual rebound as the case curve continues to bend and strict public health measures are gradually rolled back. One piece of good news for potential buyers is that Fed liquidity measures have helped reverse the spike in mortgage rates that happened in aftermath of the US virus outbreak, boosting affordability. The inventory of homes for sale rose by 9,000 units in March, probably the result of potential buyers backing out of planned purchases as the economic fallout began. However, there is no significant overhang of finished new homes waiting for buyers. In fact, all the increase in unsold new homes in the past year has been for homes where construction has yet to start. The inventory of unsold homes that are either under construction or finished is still down from a year ago. Given the downward pressure that lockdowns and social distancing are having on construction, we do not expect an oversupply of housing anytime soon. In other recent housing news, the FHFA index, which measures prices for homes financed by conforming mortgages, increased 0.7% in February and is up 5.7% from a year ago. Finally, on the manufacturing front, the Kansas City Fed index fell to -30 in April from -17 in March, hitting its lowest level on record going back to 2001. This mirrors other regional Fed surveys, which are signaling continued pain for the factory sector.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
Mortgage Realities
« Reply #639 on: May 11, 2020, 05:35:06 PM »
The Mortgage Market Never Got Fixed After 2008. Now It’s Breaking Again.
Many mortgage companies are nonbanks that don’t have deposits or other business lines to cushion them amid the coronavirus pandemic
As big banks have refocused their mortgage operations on wealthier borrowers, nonbanks have stepped into the void, often representing the only path to a mortgage for buyers of lesser means. Homes in Leander, Texas. ILANA PANICH-LINSMAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By Ben Eisen
Updated May 9, 2020 5:30 am ET

Ann Winn called her mortgage company to see about pausing payments in late March, soon after she had to shut down the salon she owns in a suburb of Austin, Texas.

What followed, she said, were hours of tense calls and emails with Freedom Mortgage Corp. The company agreed to let her skip a few payments—but only if she would repay them all in a lump sum this summer. Ms. Winn didn’t know when she would be back at work, so she declined.

Nonbank share of mortgage market
Sources: Urban Institute (servicing); Inside MortgageFinance (origination)
%
Servicing
Origination
2006
’08
’10
’12
’14
’16
’18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Originationx2015x47.6%
“I’m just not going to pay my other bills,” she said, “because I don’t want to lose my home.”

The coronavirus pandemic has delivered a gut punch to the economy and the mortgage market is particularly exposed. The virus has forced millions of homeowners to suddenly stop making payments. At the same time, many mortgage companies aren’t built to handle an economic collapse or help their customers through it. Many of them are nonbanks that don’t have deposits or other business lines to cushion them, and they have raised concerns that fronting payments for struggling borrowers such as Ms. Winn will quickly drain them of capital.

Years ago, the financial crisis revealed the folly of churning out “liar loans.” Regulators cracked down, and mortgages made today are generally more conservative. What regulators didn’t focus on was the strength of the mortgage companies themselves. Though the loans are sturdier, the infrastructure largely didn’t change.


Ann Winn, at her home in Leander, Texas, didn’t know when she would be back at work, so she declined an offer by her mortgage company to skip a few payments and repay them all in a lump sum this summer.
FOTO: ILANA PANICH-LINSMAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Over the past decade, the business of originating and servicing mortgages has moved back toward nonbanks such as Freedom Mortgage. Nonbanks made 59% of U.S. mortgages last year, the highest level on record, according to industry-research group Inside Mortgage Finance. They also made a large proportion of U.S. mortgages before 2008 but many went bust when the crisis hit.

Many nonbanks, like United Wholesale Mortgage and loanDepot.com LLC, are barely known outside the industry but dominant inside it. Quicken Loans Inc., one of the few with wide name recognition, ranked as the largest mortgage lender by originations for the first time this year, elbowing out Wells Fargo WFC -2.58% & Co. and JPMorgan Chase JPM -2.94% & Co.

As big banks have refocused their mortgage operations on wealthier borrowers, nonbanks have stepped into the void, often representing the only path to a mortgage for buyers of lesser means. Their retreat could lock many would-be borrowers out of homeownership and make it harder for the economy to bounce back.

Nonbanks also have expanded in the crucial business of servicing mortgages. They now service roughly half of them, five times their share from a decade ago, according to the Urban Institute.

Nonbank share of mortgage originations byloan type, monthly
Source: Urban Institute
%
Fannie
Freddie
Ginnie
2013
’14
’15
’16
’17
’18
’19
’20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
In good times, that task involves collecting payments from borrowers and handing them to investors that own the loans, plus handling odds and ends such as taxes. In exchange, the servicer gets a slice of the interest. In bad times, servicers are supposed to create new payment plans for struggling borrowers, which takes much more work and expense. When all else fails, servicers initiate foreclosures.

For years after the crisis, regulators, mortgage executives and consumer advocates discussed how to improve this market. They floated ideas about changing the way servicers are paid so they collect a bigger fee when a loan becomes delinquent. They also considered having the servicers fund a central utility to handle defaulted mortgages. But those ideas never gained much traction, according to people involved.

“There was a big focus on the consumer experience,” said Michael Bright, the former head of government mortgage corporation Ginnie Mae, which backs Federal Housing Administration loans. “But there wasn’t much focus on the quality of a servicer.”


About 7.5% of borrowers had obtained forbearances as of April 26, according to a survey by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Homes in Leander.
PHOTO: ILANA PANICH-LINSMAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The structure of the U.S. mortgage market is much the same as it was before the crisis. Pools of mortgages are packaged and sold to investors around the world. When a borrower stops paying, servicers are caught in the middle, forced to front payments to the investor, even though they aren’t receiving money from the borrower.

The servicer will eventually get reimbursed if the mortgage is one of the roughly two-thirds guaranteed by Fannie Mae, FNMA -0.59% Freddie Mac FMCC -0.93% or Ginnie Mae. But that is a slow process and in some cases can take years.

STAY INFORMED
Get a coronavirus briefing six days a week, and a weekly Health newsletter once the crisis abates: Sign up here.

Lawmakers recently outlined how struggling borrowers can request so-called forbearance plans, by which they pause their monthly payments. If the mortgage is government-backed, then companies are generally supposed to grant the request.

That has thrust both banks and nonbanks into the position of cushioning the blow for their customers. Nonbanks, which depend on short-term bank loans to fund their daily operations, are struggling to do so.

“This is a systemic problem,” said Karan Kaul, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute.

About 7.5% of borrowers had obtained forbearances as of April 26, according to a survey by the Mortgage Bankers Association, or MBA. That means about 3.8 million homeowners are skipping their monthly payments with permission.

How Fannie and Freddie Prop Up America's Favorite Mortgage
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT

How Fannie and Freddie Prop Up America's Favorite Mortgage

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back about half of new mortgages in the U.S. Now, talks are heating up about reshaping or shrinking the two companies, a move that could impact millions of Americans. Photo: Heather Seidel/The Wall Street Journal
If forbearance rates reach the mid-to-high teens, few servicers are expected to have the cash to meet their advance obligations, according to Warren Kornfeld, who covers nonbank mortgage companies at Moody’s Investors Service. As a result, many are now trying to gain access to additional cash.

Mortgage servicers, both banks and nonbanks, were on the hook for about $4.5 billion a month in servicing advances on government-backed loans because of forbearances as of Thursday. That is roughly 25 times more than they were on the hook for at the end of February, according to Black Knight Inc., BKI 1.22% a mortgage-data and technology firm.

Ms. Winn and her husband bought their Leander, Texas, home in 2014 using the FHA loan program, which is meant for first-time and modest-income buyers. Later, they learned their lender had passed the servicing rights to Freedom.


Nick Swartz, left, Ann Winn and their daughter, Jasnie, take their dog and cat for a walk in the neighborhood, Thursday.
PHOTO: ILANA PANICH-LINSMAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Ms. Winn had little interaction with Freedom until calling in March. A representative told her she could skip payments for April, May and June, but would then have to pay four months all at once. Another representative told her that she could later ask to tack the missed payments onto the end of the loan, but that there was no guarantee she would be approved.

In late April, she received a letter saying she had been automatically opted into the first plan. She intends to keep making her monthly payments anyway, since she doesn’t want to pay for four months at once.

Chief Executive Stanley Middleman said in a statement that Freedom is “managing a great deal of unplanned activity” but plans to fix any issues that arise.

“We are doing the best we can and will continue to do so,” Mr. Middleman said.

The stimulus bill provided little detail on when borrowers would have to make up deferred payments. But the regulator that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage companies that back conventional loans, clarified recently that its homeowners won’t have to make up their missed payments all at once. The FHA program has made similar comments.

Industry representatives say that forbearance plans were rolled out on a vast scale very quickly, which led to confusion among both servicers and borrowers. Bob Broeksmit, CEO of the MBA, acknowledged that there have been issues between servicers and borrowers but said that recent guidance is likely to bring more clarity.

Number of nonbank mortgage companies
Source: Conference of State Bank Supervisors
2012
’14
’16
’18
14,500
15,000
15,500
16,000
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
18,500
The borrowers the nonbanks serve are often the ones that most need help. Last year, nonbanks made 86% of FHA mortgages. As of Thursday, roughly 13% of FHA loans had forbearances, according to Black Knight.

Nonbanks say they have spent significant time bolstering their businesses for a downturn. Some said in recent earnings reports that they now expect the coronavirus fallout to be smaller than they initially feared. Still, Ginnie Mae has set up a lending facility to help companies that are out of options. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are only requiring servicers to advance four months’ worth of payments.

The health of nonbanks ultimately depends on keeping their funding. Worried about the surge in borrowers seeking relief, some banks have recently curtailed this lending.

Index of mortgage-credit availability
Source: Mortgage Bankers Association
Note: March 31, 2012 = 100
2013
’14
’15
’16
’17
’18
’19
’20
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mortgage companies, both banks and nonbanks, are also pulling back on some lending to borrowers. Credit availability in April fell to its lowest since 2014, according to the MBA.

Lenders are cutting back in particular for borrowers with lower credit scores, according to the Urban Institute. But the contraction in credit is spreading to all types of loans—from jumbo mortgages to cash-out refinances.

Beverly Harris was in the process of buying a home in the Palm Springs, Calif., area in March when the type of unconventional loan she had been pre-approved for suddenly became unavailable.

The retiree, who has a high credit score and was planning to put 20% down, was expecting to use a loan that qualifies the borrower based on assets rather than income. She estimates she checked with 15 different mortgage companies and banks. All of them had stopped making those types of loans.

For now, Ms. Harris is staying put in her rental.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52060
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #640 on: May 27, 2020, 06:58:00 AM »
New Single-Family Home Sales Increased 0.6% in April To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 5/26/2020

New single-family home sales increased 0.6% in April to a 623,000 annual rate, easily beating the consensus expected 480,000. Sales are down 6.2% from a year ago.

Sales rose in the Northeast, Midwest, and South, but fell in the West.

The months' supply of new homes (how long it would take to sell all the homes in inventory) fell to 6.3 months in April from 6.4 months in March. The decline was due to both the faster pace of sales and a decrease in inventories of 6,000 units.

The median price of new homes sold was $309,900 in April, down 8.6% from a year ago. The average price of new homes sold was $364,500, down 5.4% versus last year.

Implications: New home sales surprised to the upside in April, easily beating consensus expectations and surpassing even the most optimistic forecast by any economics group. The headline gain of 0.6% might not look impressive, and at any other time it probably wouldn't be, but remember that April was the height of lockdowns and social distancing nationwide. That said, sales are still down 19.5% from January and 6.2% from a year ago, so the housing market is clearly still feeling some pain, though today's report signals it may be beginning to stabilize earlier than expected. Affordability is probably the main factor putting a floor under activity. Fed liquidity measures have helped fully reverse the spike in mortgage rates that happened in aftermath of the US virus outbreak, and rates now once again sit near a record low. Meanwhile, the median sales price for a new home has been falling the past two months and is now down 8.6% versus a year ago. However, this doesn't seem to be due to a significant overhang of finished new homes waiting for buyers. In fact, all the increase in the inventory of unsold new homes in the past year has been for homes where construction has yet to start. The inventory of unsold homes that are either under construction or finished is still down from a year ago. Given the downward pressure that lockdowns and social distancing are having on construction, we do not expect an oversupply of homes anytime soon. As a result, home prices bounce upward in the next several months. In other recent housing news, the Case-Shiller national home price index, which measures prices for existing single-family homes, rose 0.5% in March and was up 4.4% from a year ago. In the past year, prices are up the fastest in Phoenix and Seattle, while up the slowest in Chicago and New York. Meanwhile, the FHFA index, which measures prices for homes financed by conforming mortgages, increased 0.1% in March and is up 5.9% from a year ago.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Housing/Real Estate, out of state LLCs
« Reply #641 on: August 05, 2020, 07:46:06 AM »
https://youtu.be/aFvf66HHIYA

It keeps getting more complicated the more I try to simplify.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18259
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Real Estate, out of state LLCs
« Reply #643 on: August 19, 2020, 11:12:08 AM »
https://youtu.be/aFvf66HHIYA

It keeps getting more complicated the more I try to simplify.

Let me know what you figure out.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12956
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Real Estate, out of state LLCs
« Reply #644 on: August 19, 2020, 06:06:10 PM »
https://youtu.be/aFvf66HHIYA

It keeps getting more complicated the more I try to simplify.

Let me know what you figure out.

I like the idea of the representative contact being a law firm, making the connection fall under attorney client privilege.  Doing that out of state doesn't seem to add a layer of separation because of the need to register the company to do business in my state. 

I also need to be licensed by the City.  I can pay someone else to do that for me but then they need to be instantly reachable and pass on to me.

Part of my business is to be reachable, by tenants, by service people, by suppliers, and by the City.  This is a step where privacy is lost.  I can hire that out to an agent to list as contact, but still, I'm the one running the business, responding to the messages.

Homeowner property needs to be in your own name to all the tax benefits.  Between that and the City licensing, becoming invisible is not looking easy.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701#:~:text=If%20you%20have%20a%20capital,Home%20provides%20rules%20and%20worksheets.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18259
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Real Estate, out of state LLCs
« Reply #645 on: August 19, 2020, 06:20:46 PM »
There are still steps you can take to avoid the lovely street festivities that are becoming popular in Minnetroit's metro area.


https://youtu.be/aFvf66HHIYA

It keeps getting more complicated the more I try to simplify.

Let me know what you figure out.

I like the idea of the representative contact being a law firm, making the connection fall under attorney client privilege.  Doing that out of state doesn't seem to add a layer of separation because of the need to register the company to do business in my state. 

I also need to be licensed by the City.  I can pay someone else to do that for me but then they need to be instantly reachable and pass on to me.

Part of my business is to be reachable, by tenants, by service people, by suppliers, and by the City.  This is a step where privacy is lost.  I can hire that out to an agent to list as contact, but still, I'm the one running the business, responding to the messages.

Homeowner property needs to be in your own name to all the tax benefits.  Between that and the City licensing, becoming invisible is not looking easy.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701#:~:text=If%20you%20have%20a%20capital,Home%20provides%20rules%20and%20worksheets.