New Home Sales

[HLS]

Liars can figure and figures can lie. There is no accurate comparison to any previous month or quarter or time in history unless they were comparing a time that 30 year interest rates were at 5% AND a rebate was available to most buyers equal to about 5% of the national median house price and a very low down was required and people could qualify to be in debt for 50% of their gross income.

If sales WEREN’T better these days, the patient would be dead. In reality they are actually on life support.

Only a fool would imply that a jump from Feb to March 1963 has anything to do with people in 2010 who can barely afford Top Ramen being able to “buy” a house. It was harder to buy years ago, it’s still pretty easy today.

I’m sure that many people are paying $10K or more than they should, just so they can get an $8000 rebate. Voodoo economics. American consumer.

Unless comparisons are made to identical circumstances it’s ignorant, but what can we expect from official govt stats.

BLS U-6 unemployment is OFFICIALLY at 17%+ but the govt and media continue to spew that 9.7% is official unemployment and ignorant teleprompter readers just read what is put in front of them acting like investigative journalists.

IF at least 10% down was required to buy, there was no tax rebate and interest rates were at 6%+ the sales would be abysmal.

Leave it to the govt to report that umbrella sales in the fall & winter are up 10,000%+ over the summer and spin it into positive “economic news”
Bathing suit sales drop 95% from summer to winter,
You can mislead with all kinds of “statistics” by using meaningless comparisons to fool “themasses”

[DWCAP]

I saw a great paragraph in an article this week, but forgot where and cant find it again. It was some ‘economist’ (I use that loosly cause if I remember right it was for a political think tank) who was quoted as saying that the government had done a very good job stabilizing housing prices, but now needed to improve overall affordability.

The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.

[DWCAP]

I saw a great paragraph in an article this week, but forgot where and cant find it again. It was some ‘economist’ (I use that loosly cause if I remember right it was for a political think tank) who was quoted as saying that the government had done a very good job stabilizing housing prices, but now needed to improve overall affordability.

The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.

[DWCAP]

I saw a great paragraph in an article this week, but forgot where and cant find it again. It was some ‘economist’ (I use that loosly cause if I remember right it was for a political think tank) who was quoted as saying that the government had done a very good job stabilizing housing prices, but now needed to improve overall affordability.

The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.

[DWCAP]

I saw a great paragraph in an article this week, but forgot where and cant find it again. It was some ‘economist’ (I use that loosly cause if I remember right it was for a political think tank) who was quoted as saying that the government had done a very good job stabilizing housing prices, but now needed to improve overall affordability.

The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.

[DWCAP]

I saw a great paragraph in an article this week, but forgot where and cant find it again. It was some ‘economist’ (I use that loosly cause if I remember right it was for a political think tank) who was quoted as saying that the government had done a very good job stabilizing housing prices, but now needed to improve overall affordability.

The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.

[patientrenter]

[quote=DWCAP]…The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.[/quote]

These guys know exactly what they are doing. “Stabilizing” home (and stock) prices is a euphemism for keeping the bubble inflated. Adding affordability to that mix just means subsidizing buyers enough up front so they can pay more for the house. The idea is to keep transferring money from new buyers and taxpayers to existing homeowners for as long as possible.

They know all this, very, very well. They just don’t want those new buyers to catch on.

[patientrenter]

[quote=DWCAP]…The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.[/quote]

These guys know exactly what they are doing. “Stabilizing” home (and stock) prices is a euphemism for keeping the bubble inflated. Adding affordability to that mix just means subsidizing buyers enough up front so they can pay more for the house. The idea is to keep transferring money from new buyers and taxpayers to existing homeowners for as long as possible.

They know all this, very, very well. They just don’t want those new buyers to catch on.

[patientrenter]

[quote=DWCAP]…The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.[/quote]

These guys know exactly what they are doing. “Stabilizing” home (and stock) prices is a euphemism for keeping the bubble inflated. Adding affordability to that mix just means subsidizing buyers enough up front so they can pay more for the house. The idea is to keep transferring money from new buyers and taxpayers to existing homeowners for as long as possible.

They know all this, very, very well. They just don’t want those new buyers to catch on.

[patientrenter]

[quote=DWCAP]…The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.[/quote]

These guys know exactly what they are doing. “Stabilizing” home (and stock) prices is a euphemism for keeping the bubble inflated. Adding affordability to that mix just means subsidizing buyers enough up front so they can pay more for the house. The idea is to keep transferring money from new buyers and taxpayers to existing homeowners for as long as possible.

They know all this, very, very well. They just don’t want those new buyers to catch on.

[patientrenter]

[quote=DWCAP]…The irony of the fact that stabilizing housing prices is reducing affordability was totally lost on them.[/quote]

These guys know exactly what they are doing. “Stabilizing” home (and stock) prices is a euphemism for keeping the bubble inflated. Adding affordability to that mix just means subsidizing buyers enough up front so they can pay more for the house. The idea is to keep transferring money from new buyers and taxpayers to existing homeowners for as long as possible.

They know all this, very, very well. They just don’t want those new buyers to catch on.

[CA renter]

HLS,

Agree with everything you’ve said and would add that the $8,000 tax credit might push prices up by far more than $10,000.

As you know, if the full $8,000 is used by a zero-down FHA buyer, that buyer is now able to buy a $228,571 house if the seller offers a “credit” toward the closing costs. This is a buyer who would otherwise not be in the buyer pool.

It affects all FHA/3.5% down payment buyers all the way up the chain, too. Same potential price boost of $200K+ due to the free govt cheese.

If a buyer is planning to put 20% down and use the $8,000 as part of the down payment, it increases their spending power by $40,000.

Essentially, the credit boosted prices by giving everyone that additional spending power (I refuse to call it buying power), and it brought a whole bunch of otherwise unqualified buyers into the buyer pool. Just think of the artificial demand that created!

$40,000 is probably the very **minimum** boost to prices as a result of this tax credit. The true benefit (to SELLERS) is probably in the $100K-$250K range, and may be more, IMHO.

[CA renter]

HLS,

Agree with everything you’ve said and would add that the $8,000 tax credit might push prices up by far more than $10,000.

As you know, if the full $8,000 is used by a zero-down FHA buyer, that buyer is now able to buy a $228,571 house if the seller offers a “credit” toward the closing costs. This is a buyer who would otherwise not be in the buyer pool.

It affects all FHA/3.5% down payment buyers all the way up the chain, too. Same potential price boost of $200K+ due to the free govt cheese.

If a buyer is planning to put 20% down and use the $8,000 as part of the down payment, it increases their spending power by $40,000.

Essentially, the credit boosted prices by giving everyone that additional spending power (I refuse to call it buying power), and it brought a whole bunch of otherwise unqualified buyers into the buyer pool. Just think of the artificial demand that created!

$40,000 is probably the very **minimum** boost to prices as a result of this tax credit. The true benefit (to SELLERS) is probably in the $100K-$250K range, and may be more, IMHO.

[CA renter]

HLS,

Agree with everything you’ve said and would add that the $8,000 tax credit might push prices up by far more than $10,000.

As you know, if the full $8,000 is used by a zero-down FHA buyer, that buyer is now able to buy a $228,571 house if the seller offers a “credit” toward the closing costs. This is a buyer who would otherwise not be in the buyer pool.

It affects all FHA/3.5% down payment buyers all the way up the chain, too. Same potential price boost of $200K+ due to the free govt cheese.

If a buyer is planning to put 20% down and use the $8,000 as part of the down payment, it increases their spending power by $40,000.

Essentially, the credit boosted prices by giving everyone that additional spending power (I refuse to call it buying power), and it brought a whole bunch of otherwise unqualified buyers into the buyer pool. Just think of the artificial demand that created!

$40,000 is probably the very **minimum** boost to prices as a result of this tax credit. The true benefit (to SELLERS) is probably in the $100K-$250K range, and may be more, IMHO.

[CA renter]

HLS,

Agree with everything you’ve said and would add that the $8,000 tax credit might push prices up by far more than $10,000.

As you know, if the full $8,000 is used by a zero-down FHA buyer, that buyer is now able to buy a $228,571 house if the seller offers a “credit” toward the closing costs. This is a buyer who would otherwise not be in the buyer pool.

It affects all FHA/3.5% down payment buyers all the way up the chain, too. Same potential price boost of $200K+ due to the free govt cheese.

If a buyer is planning to put 20% down and use the $8,000 as part of the down payment, it increases their spending power by $40,000.

Essentially, the credit boosted prices by giving everyone that additional spending power (I refuse to call it buying power), and it brought a whole bunch of otherwise unqualified buyers into the buyer pool. Just think of the artificial demand that created!

$40,000 is probably the very **minimum** boost to prices as a result of this tax credit. The true benefit (to SELLERS) is probably in the $100K-$250K range, and may be more, IMHO.

[Author]

Posts