[CA renter]

If yo put it to the builder then he is going to add it to his purchase price. If the purchase price which includes MR is not in line with the market and his profit motive then he is going to walk and the project does not move forward.
——————–

However, this argument is like saying higher interest rates will make housing less affordable. I couldn’t disagree more. There is a certain price/payment threshold beyond which buyers cannot afford to pay. If that threshold is already reached (like now), then PRICES will have to correct if rates go up, it should not mean higher monthly payments.

Developers need to work backward, not forward, when considering new developments.

Instead of saying “cost of land” + development costs + profits = retail price, they need to say “market price” – [cost to develop (including all infrastructure fees/costs) + required profits] = what I will pay for this land.

Buyers determine price, not sellers. Developers determine what they will pay for land, and it is their responsibility not to overpay.

Mello-Roos allows developers to overpay for the land and shift this burden onto the buyers. Ultimately, it is the land sellers who are making all the money, although the developers benefit indirectly because they can more easily acquire land and not have to concern themselves with these development costs…and they are DEVELOPMENT costs.

[CA renter]

I agree that the GSEs needed to be taken over, ONLY because these bonds are in ALL our investments. Our banks own them, our pension plans own them, our insurance companies own them, our brokerage firms own them, our money market funds own them, our cities own them…you get the picture.

That being said, the bondholders should have been made whole (or close to it), but the subordinated debt, preferred and common shares should not have been made whole (with some exceptions, perhaps…and these are also owned by “everyone”).

If the GSEs were taken over and wound-down (with bondholders being paid par or close to it), I would not have as much of a problem with it.

Problem is, they want to make it “temporary” and then send them back into the private market **when they are profitable again and the risks are gone!!!** This is what ticks me off.

God forbid the taypayers might actually get PAID (via lower taxes and/or deficits) for all their sacrifices/risk-taking and the GSEs might actually MAKE money when the govt owns them! They should NEVER be returned to the private market. The only reason they existed was because of the implicit (now explicit) backing of the U.S. govt. They could borrow money more easily and more cheaply, and keep the mortgage market more liquid.

If they no longer have the backing of the govt (in any form), they will be no different than a regular, private mortgage lender, and do not need to exist as GSEs. If they have any kind of backing, then they should be wholly-owned by the U.S. government (and all the rules and strict regulations that go with it) and the govt should get the profits during the good times if they (we) take the risks during the bad times.

[CA renter]

I agree that the GSEs needed to be taken over, ONLY because these bonds are in ALL our investments. Our banks own them, our pension plans own them, our insurance companies own them, our brokerage firms own them, our money market funds own them, our cities own them…you get the picture.

That being said, the bondholders should have been made whole (or close to it), but the subordinated debt, preferred and common shares should not have been made whole (with some exceptions, perhaps…and these are also owned by “everyone”).

If the GSEs were taken over and wound-down (with bondholders being paid par or close to it), I would not have as much of a problem with it.

Problem is, they want to make it “temporary” and then send them back into the private market **when they are profitable again and the risks are gone!!!** This is what ticks me off.

God forbid the taypayers might actually get PAID (via lower taxes and/or deficits) for all their sacrifices/risk-taking and the GSEs might actually MAKE money when the govt owns them! They should NEVER be returned to the private market. The only reason they existed was because of the implicit (now explicit) backing of the U.S. govt. They could borrow money more easily and more cheaply, and keep the mortgage market more liquid.

If they no longer have the backing of the govt (in any form), they will be no different than a regular, private mortgage lender, and do not need to exist as GSEs. If they have any kind of backing, then they should be wholly-owned by the U.S. government (and all the rules and strict regulations that go with it) and the govt should get the profits during the good times if they (we) take the risks during the bad times.

[CA renter]

I agree that the GSEs needed to be taken over, ONLY because these bonds are in ALL our investments. Our banks own them, our pension plans own them, our insurance companies own them, our brokerage firms own them, our money market funds own them, our cities own them…you get the picture.

That being said, the bondholders should have been made whole (or close to it), but the subordinated debt, preferred and common shares should not have been made whole (with some exceptions, perhaps…and these are also owned by “everyone”).

If the GSEs were taken over and wound-down (with bondholders being paid par or close to it), I would not have as much of a problem with it.

Problem is, they want to make it “temporary” and then send them back into the private market **when they are profitable again and the risks are gone!!!** This is what ticks me off.

God forbid the taypayers might actually get PAID (via lower taxes and/or deficits) for all their sacrifices/risk-taking and the GSEs might actually MAKE money when the govt owns them! They should NEVER be returned to the private market. The only reason they existed was because of the implicit (now explicit) backing of the U.S. govt. They could borrow money more easily and more cheaply, and keep the mortgage market more liquid.

If they no longer have the backing of the govt (in any form), they will be no different than a regular, private mortgage lender, and do not need to exist as GSEs. If they have any kind of backing, then they should be wholly-owned by the U.S. government (and all the rules and strict regulations that go with it) and the govt should get the profits during the good times if they (we) take the risks during the bad times.

[CA renter]

I agree that the GSEs needed to be taken over, ONLY because these bonds are in ALL our investments. Our banks own them, our pension plans own them, our insurance companies own them, our brokerage firms own them, our money market funds own them, our cities own them…you get the picture.

That being said, the bondholders should have been made whole (or close to it), but the subordinated debt, preferred and common shares should not have been made whole (with some exceptions, perhaps…and these are also owned by “everyone”).

If the GSEs were taken over and wound-down (with bondholders being paid par or close to it), I would not have as much of a problem with it.

Problem is, they want to make it “temporary” and then send them back into the private market **when they are profitable again and the risks are gone!!!** This is what ticks me off.

God forbid the taypayers might actually get PAID (via lower taxes and/or deficits) for all their sacrifices/risk-taking and the GSEs might actually MAKE money when the govt owns them! They should NEVER be returned to the private market. The only reason they existed was because of the implicit (now explicit) backing of the U.S. govt. They could borrow money more easily and more cheaply, and keep the mortgage market more liquid.

If they no longer have the backing of the govt (in any form), they will be no different than a regular, private mortgage lender, and do not need to exist as GSEs. If they have any kind of backing, then they should be wholly-owned by the U.S. government (and all the rules and strict regulations that go with it) and the govt should get the profits during the good times if they (we) take the risks during the bad times.

[CA renter]

I agree that the GSEs needed to be taken over, ONLY because these bonds are in ALL our investments. Our banks own them, our pension plans own them, our insurance companies own them, our brokerage firms own them, our money market funds own them, our cities own them…you get the picture.

That being said, the bondholders should have been made whole (or close to it), but the subordinated debt, preferred and common shares should not have been made whole (with some exceptions, perhaps…and these are also owned by “everyone”).

If the GSEs were taken over and wound-down (with bondholders being paid par or close to it), I would not have as much of a problem with it.

Problem is, they want to make it “temporary” and then send them back into the private market **when they are profitable again and the risks are gone!!!** This is what ticks me off.

God forbid the taypayers might actually get PAID (via lower taxes and/or deficits) for all their sacrifices/risk-taking and the GSEs might actually MAKE money when the govt owns them! They should NEVER be returned to the private market. The only reason they existed was because of the implicit (now explicit) backing of the U.S. govt. They could borrow money more easily and more cheaply, and keep the mortgage market more liquid.

If they no longer have the backing of the govt (in any form), they will be no different than a regular, private mortgage lender, and do not need to exist as GSEs. If they have any kind of backing, then they should be wholly-owned by the U.S. government (and all the rules and strict regulations that go with it) and the govt should get the profits during the good times if they (we) take the risks during the bad times.

[CA renter]

Great article!

Notice the tone, even of the Realtors. Everyone seems cautious about the increased prices and note that the high prices (in 2000!!!) were not good for the overall economy.

The bubble changed everyone’s perceptions (even the bears who think that $400K is an “affordable” house).

A quote from the article:

Affordability is the “single most important factor right now that will slow our market,” said Kristen Fowler, a real estate agent at Coldwell Banker Yorba Linda.

Apartment rents are at record highs, too, and that means potential home buyers are paying more for housing, cutting into their savings for a future down payment on a house or condominium.

Said Fowler: “If housing is not affordable for the masses, we won’t have enough buyers to go around.”

[CA renter]

Great article!

Notice the tone, even of the Realtors. Everyone seems cautious about the increased prices and note that the high prices (in 2000!!!) were not good for the overall economy.

The bubble changed everyone’s perceptions (even the bears who think that $400K is an “affordable” house).

A quote from the article:

Affordability is the “single most important factor right now that will slow our market,” said Kristen Fowler, a real estate agent at Coldwell Banker Yorba Linda.

Apartment rents are at record highs, too, and that means potential home buyers are paying more for housing, cutting into their savings for a future down payment on a house or condominium.

Said Fowler: “If housing is not affordable for the masses, we won’t have enough buyers to go around.”

[CA renter]

Great article!

Notice the tone, even of the Realtors. Everyone seems cautious about the increased prices and note that the high prices (in 2000!!!) were not good for the overall economy.

The bubble changed everyone’s perceptions (even the bears who think that $400K is an “affordable” house).

A quote from the article:

Affordability is the “single most important factor right now that will slow our market,” said Kristen Fowler, a real estate agent at Coldwell Banker Yorba Linda.

Apartment rents are at record highs, too, and that means potential home buyers are paying more for housing, cutting into their savings for a future down payment on a house or condominium.

Said Fowler: “If housing is not affordable for the masses, we won’t have enough buyers to go around.”

[CA renter]

Great article!

Notice the tone, even of the Realtors. Everyone seems cautious about the increased prices and note that the high prices (in 2000!!!) were not good for the overall economy.

The bubble changed everyone’s perceptions (even the bears who think that $400K is an “affordable” house).

A quote from the article:

Affordability is the “single most important factor right now that will slow our market,” said Kristen Fowler, a real estate agent at Coldwell Banker Yorba Linda.

Apartment rents are at record highs, too, and that means potential home buyers are paying more for housing, cutting into their savings for a future down payment on a house or condominium.

Said Fowler: “If housing is not affordable for the masses, we won’t have enough buyers to go around.”

[CA renter]

Great article!

Notice the tone, even of the Realtors. Everyone seems cautious about the increased prices and note that the high prices (in 2000!!!) were not good for the overall economy.

The bubble changed everyone’s perceptions (even the bears who think that $400K is an “affordable” house).

A quote from the article:

Affordability is the “single most important factor right now that will slow our market,” said Kristen Fowler, a real estate agent at Coldwell Banker Yorba Linda.

Apartment rents are at record highs, too, and that means potential home buyers are paying more for housing, cutting into their savings for a future down payment on a house or condominium.

Said Fowler: “If housing is not affordable for the masses, we won’t have enough buyers to go around.”

[CA renter]

I had ordered the book,

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

twice from Amazon and they cancelled the order both times (claiming they were out of stock, even though I waited for weeks on back-order). Conspiracy theory? 😉

Will review these links, and greatly appreciate the post/links!

[CA renter]

I had ordered the book,

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

twice from Amazon and they cancelled the order both times (claiming they were out of stock, even though I waited for weeks on back-order). Conspiracy theory? 😉

Will review these links, and greatly appreciate the post/links!

[CA renter]

I had ordered the book,

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

twice from Amazon and they cancelled the order both times (claiming they were out of stock, even though I waited for weeks on back-order). Conspiracy theory? 😉

Will review these links, and greatly appreciate the post/links!

[CA renter]

I had ordered the book,

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

twice from Amazon and they cancelled the order both times (claiming they were out of stock, even though I waited for weeks on back-order). Conspiracy theory? 😉

Will review these links, and greatly appreciate the post/links!

[Author]

Posts