[Coronita]

I didn't know this was obvious.

It isn't just that people are underwater. That is less than 10%. It is that the average homeowner now has less than 50% equity. I hadn't heard this statistic before.

Perhaps if things are so obvious to you, you can tell us how this is all going to play out?

In any case, I think this helps mark a big psychological shift in homeownership thinking. The house-as-an-ATM mindset will gradually be a thing of the past as it never should have existed in the first place. That along with everyone thinking it is prudent to buy a home with 0% down.

MR, this wasn't meant as a swipe at you. My apologies that it came across that way.

Here's what I meant. Well, when you hear about average joe's taking out refinances and HELOCS left and right and home values are now declining, it seems pretty evident most people who fall in this category are going to be below 50%. And it's seemed pretty obvious that anyone that purchased within the past 5 years more than likely has less than 50% equity.

The article basically reads "more people who own homes have less than 50% equity", which I felt was like "no kidding, really?". What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That's what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn't consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.

It is interesting that "10.3 percent of homes, will have zero or negative equity by the end of the month", though this was already reported earlier. San Diego will probably be a lot worse. Just look at my previous posting regarding CV attached homes. That's a bloodbath waiting to happen imho.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I didn't know this was obvious.

It isn't just that people are underwater. That is less than 10%. It is that the average homeowner now has less than 50% equity. I hadn't heard this statistic before.

Perhaps if things are so obvious to you, you can tell us how this is all going to play out?

In any case, I think this helps mark a big psychological shift in homeownership thinking. The house-as-an-ATM mindset will gradually be a thing of the past as it never should have existed in the first place. That along with everyone thinking it is prudent to buy a home with 0% down.

MR, this wasn't meant as a swipe at you. My apologies that it came across that way.

Here's what I meant. Well, when you hear about average joe's taking out refinances and HELOCS left and right and home values are now declining, it seems pretty evident most people who fall in this category are going to be below 50%. And it's seemed pretty obvious that anyone that purchased within the past 5 years more than likely has less than 50% equity.

The article basically reads "more people who own homes have less than 50% equity", which I felt was like "no kidding, really?". What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That's what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn't consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.

It is interesting that "10.3 percent of homes, will have zero or negative equity by the end of the month", though this was already reported earlier. San Diego will probably be a lot worse. Just look at my previous posting regarding CV attached homes. That's a bloodbath waiting to happen imho.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I didn't know this was obvious.

It isn't just that people are underwater. That is less than 10%. It is that the average homeowner now has less than 50% equity. I hadn't heard this statistic before.

Perhaps if things are so obvious to you, you can tell us how this is all going to play out?

In any case, I think this helps mark a big psychological shift in homeownership thinking. The house-as-an-ATM mindset will gradually be a thing of the past as it never should have existed in the first place. That along with everyone thinking it is prudent to buy a home with 0% down.

MR, this wasn't meant as a swipe at you. My apologies that it came across that way.

Here's what I meant. Well, when you hear about average joe's taking out refinances and HELOCS left and right and home values are now declining, it seems pretty evident most people who fall in this category are going to be below 50%. And it's seemed pretty obvious that anyone that purchased within the past 5 years more than likely has less than 50% equity.

The article basically reads "more people who own homes have less than 50% equity", which I felt was like "no kidding, really?". What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That's what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn't consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.

It is interesting that "10.3 percent of homes, will have zero or negative equity by the end of the month", though this was already reported earlier. San Diego will probably be a lot worse. Just look at my previous posting regarding CV attached homes. That's a bloodbath waiting to happen imho.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I didn't know this was obvious.

It isn't just that people are underwater. That is less than 10%. It is that the average homeowner now has less than 50% equity. I hadn't heard this statistic before.

Perhaps if things are so obvious to you, you can tell us how this is all going to play out?

In any case, I think this helps mark a big psychological shift in homeownership thinking. The house-as-an-ATM mindset will gradually be a thing of the past as it never should have existed in the first place. That along with everyone thinking it is prudent to buy a home with 0% down.

MR, this wasn't meant as a swipe at you. My apologies that it came across that way.

Here's what I meant. Well, when you hear about average joe's taking out refinances and HELOCS left and right and home values are now declining, it seems pretty evident most people who fall in this category are going to be below 50%. And it's seemed pretty obvious that anyone that purchased within the past 5 years more than likely has less than 50% equity.

The article basically reads "more people who own homes have less than 50% equity", which I felt was like "no kidding, really?". What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That's what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn't consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.

It is interesting that "10.3 percent of homes, will have zero or negative equity by the end of the month", though this was already reported earlier. San Diego will probably be a lot worse. Just look at my previous posting regarding CV attached homes. That's a bloodbath waiting to happen imho.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I didn't know this was obvious.

It isn't just that people are underwater. That is less than 10%. It is that the average homeowner now has less than 50% equity. I hadn't heard this statistic before.

Perhaps if things are so obvious to you, you can tell us how this is all going to play out?

In any case, I think this helps mark a big psychological shift in homeownership thinking. The house-as-an-ATM mindset will gradually be a thing of the past as it never should have existed in the first place. That along with everyone thinking it is prudent to buy a home with 0% down.

MR, this wasn't meant as a swipe at you. My apologies that it came across that way.

Here's what I meant. Well, when you hear about average joe's taking out refinances and HELOCS left and right and home values are now declining, it seems pretty evident most people who fall in this category are going to be below 50%. And it's seemed pretty obvious that anyone that purchased within the past 5 years more than likely has less than 50% equity.

The article basically reads "more people who own homes have less than 50% equity", which I felt was like "no kidding, really?". What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That's what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn't consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.

It is interesting that "10.3 percent of homes, will have zero or negative equity by the end of the month", though this was already reported earlier. San Diego will probably be a lot worse. Just look at my previous posting regarding CV attached homes. That's a bloodbath waiting to happen imho.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Um, so can someone educate idiotic me the significance of this metric?

Over the past say 5 years we had unprecedented number of buyers. Clearly, most of them are under the 50% equity meter (including me). Doesn't this just skew the data as such? And of course we know people refinanced out like crazy. So that's self evident .So beyond reporting the obvious, what additional value does this report bring to the table beyond reporting what is known all along?

 

It seems like the media has caught on to "piling on" data that is bad news. I'm just looking for the media to explain significance of data to laymen like me, besides just contributing to the hysteria for the sake of eyeballs.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Um, so can someone educate idiotic me the significance of this metric?

Over the past say 5 years we had unprecedented number of buyers. Clearly, most of them are under the 50% equity meter (including me). Doesn't this just skew the data as such? And of course we know people refinanced out like crazy. So that's self evident .So beyond reporting the obvious, what additional value does this report bring to the table beyond reporting what is known all along?

 

It seems like the media has caught on to "piling on" data that is bad news. I'm just looking for the media to explain significance of data to laymen like me, besides just contributing to the hysteria for the sake of eyeballs.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Um, so can someone educate idiotic me the significance of this metric?

Over the past say 5 years we had unprecedented number of buyers. Clearly, most of them are under the 50% equity meter (including me). Doesn't this just skew the data as such? And of course we know people refinanced out like crazy. So that's self evident .So beyond reporting the obvious, what additional value does this report bring to the table beyond reporting what is known all along?

 

It seems like the media has caught on to "piling on" data that is bad news. I'm just looking for the media to explain significance of data to laymen like me, besides just contributing to the hysteria for the sake of eyeballs.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Um, so can someone educate idiotic me the significance of this metric?

Over the past say 5 years we had unprecedented number of buyers. Clearly, most of them are under the 50% equity meter (including me). Doesn't this just skew the data as such? And of course we know people refinanced out like crazy. So that's self evident .So beyond reporting the obvious, what additional value does this report bring to the table beyond reporting what is known all along?

 

It seems like the media has caught on to "piling on" data that is bad news. I'm just looking for the media to explain significance of data to laymen like me, besides just contributing to the hysteria for the sake of eyeballs.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Um, so can someone educate idiotic me the significance of this metric?

Over the past say 5 years we had unprecedented number of buyers. Clearly, most of them are under the 50% equity meter (including me). Doesn't this just skew the data as such? And of course we know people refinanced out like crazy. So that's self evident .So beyond reporting the obvious, what additional value does this report bring to the table beyond reporting what is known all along?

 

It seems like the media has caught on to "piling on" data that is bad news. I'm just looking for the media to explain significance of data to laymen like me, besides just contributing to the hysteria for the sake of eyeballs.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

did you run the stats for listings that are less then 6 percent
above the purchase price?

because without assessing transaction fees, you can't
see who is losing on the transaction

No, the 39 instances are clearly below previous purchase price.

There are quite a but more that are selling less than 6percent above purchase price, but I didn't include those, which would make the percentage of actives underwater closer to 50%. You can do that as an exercise though 🙂

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

did you run the stats for listings that are less then 6 percent
above the purchase price?

because without assessing transaction fees, you can't
see who is losing on the transaction

No, the 39 instances are clearly below previous purchase price.

There are quite a but more that are selling less than 6percent above purchase price, but I didn't include those, which would make the percentage of actives underwater closer to 50%. You can do that as an exercise though 🙂

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

did you run the stats for listings that are less then 6 percent
above the purchase price?

because without assessing transaction fees, you can't
see who is losing on the transaction

No, the 39 instances are clearly below previous purchase price.

There are quite a but more that are selling less than 6percent above purchase price, but I didn't include those, which would make the percentage of actives underwater closer to 50%. You can do that as an exercise though 🙂

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

did you run the stats for listings that are less then 6 percent
above the purchase price?

because without assessing transaction fees, you can't
see who is losing on the transaction

No, the 39 instances are clearly below previous purchase price.

There are quite a but more that are selling less than 6percent above purchase price, but I didn't include those, which would make the percentage of actives underwater closer to 50%. You can do that as an exercise though 🙂

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

did you run the stats for listings that are less then 6 percent
above the purchase price?

because without assessing transaction fees, you can't
see who is losing on the transaction

No, the 39 instances are clearly below previous purchase price.

There are quite a but more that are selling less than 6percent above purchase price, but I didn't include those, which would make the percentage of actives underwater closer to 50%. You can do that as an exercise though 🙂

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Author]

Posts