[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Guess all those green shoots that the govt told us about all of last year turned out to be weeds…[/quote]

On fundamentals, that’s right. But Ben is printing up 600 fresh billions, and that will have an impact. We will either see price increases again, or less of a price decrease. It’s pretty much dial-a-market-level now, run from the Fed.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Guess all those green shoots that the govt told us about all of last year turned out to be weeds…[/quote]

On fundamentals, that’s right. But Ben is printing up 600 fresh billions, and that will have an impact. We will either see price increases again, or less of a price decrease. It’s pretty much dial-a-market-level now, run from the Fed.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Guess all those green shoots that the govt told us about all of last year turned out to be weeds…[/quote]

On fundamentals, that’s right. But Ben is printing up 600 fresh billions, and that will have an impact. We will either see price increases again, or less of a price decrease. It’s pretty much dial-a-market-level now, run from the Fed.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Guess all those green shoots that the govt told us about all of last year turned out to be weeds…[/quote]

On fundamentals, that’s right. But Ben is printing up 600 fresh billions, and that will have an impact. We will either see price increases again, or less of a price decrease. It’s pretty much dial-a-market-level now, run from the Fed.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc]….I don’t expect anyone to cry for us, but just wanted to make the point that not everyone has “greed” reasons for wanting home values to rise.[/quote]

I am not criticizing you, irondoc. From the data you provided, you are amongst the most responsible 5% of the homebuyers.

But there is something wrong when the ‘stretching’, you did, as you put it, is more responsible than 95% of what others were doing.

I don’t think there’s a general recognition of this yet. We still have ridiculously low downpayment requirements, and people still believe that, if they wait long enough, they will make a lot of money from owning real estate. In the 2006 heyday, they had to wait a year or two. Now, they assume that they will make out if they wait a decade. Same game, just different horizons.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc]….I don’t expect anyone to cry for us, but just wanted to make the point that not everyone has “greed” reasons for wanting home values to rise.[/quote]

I am not criticizing you, irondoc. From the data you provided, you are amongst the most responsible 5% of the homebuyers.

But there is something wrong when the ‘stretching’, you did, as you put it, is more responsible than 95% of what others were doing.

I don’t think there’s a general recognition of this yet. We still have ridiculously low downpayment requirements, and people still believe that, if they wait long enough, they will make a lot of money from owning real estate. In the 2006 heyday, they had to wait a year or two. Now, they assume that they will make out if they wait a decade. Same game, just different horizons.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc]….I don’t expect anyone to cry for us, but just wanted to make the point that not everyone has “greed” reasons for wanting home values to rise.[/quote]

I am not criticizing you, irondoc. From the data you provided, you are amongst the most responsible 5% of the homebuyers.

But there is something wrong when the ‘stretching’, you did, as you put it, is more responsible than 95% of what others were doing.

I don’t think there’s a general recognition of this yet. We still have ridiculously low downpayment requirements, and people still believe that, if they wait long enough, they will make a lot of money from owning real estate. In the 2006 heyday, they had to wait a year or two. Now, they assume that they will make out if they wait a decade. Same game, just different horizons.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc]….I don’t expect anyone to cry for us, but just wanted to make the point that not everyone has “greed” reasons for wanting home values to rise.[/quote]

I am not criticizing you, irondoc. From the data you provided, you are amongst the most responsible 5% of the homebuyers.

But there is something wrong when the ‘stretching’, you did, as you put it, is more responsible than 95% of what others were doing.

I don’t think there’s a general recognition of this yet. We still have ridiculously low downpayment requirements, and people still believe that, if they wait long enough, they will make a lot of money from owning real estate. In the 2006 heyday, they had to wait a year or two. Now, they assume that they will make out if they wait a decade. Same game, just different horizons.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc]….I don’t expect anyone to cry for us, but just wanted to make the point that not everyone has “greed” reasons for wanting home values to rise.[/quote]

I am not criticizing you, irondoc. From the data you provided, you are amongst the most responsible 5% of the homebuyers.

But there is something wrong when the ‘stretching’, you did, as you put it, is more responsible than 95% of what others were doing.

I don’t think there’s a general recognition of this yet. We still have ridiculously low downpayment requirements, and people still believe that, if they wait long enough, they will make a lot of money from owning real estate. In the 2006 heyday, they had to wait a year or two. Now, they assume that they will make out if they wait a decade. Same game, just different horizons.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc] …So yes, I cheer when prices rise, even though I hope to never act upon that increase in value.[/quote]

I concur with CAR, and hope your wife gets a job soon.

But I am a little puzzled about why you would have to sell. If your house payments did not exceed 28% of household income, the old standard for maximum payments, then it’s hard to see why losing your wife’s income would force you into selling.

Now, it wouldn’t surprise me if you, like many people, stretched to more than 28%, but that just goes to show how weak the loan underwriting standards have become. Our government is inviting us (as buyers or taxpayers backstopping the loans) to take on way too much risk, and the only reason is to keep home prices high.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc] …So yes, I cheer when prices rise, even though I hope to never act upon that increase in value.[/quote]

I concur with CAR, and hope your wife gets a job soon.

But I am a little puzzled about why you would have to sell. If your house payments did not exceed 28% of household income, the old standard for maximum payments, then it’s hard to see why losing your wife’s income would force you into selling.

Now, it wouldn’t surprise me if you, like many people, stretched to more than 28%, but that just goes to show how weak the loan underwriting standards have become. Our government is inviting us (as buyers or taxpayers backstopping the loans) to take on way too much risk, and the only reason is to keep home prices high.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc] …So yes, I cheer when prices rise, even though I hope to never act upon that increase in value.[/quote]

I concur with CAR, and hope your wife gets a job soon.

But I am a little puzzled about why you would have to sell. If your house payments did not exceed 28% of household income, the old standard for maximum payments, then it’s hard to see why losing your wife’s income would force you into selling.

Now, it wouldn’t surprise me if you, like many people, stretched to more than 28%, but that just goes to show how weak the loan underwriting standards have become. Our government is inviting us (as buyers or taxpayers backstopping the loans) to take on way too much risk, and the only reason is to keep home prices high.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc] …So yes, I cheer when prices rise, even though I hope to never act upon that increase in value.[/quote]

I concur with CAR, and hope your wife gets a job soon.

But I am a little puzzled about why you would have to sell. If your house payments did not exceed 28% of household income, the old standard for maximum payments, then it’s hard to see why losing your wife’s income would force you into selling.

Now, it wouldn’t surprise me if you, like many people, stretched to more than 28%, but that just goes to show how weak the loan underwriting standards have become. Our government is inviting us (as buyers or taxpayers backstopping the loans) to take on way too much risk, and the only reason is to keep home prices high.

[patientrenter]

[quote=irondoc] …So yes, I cheer when prices rise, even though I hope to never act upon that increase in value.[/quote]

I concur with CAR, and hope your wife gets a job soon.

But I am a little puzzled about why you would have to sell. If your house payments did not exceed 28% of household income, the old standard for maximum payments, then it’s hard to see why losing your wife’s income would force you into selling.

Now, it wouldn’t surprise me if you, like many people, stretched to more than 28%, but that just goes to show how weak the loan underwriting standards have become. Our government is inviting us (as buyers or taxpayers backstopping the loans) to take on way too much risk, and the only reason is to keep home prices high.

[patientrenter]

[quote=flu]My new years resolution is to be more financially irresponsible than I was last year.[/quote]

Hey, quit stealing, flu. That resolution belongs to brian 😉

[Author]

Posts