[SDEngineer]

Numbers are a little off – I was clearing 4200/mo at a single filing status several years back when my salary was about 83.5K/yr.

Point taken though, and why I’ve stayed out of the housing market for so long. The fundamentals are still way out of whack, though they are getting significantly better. I guesstimated at the peak in ’05 that housing would have to fall about 40% for it to get back in line with San Diego fundamentals (of about a 4.5x median household income to price ratio), and we’ve seen about 25% of that drop. Still, the remaining 15% off peak is about another 80K or so drop from current median selling prices.

Hopefully after the spring “non-bounce” we’ll see more sellers getting realistic (and those that aren’t getting pummelled by the REO’s auction prices), and see more major depreciation this autumn/winter. I do expect the trend to hit the downside and go below the fundamentals, but I’ll be willing to buy once the market has returned to fundamentals (the wife wants a home, and we’re both sick of being renters, no matter how much financial sense it makes).

Of course, some markets are falling later than others – we’re looking at probably buying in some North County markets (W. Escondido near Del Dios, San Marcos, etc) which have seen a lot of air bled out already (proximity to my job is good from the N. County). Places like 4S and CMR, though places we’d like to live, are taking longer to adjust and we’re simply not likely to wait the extra 2-3 years for the depreciation to hammer those areas.

[SDEngineer]

While we’re at it, can we ban any bank that did the various no-doc loans from being allowed to lend for 10 years or longer? They were equally irresponsible and complicit in the housing bubble inflation and clearly their executives and employees placed short term personal financial gains far above the integrity of their company and the financial sector as a whole, and therefore should not be allowed any kind of fiduciary responsibilities from now on.

It took both sides, equally motivated by greed, for this bubble to occur. Blaming the owners – most of whom aren’t expected to be financial experts (unlike, say, the mortgage underwriters, investment bank and portfolio managers, etc) – for excercising a legal (in CA anyway) out of a contract that was written in arcane terms that most laymen would be unlikely to understand is hardly fair.

Yeah, the owners were partially at fault, and certainly they were trying to climb on the greed train. But most of them I doubt did so in bad faith – they were simply guilty of believing what they were told by people that they believed were much more knowledgable about the market than they were. It’s the ones who SHOULD have been more knowledgable about the market (ie – the guys above, the realtors, the market analysts, the portfolio managers, etc) that should lose their jobs and their cushy incomes for being so utterly wrong (intentionally or otherwise) about the state of housing in the US. Either malfeasance (if they ignored it due to greed) or incompetence (if they simply didn’t see it coming) as a reason for termination will do.

[SDEngineer]

While we’re at it, can we ban any bank that did the various no-doc loans from being allowed to lend for 10 years or longer? They were equally irresponsible and complicit in the housing bubble inflation and clearly their executives and employees placed short term personal financial gains far above the integrity of their company and the financial sector as a whole, and therefore should not be allowed any kind of fiduciary responsibilities from now on.

It took both sides, equally motivated by greed, for this bubble to occur. Blaming the owners – most of whom aren’t expected to be financial experts (unlike, say, the mortgage underwriters, investment bank and portfolio managers, etc) – for excercising a legal (in CA anyway) out of a contract that was written in arcane terms that most laymen would be unlikely to understand is hardly fair.

Yeah, the owners were partially at fault, and certainly they were trying to climb on the greed train. But most of them I doubt did so in bad faith – they were simply guilty of believing what they were told by people that they believed were much more knowledgable about the market than they were. It’s the ones who SHOULD have been more knowledgable about the market (ie – the guys above, the realtors, the market analysts, the portfolio managers, etc) that should lose their jobs and their cushy incomes for being so utterly wrong (intentionally or otherwise) about the state of housing in the US. Either malfeasance (if they ignored it due to greed) or incompetence (if they simply didn’t see it coming) as a reason for termination will do.

[SDEngineer]

While we’re at it, can we ban any bank that did the various no-doc loans from being allowed to lend for 10 years or longer? They were equally irresponsible and complicit in the housing bubble inflation and clearly their executives and employees placed short term personal financial gains far above the integrity of their company and the financial sector as a whole, and therefore should not be allowed any kind of fiduciary responsibilities from now on.

It took both sides, equally motivated by greed, for this bubble to occur. Blaming the owners – most of whom aren’t expected to be financial experts (unlike, say, the mortgage underwriters, investment bank and portfolio managers, etc) – for excercising a legal (in CA anyway) out of a contract that was written in arcane terms that most laymen would be unlikely to understand is hardly fair.

Yeah, the owners were partially at fault, and certainly they were trying to climb on the greed train. But most of them I doubt did so in bad faith – they were simply guilty of believing what they were told by people that they believed were much more knowledgable about the market than they were. It’s the ones who SHOULD have been more knowledgable about the market (ie – the guys above, the realtors, the market analysts, the portfolio managers, etc) that should lose their jobs and their cushy incomes for being so utterly wrong (intentionally or otherwise) about the state of housing in the US. Either malfeasance (if they ignored it due to greed) or incompetence (if they simply didn’t see it coming) as a reason for termination will do.

[SDEngineer]

While we’re at it, can we ban any bank that did the various no-doc loans from being allowed to lend for 10 years or longer? They were equally irresponsible and complicit in the housing bubble inflation and clearly their executives and employees placed short term personal financial gains far above the integrity of their company and the financial sector as a whole, and therefore should not be allowed any kind of fiduciary responsibilities from now on.

It took both sides, equally motivated by greed, for this bubble to occur. Blaming the owners – most of whom aren’t expected to be financial experts (unlike, say, the mortgage underwriters, investment bank and portfolio managers, etc) – for excercising a legal (in CA anyway) out of a contract that was written in arcane terms that most laymen would be unlikely to understand is hardly fair.

Yeah, the owners were partially at fault, and certainly they were trying to climb on the greed train. But most of them I doubt did so in bad faith – they were simply guilty of believing what they were told by people that they believed were much more knowledgable about the market than they were. It’s the ones who SHOULD have been more knowledgable about the market (ie – the guys above, the realtors, the market analysts, the portfolio managers, etc) that should lose their jobs and their cushy incomes for being so utterly wrong (intentionally or otherwise) about the state of housing in the US. Either malfeasance (if they ignored it due to greed) or incompetence (if they simply didn’t see it coming) as a reason for termination will do.

[SDEngineer]

While we’re at it, can we ban any bank that did the various no-doc loans from being allowed to lend for 10 years or longer? They were equally irresponsible and complicit in the housing bubble inflation and clearly their executives and employees placed short term personal financial gains far above the integrity of their company and the financial sector as a whole, and therefore should not be allowed any kind of fiduciary responsibilities from now on.

It took both sides, equally motivated by greed, for this bubble to occur. Blaming the owners – most of whom aren’t expected to be financial experts (unlike, say, the mortgage underwriters, investment bank and portfolio managers, etc) – for excercising a legal (in CA anyway) out of a contract that was written in arcane terms that most laymen would be unlikely to understand is hardly fair.

Yeah, the owners were partially at fault, and certainly they were trying to climb on the greed train. But most of them I doubt did so in bad faith – they were simply guilty of believing what they were told by people that they believed were much more knowledgable about the market than they were. It’s the ones who SHOULD have been more knowledgable about the market (ie – the guys above, the realtors, the market analysts, the portfolio managers, etc) that should lose their jobs and their cushy incomes for being so utterly wrong (intentionally or otherwise) about the state of housing in the US. Either malfeasance (if they ignored it due to greed) or incompetence (if they simply didn’t see it coming) as a reason for termination will do.

[SDEngineer]

PMI is now tax deductible, up to an income limit of 100K (above 100K the deductible phases out, and is gone by 110K joint earnings). It is only effective currently for PMI from 2007 to 2010 (in other words, if you bought in 2005, PMI is not deductible unless you refi).

[SDEngineer]

PMI is now tax deductible, up to an income limit of 100K (above 100K the deductible phases out, and is gone by 110K joint earnings). It is only effective currently for PMI from 2007 to 2010 (in other words, if you bought in 2005, PMI is not deductible unless you refi).

[SDEngineer]

PMI is now tax deductible, up to an income limit of 100K (above 100K the deductible phases out, and is gone by 110K joint earnings). It is only effective currently for PMI from 2007 to 2010 (in other words, if you bought in 2005, PMI is not deductible unless you refi).

[SDEngineer]

PMI is now tax deductible, up to an income limit of 100K (above 100K the deductible phases out, and is gone by 110K joint earnings). It is only effective currently for PMI from 2007 to 2010 (in other words, if you bought in 2005, PMI is not deductible unless you refi).

[SDEngineer]

PMI is now tax deductible, up to an income limit of 100K (above 100K the deductible phases out, and is gone by 110K joint earnings). It is only effective currently for PMI from 2007 to 2010 (in other words, if you bought in 2005, PMI is not deductible unless you refi).

[SDEngineer]

Mello-Roos taxes are set at the time of the first sale and won’t change until they expire (i.e., if the assessed tax at 450K was an extra 2250/yr, even if someone later buys it at 250K, it’s still going to be 2250/yr).

As I understand it though, the base RE tax (1.1%ish) is reassessed at the sale price when the property changes hands. There might be an exception for REO properties, but I hadn’t heard of it before now.

[SDEngineer]

Mello-Roos taxes are set at the time of the first sale and won’t change until they expire (i.e., if the assessed tax at 450K was an extra 2250/yr, even if someone later buys it at 250K, it’s still going to be 2250/yr).

As I understand it though, the base RE tax (1.1%ish) is reassessed at the sale price when the property changes hands. There might be an exception for REO properties, but I hadn’t heard of it before now.

[SDEngineer]

Mello-Roos taxes are set at the time of the first sale and won’t change until they expire (i.e., if the assessed tax at 450K was an extra 2250/yr, even if someone later buys it at 250K, it’s still going to be 2250/yr).

As I understand it though, the base RE tax (1.1%ish) is reassessed at the sale price when the property changes hands. There might be an exception for REO properties, but I hadn’t heard of it before now.

[SDEngineer]

Mello-Roos taxes are set at the time of the first sale and won’t change until they expire (i.e., if the assessed tax at 450K was an extra 2250/yr, even if someone later buys it at 250K, it’s still going to be 2250/yr).

As I understand it though, the base RE tax (1.1%ish) is reassessed at the sale price when the property changes hands. There might be an exception for REO properties, but I hadn’t heard of it before now.

[Author]

Posts