Its early. And the real estate types tend to move slower than traders. They haven't got used to the idea that though "theyre not making any more land" the prices are still heading down. Their house isn't their 'biggest investment' and real estate doesn't always go up afterall. The Fed driven bubble has burst. Joe the Flipper is screwed. Banks haven't gotten real on their REOs . . . yet. - - - And the longer term prospects ? How about all those boomers deciding to downsize as they begin entering their drooling years ? (Even more important now since alot of their retirement money went up in smoke in the stock market.)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Selling prices dropping and rents holding
- Thread starter monee
- Start date
With the unemployment rate ticking up, rents should be collapsing very soon.
Quote from texrex2002:
hmmm... this seems like a very high percentage. This would mean that housing values could drop by 50% and the mortgageholder could break even upon a default.
Doesn't it take over 20 years of paying a 30 year mortgage to cut the principle in half? Assuming a prevalence of 30y fixed mortgages that would imply that the average mortgage was in it's final third, with no $ ever refi'ed out.
Not trying to disrupt the thread, just thinking about the datum cited. It would be interesting (and disheartening, given the remaining term of my mortgage) if true.
I don't know...it might be near truth.
"Homeowners' percentage of equity slipped to a revised lower 49.6 percent in the second quarter of 2007"
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/05/equity-cities-foreclosure-forbeslife-cx_mw_0805realestate3.html
now take that a year or so later...and still declining.
This is one of those "averages vs. individuals" problems. That data also covers all housing, not just all mortgages. Thus, for every house that was refi-ed to the max (0% equity remaining), there's probably a house with no mortgage (100% equity). Moreover, people who trade-up probably made downpayments of 20% or more (I know I did) to avoid paying mortgage insurance and/or to avoid going over the conforming loan limit. These folk don't need to wait 20 years to get to 50% equity. The larger point is that there are lots of houses on both ends and the entire range of the equity spectrum.Quote from texrex2002:
hmmm... this seems like a very high percentage. This would mean that housing values could drop by 50% and the mortgageholder could break even upon a default.
Doesn't it take over 20 years of paying a 30 year mortgage to cut the principle in half? Assuming a prevalence of 30y fixed mortgages that would imply that the average mortgage was in it's final third, with no $ ever refi'ed out.
Not trying to disrupt the thread, just thinking about the datum cited. It would be interesting (and disheartening, given the remaining term of my mortgage) if true.
Thus, if houses fell 50%, then it's not that all mortgageholders would break even. Instead, some mortgageholders would break-even, but many would lose (some would lose up to 50%). And if housing prices fall 50%, then some homeowners would be deep underwater and some would still have 100% the much-reduced equity.
One confirming datapoint is that prices have fallen about 15-30% (depending on the location) and about 25% of mortgages are underwater.
I just spent the morning going to open houses in NW boston metro and apparently the boom times are still here, people seemingly haven't heard of the housing bust nor the recession. How this region has remained so immune is beyond me. I was told by 3 realtors that the crisis was over now that the stimulus has passed and everyone gets $15K just for buying a house (err no it hasn't yet and we don't know if there are income limits but i'd bet good money there will be) and the banks will be bailed out this week. I asked them if they had read Peggy Noonan's colum about GS head LOL.
Quote from Traden4Alpha:
This is one of those "averages vs. individuals" problems. That data also covers all housing, not just all mortgages. Thus, for every house that was refi-ed to the max (0% equity remaining), there's probably a house with no mortgage (100% equity). Moreover, people who trade-up probably made downpayments of 20% or more (I know I did) to avoid paying mortgage insurance and/or to avoid going over the conforming loan limit. These folk don't need to wait 20 years to get to 50% equity. The larger point is that there are lots of houses on both ends and the entire range of the equity spectrum.
One confirming datapoint is that prices have fallen about 15-30% (depending on the location) and about 25% of mortgages are underwater.
The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems. The biggest piece is that I was thinking in terms of reducing loan principle to 1/2 (which takes over 20 years) and attaining 50% equity, which with sizeable down payments and appreciation can be achieved much more quickly, as you correctly point out.
Upsetting that banks could get so out of shape over a relatively smaller (given my new frame of thought) percentage of mortgage borrowers.
For both the average home equity to be around 50% and a 20% price decline to push 25% of mortgages underwater, the distribution of houses on the equity spectrum must be heavy at each end (like an up-side down bell curve).
interesting...