A Plan to Transfer Losses on Jumbo Toxic Mortgages to Taxpayers (repost)

Nov 8th, 2010  
by IrvineRenter  in Library News

Astute Observations

Astute Observation by tenmagnet
2010-11-08 12:22 PM

PR is right
Unfortunately, no one else is willing to acknowledge it.
Demand in Irvine remains strong
TIC can’t roll out new supply fast enough.
Down payment numbers are in most cases much higher than 20% with no sign of slowing down.

Astute Observation by bigmoneysalsa
2010-11-08 02:24 PM

“Prices are too high compared to rents, and that state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely.”

5 years ago, on that observation alone, I and many others concluded that there was a housing bubble. And on that observation alone I conclude that the bubble isn’t done playing out in Irvine (and several other areas). It really is as simple as that.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2010-11-08 03:39 PM

The only thing we know for sure is that 5 years ago you were 5 years younger and had 5 more years to live.

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2010-11-08 05:21 PM

Notice the non-sequitur terminates the thread.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2010-11-08 06:39 PM

There’s always a bright side.

It was less mind numbing than a day driving around barren Las Vegas neighborhoods.

Astute Observation by Chris
2010-11-08 08:43 PM

Another non-sequitur? wink

Astute Observation by HydroCabron
2010-11-08 12:32 PM

Stock and commodity bubbles can crash in a few days, and, in the process purge the Kool Aid from the systems of even the published cheerleaders of those bubbles.

Real estate? The illiquidity of real estate, together with the unusual number of government props to this asset class, mean that declines can take longer than the 6-18 month memory capacity of the average participant. Most citizens do not remember much beyond a year ago. Hence there is widespread belief that Obama signed the first TARP bill, and that responsible homeowners are losing their homes en masse, as if the era of overborrowing never occurred.

So we may not get a truly brutal “Aha: Real estate can crash!” scenario. This will facilitate the behavior of total punks like Walsh, who will continue to spout Colin-Powell-magnitude lies that the bottom is here and it’s just a matter of liquidity getting to the right places.

As each leg down in the market spans a period longer than people can comfortably hold in their minds, the river of bullshit will, through sheer pressure, hold back the necessary vomiting up of all the previously ingested Kool Aid. The liars will escape their well-deserved ridicule and disgrace.

It’s difficult for most people to point to a mirror and say “I just paid a half million for a tract house in Irvine: I am an idiot.” Spreading the collapse over many years will allow the denial to persist.

The delusions have not yet left the population. We are a decade from the bottom.

Astute Observation by Swiller
2010-11-08 03:13 PM

Cabron, that post was so good, it should end,

“Amen”

Astute Observation by Perspective
2010-11-08 03:21 PM

“It’s difficult for most people to point to a mirror and say ‘I just paid a half million for a tract house in Irvine: I am an idiot.’”

Is it similarly difficult to look in the mirror and say, “I’m paying $3K monthly in Irvine rent for a townhouse just so that I can have a garage with nice amenities.  That’s $144K over the past four years.  I am an idiot!”?

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2010-11-08 03:44 PM

I preferred to pay $144K in rent rather than paying $300K in payments for the same property.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2010-11-08 04:02 PM

I’m not sure what his point was, but here is what I took away from it:

You were willing to pay close to $200,000 in pre tax dollars to live in Irvine for 3 years.  Damn, there must be something freaking special about Irvine.  You could own a nicer riverside house for that much.

Astute Observation by Perspective
2010-11-08 04:11 PM

Yes, my point is Irvine rents are inflated, relative to other nearby areas.  We looked at Irvine Co. townhomes with attached garages in 2006-2007, and they ran from $2,500-$3,000.

If you rent here, you’re choosing to spend more.  Is that stupid?  Maybe. 

If you buy here, you’re choosing to pay an inflated price.  Is that stupid?  Maybe.

I’ll have to do the math 10 years from now, to tell you “how stupid” our purchase appears to have been.

However, renters, IrvineRenter included, will also need to do the math years from now to know “how stupid” their decision to continue renting was.

It’s all relative.  The same can be said for cars.  Is it “stupid” to pay $50K+ for a BMW?  Maybe…

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2010-11-08 04:24 PM

In 10 years time some one who rents a single family home in one of the Nicer parts of Irvine will have unloaded a mint in pre tax dollars to live in Irvine.

You are looking at close to $750,000 in pre tax dollars.  But don’t try to tell that person that Irvine is special.  It’s a bland suburb.

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2010-11-08 04:33 PM

Perspective, I don’t think you are stupid. You bought a house you can afford in a nice neighborhood, and you can wait out the market. If all the bullish sentiment is correct, you may come out far ahead. There are many variables in the future.

I don’t think either of us regrets the opposite decisions we made. Your circumstances are different because as a high wager earner, you could afford a house, albeit perhaps smaller than others of your wage group (I am guessing, I don’t know). At my income level at the time, I was either going to rent a nice 3/2 or buy a 1/1 and try to fit a family into it. I only would have considered 30-year fixed rate mortgages, so affordability was very low. I couldn’t do the 1/1 (my family entitlements) so we chose to rent.

If I could have afforded to buy a house as nice as the one you bought with my income, I may have done it. A change in resale value is only a problem if you have to sell to move.

Astute Observation by Perspective
2010-11-08 05:00 PM

Planet Reality - I think you mean to use “after tax” dollars rather than “pre tax.” I’d love to pay rent “pre-tax”!

IR - Oh, I have regrets.  I would be much more comfortable and happy “wasting” money on inflated Irvine rent right now, but my wife just wasn’t interested in that. 

We’ve been fortunate in this recession.  I could complain that we’re underwater 15% today, but the actual dollar amount is less than 30% of our household income.  So we just keep making our fixed fully-amortized payment while I agonize over the housing downturn daily and my wife completely ignores it…

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2010-11-08 05:14 PM

No I mean pre tax.  If you are paying $3000 a month in rent you are paying at least $4000 a month of your salary towards rent.  That’s at least $48,000 of your salary a year.

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2010-11-08 05:18 PM

That relative state of calm and peace of mind is your reward during the recession for prudently taking on debt. You stayed within the guidelines, and because of it your emotional state is much more serene than others who bought when you did but did not remain conservative in their borrowing.

Astute Observation by Perspective
2010-11-08 05:24 PM

Hmm, I’ve always heard this argument made with the term “after tax” dollars - as in, “That’s three thousand after tax dollars you’re paying toward rent.  It takes you $4,000 in gross (“pre-tax”) earnings to make that rent payment.”

Astute Observation by Chris
2010-11-08 08:47 PM

You can get a Bimmer for less than $40k. Who says you have to get a 5 series or above.

That being said. Toyotas aren’t exactly cheap either.

Astute Observation by Perspective
2010-11-08 04:18 PM

Agreed.  In the current state of Irvine, and its projected path, it’s preferable to have paid $144K in rent, than twice as much in fully-amortized mortgage payments much more than $144K.

But is it stupid to pay $144K in rent when $100K could’ve gotten you a similar place in a nearby less desirable area?

Astute Observation by Stock Investor
2010-11-08 01:26 PM

HydroCabron: “Stock and commodity bubbles can crash in a few days ...”

If everything is falling apart, then real-estate is not a problem. You may want to buy gun and ammo.
grin

Astute Observation by Naive
2010-11-08 01:47 PM

I am expecting a significant economic downturn next year. The stimulus packages are going to expire and the new congress is not going to pass another one. In addition, we may actually have a tax increase if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.

Irvine real estate is not immune to these factors. As prices drop in surrounding neighborhoods, demand will shift, weakening the demand here. In the last 60 days new listings have been almost double the number 3+ BR properties that sold over the same period.

Astute Observation by Naive
2010-11-08 01:50 PM

Meant to say “In the last 60 days new listings of 3+ BR properties have been almost double the number that sold over the same period.”

Astute Observation by Iphb
2010-11-08 04:24 PM

Not only that…it seems that in 2010 buyer focus in Irvine has mainly been mainly on the brand new developments. As areas like Woodbury, Woodbury East, and Stonegate East are built out, buy focus shifts to new developments and further away from existing neighborhoods.

Astute Observation by Chris
2010-11-08 09:02 PM

If y’all check the current Craigslist listing for Irvine 3 bed homes for rent, you’ll see several that goes for under $2k nowadays.

It used to be that you cannot even find one for under $2k a few years ago.

Astute Observation by Tony
2010-11-08 10:35 PM

Congress has nothing to do with it. It’s the Central Bank that may continue to pump money as it sees fit. The new congress might be just as happy as the exissting congress when the Fed does it again.

Astute Observation by Naive
2010-11-08 11:07 PM

The amount the Fed is pumping in is too little to make a difference. See Paul Krugman’s column today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/opinion/08krugman.html?src=me&ref=homepage

Astute Observation by Tony
2010-11-08 10:39 PM

I hope you’re right. But: Congress has nothing to do with it. It’s the Central Bank that may continue to pump money as it sees fit. The new congress might be just as happy as the exissting congress when the Fed does it again

Astute Observation by irvine_home_owner
2010-11-09 10:33 AM

@Naive:

Allow me to play the contrarian role:

Irvine real estate is not immune to these factors. As prices drop in surrounding neighborhoods, demand will shift, weakening the demand here. In the last 60 days new listings have been almost double the number 3+ BR properties that sold over the same period.

Maybe not totally immune… but quite a bit more immune than surrounding cities.

Regardless of how many listings there are, that is still less than other areas and at higher prices. I can find newer 3-car garage SFRs in Mission Viejo for less than $650k… this *condo* is $750k+. Newer 3CWG homes in Irvine are at $900k or more.

Price drops in surrounding areas can have an opposite effect on demand. You can tweak the “flight to quality” theory and see that people would rather buy in Irvine because prices are NOT dropping as fast… so demand actually stays the same or rises.

Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel both have new home communities that have been selling for *years* and are still not sold out… Woodbury sold out multiple tracts, over 700 homes in less than a year.

That’s not a theory… that’s a fact. It’s going to take a long time for Irvine prices to get down to 1999 levels (as often predicted here)... and by then, the market may have bounced back… just like in the early 90s, and Irvine prices tend to rise much faster than they fall.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

<< Back to main