Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be dismantled in favor of private lending

Feb 17th, 2011  
by IrvineRenter  in Library News

Astute Observations

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2011-02-17 08:20 AM

IR, I would have to agree with you.  This is a great deal in Irvine at $3500 per month cost of ownership, closing for $360 per sq ft.  I could see you being proud to show this off had you bought it.  Maybe in a few years if your Las Vegas trustee flipping business coninues it’s great success.

Astute Observation by ochomehunter
2011-02-18 12:27 PM

Its not $3500/Month, this figure does not include HOA and property taxes. Note that monthly payment is $4700,

Its a money pit for $4700/mon when you can rent for $3,500? Yes!

Astute Observation by rkp
2011-02-17 09:00 AM

I don’t see how this is rental parity.  We negotiated with a northpark owner for a bigger 4b for 2800 per month.  Didn’t end up moving as we are still debating buying but point is that this oak creek house will not get 3500. 

Also, remember that renters do not pay what buyers would for upgrades and backyards.  Imagine exact floorplan house with same interior and plane jane backyard- how much more would a renter pay on monthly basis for this with its great backyard vs same house without? For me its under $100 a month.

Astute Observation by rkp
2011-02-17 09:38 AM

to add some data to my point, 23 detached 4b were leased off of MLS so far this year and the average price per sq ft is $1.38.  At 2273 sq ft, this should rent at ~$3100 a month. 

I am sure there are discounts that dont show up on the MLS such as extra weeks.  We are in an Ave 1 condo and we moved in 2 weeks before the lease start date so saved almost a $1000 that way.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2011-02-17 09:54 AM

For the upgrades, swimming pool, and nice lot by Irvine standards this should fetch $3500-$4000 a month in rent.

That said, the above $3500 rental market is limited and the propery would probably sit vacant for some time.  This is not a good rental proposition, but I believe IR is correct in saying the buyers should be very happy.

Astute Observation by Perspective
2011-02-17 10:17 AM

Whoa, Ave1!  Why not Villa Siena?  I hope your costs are much cheaper next door at Ave1 than a comparable unit at Villa Siena.

Astute Observation by rkp
2011-02-17 10:31 AM

PR - i disagree with you.  renters do not pay what buyers will pay for upgrades.  would you pay $400 more per month for a pool and a nicer backyard?  i think most renters look for bedrooms, size, age, washer/dryer as their biggest criteria.  all the other stuff is nice to have but not necessary.

IHB readers - how much more would you pay in rent for a nicer back yard?

Perspective - i used to always rent from IAC and Ave 1 was my first private party rental and let me tell you, i am saving a ton.  my rent is $1775 for a 2b + loft on 4th floor so high ceilings, plenty of space with 1200+ sq ft, and a bit less density than villa siena.  when we signed lease over a year ago, similar IAC units were 2500 and non IAC units like calypso and avalon wanted 2300-2400 for similar.

Astute Observation by Perspective
2011-02-17 11:11 AM

That’s cool. Congrats on the savings.

Back in 2007 we wanted to lease one of the townhomes in Villa Siena (we were in a 1 bedroom in Villa Siena at the time going on three years).  They were asking nearly $2,800 at the time for a < 1200 sq ft 2 bed/2 bath attached-garage townhome with someone living on both sides and on top of you.  This was one of the things that pushed us into our fateful decision to purchase a townhome instead.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2011-02-17 11:37 AM

rkp, I believe you personally would not pay additional rent for upgrades but many people do. 

Many people pay tens of thousands of dollars in cash for upgrades when they own.  This translates into hundreds of dollars in monthly rent.  Why would you pay the same in rent for a plane Jane outdated house versus an upgraded house with beautiful pool and yard?  You get what you pay for.

Astute Observation by rkp
2011-02-17 12:57 PM

i agree with you that buyers pay 10s of thousands for upgrades.  my premise is a renter will value the upgrade differently than a buyer and will not be willing to pay as much for it as a buyer. reasons might include that renters see it as short term or not “theirs” 

i am sure i am clouded by my own bias and would love to hear real examples.  based on my research, the sweet spot in irvine rentals seems to be bedroom count and age of property while all the other aspects dont really generate enough additional rent to cover their expense. 

in our own ave 1 community, our friend owns the same floorplan as we are renting(2b + loft) and paid $50K more for pool view when he bought it.  he is currently renting it for $1900 so $125 more per month than us.  these are identical units and just different location in the community.  his renter valued the pool view as a $125 difference which equates to about $25k in purchase price at 5% 30 years and yet as a buyer, he paid $50k more.

Astute Observation by Marc
2011-02-17 01:15 PM

Pool view in Avenue One equates to noise, at least in the summer months. We lived in the 2BR plus loft for a while and thought it was too noisy. The pool is in a closed yard so noise gets amplified and you can almost hear every words someone says. The Watermarke has a much better design since there are some opening for the sound to travel out of the pool area. But Ave One is from my perspective much better than Siena, where we have seen pool parties thrown by UCI kids with 100 people or so. Crazy. I still don’t understand why someone would pay so much money to live in Villa Siena. Also I rather give my money to a private owner than make the monopolistic and overcharging IAC even richer…

Astute Observation by Halfnote19
2011-02-17 01:41 PM

I had been a renter for a really long time and in the past never cared about upgrades. I only payed attention to how much rent I would be paying. It wasn’t till I could actually afford a nicer place that I moved to a nicer place. When my husband and I were looking for an apartment 2 years ago we were debating between Anacapa and Las Palmas. Very similar locations and layout but we chose Anacapa because of the upgrades. It felt more like home instead of a rental. So yes, we spent an extra $200 a month for the upgrades.

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2011-02-17 01:53 PM

Halfnote19,

I haven’t seen you comment in a while. Good to see you are still a reader.

I am with you. I will pay for upgrades if the cost is reasonable, and if the feature is something I would use. In my last apartment, we paid an extra $100 per month for a larger, ground-floor patio adjacent to a greenspace.

Astute Observation by rkp
2011-02-17 03:27 PM

IR - this might be worthwhile of a post as rental parity is such a big indicator on IHB.

Both you and halfnote are paying more in rent for something you value but how much does that “more” cost to the buyer and would the additional rent recoup it? 

I am not saying that there is no rental increase with better products but I am saying that the rental increase doesn’t correlate with what a buyer would additionally pay.

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2011-02-17 07:01 PM

Renters certainly won’t pay as much as an owner would pay for certain household luxuries (what’s the premiium for a great home office?) However, there is some premium.

I was looking for rentals last fall. Based on what I saw then, if you were a family looking to rent a nicer place long term, $3,500 for this property represents a value over competing rentals.

Astute Observation by jb
2011-02-17 10:23 PM

We just did this last year. I pulled comps for the house that we rented, but they had smaller lots. We have a huge lot with great landscaping, and are paying about $200/mo extra for that luxury.

Astute Observation by Sue in Irvine
2011-02-17 09:21 AM

Right on IR. They did a great job up updating this house. Are you saying it sold for $815,000?
Oh, I just noticed the bit about a shoe closet holding 80 pairs of shoes. I think I have 10 pairs of shoes. I am confused about the stacked washer/dryer in a home that large.

Astute Observation by irvine_home_owner
2011-02-17 10:08 AM

“I am confused about the stacked washer/dryer in a home that large.”

At 2273sft with all 4 rooms upstairs, there isn’t enough space for a large upstairs laundry room like we are seeing in some of the new homes. By the picture, it looks like they stacked it just to make more space for other things like a utility table and hamper. You can certainly put them side by side but that’s pretty much all the space you’ll have.

I also think $3500/mo may be on the high side for rent… but it does have that cool 3CWG.

Only a 14% drop from 2006… newer SFRs in Irvine are still a bit more stubborn… but maybe this will one day become one of those significant 40%+ declines (although I’ll probably jump in at 20-25%).

Astute Observation by wheresthebeef
2011-02-17 11:22 AM

I can’t believe all the people foaming at the mouth over this house.  It’s a 2200 sq ft Irvine tract house with some nice upgrades, if it really did sell for 815K it still has quite a way to drop in price.  When all is said and done I see this house coming down another 10 to 15% which puts it right around 675 to 700K.

Astute Observation by irvine_home_owner
2011-02-17 11:30 AM

No one is really foaming… to me it’s still overpriced (and it did indeed sell at $815k).

I hope you’re right… it would be nice to a buy a newer 3CWG in Irvine for less than $700k, but with The Irvine Company benchmarking new 2-car SFRs at high $700k to start, it’s a longshot.

Astute Observation by just bought in irvine
2011-02-17 03:13 PM

TIC is benchmarking new 2-car SFRs at high $700k and these homes have small lots (hardly any backyard or frontyard), motorcourts, no upgrades and floorplans that are not very functional (at least compared to the older homes). What are they thinking!!

This is the reason I bought a resale. It is not very old (2001 built), has separate living /family areas, large yard, 2500sqft, 4bed in the mid 700’s.

As much as I think these homes are overpriced, TIC is still selling these new homes fairly well, so clearly people think it is worth it.

Astute Observation by Kirk
2011-02-17 12:09 PM

Wow, I actually agree with the conservatives regarding dismantling the GSE’s. This is quite disturbing.

However, I think people are living in a fantasy world if they think this will keep the government from ever having to intervene in the housing market again. This whole mess was originally fermented in the private market and the GSE’s were forced by the government to sop up that mess. Regardless, the GSE’s would have been in trouble anyway since the non-GSE mortgage market pushed up home values so much that even a 20% down payment wouldn’t save people that bought from 2004-2008 from going underwater.

It’s worth noting that Fannie Mae had worked fine since it was established as a government agency in 1938. We privatized it in 1968. The former government agency started hiring lobbyists that pushed for relaxing the regulations over it. Not good. Even so, the company would still be okay if it wasn’t for the Credit Default Swaps used on the banking side of things. Those things are what really enabled this whole crisis.

I issued a $800k mortgage, but I got a Credit Default Swap from Bob that will cover any default. Bob’s got no money, but that’s okay ‘cuz he has a CDS from Jim that offsets his position. Jim also has no money, but he’s got a CDS from Bill that offsets his position. Bill has no money, but he’s got a CDS from Tim that offsets his position. And so on.

What could go wrong?

Astute Observation by rkp
2011-02-17 12:33 PM

spot on.  dissolving GSEs is a worthy discussion but looking back at the housing bubble, private lenders like countrywide were creating loans and packaing and selling them as fast as they could…this was an entirely private market and GSEs werent the problem

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2011-02-17 01:49 PM

“this was an entirely private market and GSEs werent the problem”

That inconvenient fact will likely get lost in the rhetoric in the debate. Even though I agree with the conservatives on this issue, their political posturing has been embracing bad arguments. First, they have foolishly declared war on the 30-year FRM. Their reasoning is that this loan justifies the GSEs; therefore, if you remove the loan, you can kill the GSEs. Dumb. Second, conservatives have been beating the drum about the GSEs being responsible for the housing bubble. As you pointed out, that is simply not right.

Despite my disagreement with the right’s methodology, I do support their goal of dismantling the GSEs.

Astute Observation by Kirk
2011-02-17 02:07 PM

It hurts me greatly to be aligned with the right on this issue… well, any issue really. But, reality is reality and these GSE’s have been tainted to such an extent that they should go. I think in the short term (20 years maybe) they are unnecessary, but there might be a problem that crops up when or if new homes need to be built for a growing population.

That problem is the cost of new construction. Will the loans that people can get be affordable enough to make it worthwhile to build new homes? I know most people here will say that the miracle of the market will automagically adjust wages and the cost of materials thereby bringing new home prices in-line with what people can afford. I’m doubtful of this.

But, that is not going to be a problem anytime soon as we have way more homes than people who need them.

Astute Observation by Feral
2011-02-17 12:33 PM

UE numbers disappoint, stock market rallies.  Egypt overthrown, market rallies. Inflation, huh?  I’m beginning to think UAE could be overthrown by radical Muslims, and the market would rally; an analyst might spin “this presents a rare opportunity to negotiate with a uniquely qualified group who bring fresh perspective to the table”. Dow 15K by January 2012?  Keep printing money. Housing price up, stock market up, everybody happy.

Astute Observation by nefron
2011-02-17 01:52 PM

You are only looking at the negative news.  Wasn’t there a bunch of positive news over the past few days, too?

Astute Observation by Feral
2011-02-17 02:04 PM

The chart below doesn’t look healthy to me with stubbornly high UE and gas approaching $4, but what do I know? Everyone’s a bull. Buy, buy, buy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI+Interactive#symbol=^DJI;range=2y

Been getting that funny deja vu feeling.

Astute Observation by JK
2011-02-17 01:23 PM

I don’t know Irvine as well as some of you out there but I have to agree with where’s the beef that this seems still high.
I bought last fall in Huntington B. a 2500 sq. ft townhome for under 600k. Just over a mile to the beach. Locked in a 4% rate. If you want to pay me 800k for mine I might consider it. Heck we have a full size laundry room, the 3 car garage and 4 bdrooms too.
I’ll take closer to the beach any day. (not to mention 200k less!)

Astute Observation by bigmoneysalsa
2011-02-17 02:32 PM

Based on the current rental listings, this isn’t quite at rental parity, but I have to admit that prices in Oak Creek seem to be improving a lot. There are condos here with 35%+ haircuts. The SFRs aren’t there yet, but this particular sale looks like a nice comp killer. I like where things are headed.

Astute Observation by Vincenzo
2011-02-17 05:52 PM

This house is kind of expensive for a family without kids.

A small child will inevitably fall into the backyard pool.
The house is only 100 yards from the highway. A kid will always be sick because of pollution.

Astute Observation by Anonymous
2011-02-17 10:58 PM

Irvine Co. reports sale of 1,200 homes

http://lansner.ocregister.com/2011/02/17/irvine-co-reports-sales-of-1200-homes/99937/

“Although the housing market may not have turned nationally, it has unquestionably returned in Irvine,” said Dan Young, president of Irvine Co. Community Development, the Irvine Co.’s homebuilding arm.

Astute Observation by Vincenzo
2011-02-18 01:03 AM

How much will these houses’ value decrease in two or three years? Like new cars?

Columbus Grove is similarly new. Homeowners there “suddenly” realized that they have to pay enormous association fees and taxes. When they try to rent, they lose $1,000 or more.

Astute Observation by Where The Sun Doesn't Shine
2011-02-18 12:49 AM

Dear Irving Renter (author),

First of all - this house is a very beautiful house!  However, at $815,000, the house is an absolute RIP OFF!  Sure, I would like to live there too, but cut the price in HALF, and then we can talk. 

You say, “With current financing conditions, this property would cost about $3,500 per month to own,” and “This is perhaps the nicest property I have seen transact at a price I thought was at rental parity.”  I say, “no way!”  Dude! Let’s think this through a little.  You list -$780/month equity “hidden in payment.” How about changing that to + $1,000/month minumum the poor sucker is going to lose on falling home prices.  You also list $102/month as maintenance. What planet did you say you write your blog from? 

You list the monthly cost of ownership at $3,520.  I strongly disagree.  I think the real cost of owning this house is more like $6,000-$7,500/month.  Wake up and smell the coffee, Dude!

Astute Observation by DarthFerret
2011-02-18 02:36 AM

Please take your meds soon.

-Darth

Astute Observation by hthflute
2011-02-18 07:32 AM

..tho it *is* true that even the Pool Boy will cost more than $102/mo. no doubt…

Astute Observation by ochomehunter
2011-02-18 12:18 PM

Really? You want to dismantle GSE’s and feed them over to private banks? Wow! I cant believe it!

Now this. Imagine if this happens, and then banks turn around and start offering interest only loans again. It could very well happen here.  Banks are sitting on losing asset but they can always sell loans that collect interest only, I can bet you that we will see another spike in home buying spree pushing prices higher again.

Affordable homes should be offered to those who really cant afford. No reason for these loans to be over $417K that was original limit. 

I think we are going to see 40 or 50 yr and interest only mortgages very soon

Astute Observation by A Canadian
2011-02-20 02:49 PM

Just to let you know, we in Canada do have the equivilent of Fannie/Freddie.  It’s called the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp. CMHC.  They insure most mortgages, and is one of the reasons Canadian house prices continue to rise.  It seems we are oblivious to what happened in the US, and must go down our own dismal path.
Here’s a link with some ongoing discussion:

http://www.canadianmortgagetrends.com/canadian_mortgage_trends/2011/02/cmhc-corrects-two-critics.html

and here is link to CMHC

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/index.cfm

Astute Observation by theyenguy
2011-02-20 10:10 PM

Thanks so much for the blog and the information prsented.

You write .... The GSEs have strayed from their original mission, and now they are being used to support bloated house prices. They should be dissolved and their function turned over to private lenders.

I respond .... I’m sorry but as I write here Sunday night before the President’s holiday, I have some terrifically bad news for you.

In my linked article ... Exhaustion Of Quantitative Easing Starts The Mother Of All Bear Stock Markets ... I write that Peak Credit, has been achieved. Said another way the end of credit as it has been known has commenced; this being communicated by the topping out and/or falling lower of mortgage and investment securitization company Annaly Capital Management, NLY, as well as credit providers, WRLD, NNI, ASP, DFS, as well as in the fall on Bonds, BND, LQD, BLV, PICB, MINT.

Investors in the longer out, that is the greater duration corporate bonds, BLV, were deleveraged when the bond vigilantes seized control of the Interest Rate on the 30 Year US Government Bond, $TYX beginning in Septemeber, that is, just after Ben Bernanke suggested QE 2 in Jackson Hole.   

Except for possibly some samll private lending groups, mortgage lending will be coming to a screeching halt.

I go ont to write that the chart of the S&P, SPY, manifested three white soldiers, and a dragon fly candlestick, at the top of an ascending wedge; this is a terrifically bearish formation.

The S&P, SPY, will be forever falling lower on exhaustion of quantitative easing, as an Elliott Wave 3 Down commenced on Friday February 18, 2011 in the S&P, at a price of 134.53, as seen in the chart of SPY Weekly.The world has entered into Kondratieff Winter.

The emerging markets, EEM, and the BRICs, EEB, are cresting up into an Elliott Wave 2 High.

Brazil, EWZ, has risen to strong resistance, as has Brazil Financial, BRAF, and the Brazil Small Caps, BRF. Deflation in the Brazil Financials is taking Brazil down!

Quantitative Easing gave strong moneyness to investing in Brazil, but that inflation, and threat of capital controls has deleveraged investment out of Brazil and into US Financials, IYF, World Financials, IXG, and even the European Financials, EUFN, as is seen in the chart of Itau Unibanco Banco, ITUB, and the other financials, …. ITUB, IYF, IXG, and EUFN.

It’s reasonable to expect that the way is now down for the emerging markets, EEM, and Brazil, EWZ, India, INP, and China, YAO as well as oil laden Russia, RSX, as its chart shows that it has now fallen through the middle of a broadening top pattern. 

Oil, USO, manifested a massive harami and wave 5 completion at the first of the year and is now in an Elliott Wave 3 Down delveraging investment in both the airline stocks, FAA, and airline supply company, BE Aerospace, BEAV, which is also in an Elliott Wave 3 Sell Off.

Small Cap Energy Shares, XLES, became the swing trade of QE 2 investing. While QE 2 deleveraged the precious metal mining stocks, it leveraged the Small Cap Energy Shares even more than the overall Energy shares, XLE. The small cap Energy Shares, XLES, manifested a massive bearish lollipop hanging man candlestick and closed 2% lower.

A Elliott Wave 5 high was achieved in commodities, DJP, on February, 2, 2011 at 50.13.

QE Exhaustion caused disinvestment from agriculture commodities, JJA, the week ending February 18, 2011, resulting in disinvestment from agricultural industry stocks, MOO.

Exhaustion of quantitative easing has started the mother of all bear markets, and a failure of traditional carry trade investing, the US Federal Deficit, a soon coming municipal bond funding crisis, and a worsening of the European sovereign debt and banking crisis, will be the dynamos that will propel the world from the Age of Leverage and into the Age of Deleveraging.

The world is passing from The Age of Leverage characterised by sovereign debt expansion, currency inflation, credit liquidity, stability, stock and junk bond inflation, economic growth and expansion and prosperity …  and passing into The Age of Deleveraging characterised by failure of sovereign debt, currency deflation, credit ill-liquidity, instability, stock and junk bond deflation, economic contraction and austerity.

The primary money good investment will be ownership and physical possession of gold and silver.

I have enjoyed reading your website, and I hope as the economy dives you will continue to post articles.  So please keep up the faith and you take care.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

<< Back to main