Recent comments by Mook

Rob Dawg wrote:

€10m. Welcome to the New Europe.

Wait. Inquiring minds want to know ... is that €10m NET?

josap wrote:

Revolving credit fell for the first time since March, while nonrevolving credit has grown every month since August 2011.

It's a good thing we've established that there's no theoretical or practical limit on student loan debt, or these figures might start to worry me a bit as a lender.

... and California, as usual, is the master.

josap wrote:

And the pension funds will be happy to buy the RBS (rent backed securities) as soon as they are available due to kickbacks from the banks.

Fixed It For Ya

Rob Dawg wrote:

There is negative incentive to impair the value of their purchases by renting lower.

Because when a gap appears 'twixt housing supply and demand, a fall-off in transaction volumes at the higher prices leads to a long, gentle glide path until the two once again equalize. Isn't that what we learned in 2006?

josap wrote:

Over supply of rentals now.

Did you see my update to Silver Bay's properties link? 743 available for rent in PHX as of yesterday. Laughing out loud

When does "oversupply" become a good old-fashioned glut?

sm_landlord wrote:

I smell propaganda. Wonder who is paying for all this?

It's almost as though housing ownership in the city centers were far more heavily concentrated in fewer hands and dependent on ever-increasing rents than that in suburbia.

josap wrote:

They also want to rent, knowing the job they have is the "just for now job" until they move on in their career or lay offs start.

Yep, and bingo. Young people are living closer in simply because that's where the largest proportion of rental properties are.

Even if the average millennial wanted a home, s/he may not have had the steady income / down payment / ability to get a loan necessary for the past few years.

josap wrote:

I have been waiting for those changes as the hedge funds must make money.

I love that I've been coming here so long that I can read a statement like this with the same dispassionate equanimity as if you'd typed Newton's Laws of Motion.

Wilberforce wrote:

next up. tenant law and property tax reform!

Property tax reform? Sounds great. Let's get that federal VAT in place first to pay for it, though. With a full deduction for multi-national corporations and financial institutions, natch.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Exactly. In fact, we'll encourage them to.

In fact, we'll even make them feel at home by re-creating the socioeconomic conditions that define their native countries!

Nemo wrote:

Did I miss anything?

I'm guessing he never even touched on the vigilant crusade the DOJ and SEC led under his Administration to track down and bring to justice every last wrongdoer from the last blow-up. Poor guy probably just ran out of time.

Blackhalo wrote:

His grasp of the financial crisis is too centered on the Roger Ailes version. Being well informed on the subject would be inconvenient for his libertarian viewpoint.

Actually, the phrase came from a much earlier writing of his - about the mid-'90s Serbian conflict IIRC. I know little and care less about his views on the financial crisis.

My point in using it there was: It's not possible to do. Just because you aren't wearing a uniform and sidearm doesn't mean you aren't involved.

Finance_Fan wrote:

then, you further can avoid paying for this wrong policy by never buying a home, but building your own on a very cheap area w/ low regulation. voila!

P.J. O'Rourke once used an apropos phrase: "standing outside the war". Think about it.

josap wrote:

Yes, the more my crops are pledged to the lord of the manor - the more the entire village benefits.

Did we say "entire village"? We of course meant "His Majesty and his inner circle". An understandable mix-up since, after all, without the beneficence of His Lordship we would not have this village! Or the sun and the rain for our crops!

Nemo wrote:

Yes, the great liberal Hope just sang the praises of Wall Street big money buying up all of the affordable housing to rent out.

Would it be too much to ask for the leader of the free world to look up "feudalism" on Wikipedia?

Nemo wrote:

What I have learned so far is that house prices need to go up and somebody else needs to pay for them.

Because history is replete with examples of governments successfully overriding the laws of supply and demand.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

"I'm Carleton Sheets!"

"... and this is my co-host, Casey Serin!"

poicv2.0 wrote:

Not those prole children!
The other children.

Oh, I know! You mean the subset of children who don't get to be claimed as deductions because their parents are too high up the AGI ladder but still benefit from the HMID deduction because all Daddy's income flows through S-corps and trusts. Well, why didn't you just say so?

Also FTA:

"It will mean higher mortgage rates," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "The question is how much higher."
Typical borrowers could pay about $75 per month in extra interest payments, about half a percentage point, on an average mortgage under the Senate proposal, Zandi estimated, and about $135 more under the House plan. That's on a conforming loan of about $200,000 with the borrower providing a 20 percent down payment.

I now feel confident in predicting that whatever impact flows through to house buyers if this bill passes will be either much greater or much less than ½%. I'm going to start calling Zandi the Human Recipriversexcluson.

poicv2.0 wrote:

Closing Fannie, Freddie could boost mortgage rates - Yahoo! Finance
Nooooooo!!

FTA:

"For too long these companies were allowed to make huge profits buying mortgages, knowing that if their bets went bad, taxpayers would be left holding the bag. It was 'heads we win, tails you lose,' and it was wrong," Obama said.

As opposed to the private companies who were allowed to make huge profits selling mortgages, knowing that if their bets went bad, taxpayers would be left holding the bag.

Rob Dawg wrote:

This coming from a New Hampshire-ite? (And what exactly is the correct name for someone from New Hampshire?)
Family blog!

You're thinking of the New Hampshire term for someone from Massachusetts. Wink

Mike in Long Island wrote:

At the current prices, builders are counting on selling units for an average of about $2,400 a square foot to make the returns worth the risk, she said.

Or - stay with me here! - or they could stretch construction out for a while, hold onto a few of the choice units, and sell them a year later for $3,000 a square foot. After all, it's Manhattan real estate; it only goes up!

JP wrote:

Woohoo! Time for an IPO so we can start awarding eight-figure stock option packages again.

Fixed It For Ya

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Ye must pay the tribute, peasant! The Lords demand it!

Last time I crossed the bridge to Philly I couldn't help but note that the DRPA seems to have upgraded its fleet with what looks suspiciously like 2013 Impalas.

It's a good thing the bridge toll went up to $5 a couple of years ago or Lord only knows how much longer they'd have had to suffer in those old 2008 models.

energyecon wrote:

Instead of net metering, which effectively pays solar owners $0.15-$0.16 per kW-hour for their power, APS has made two alternative proposals. The first is to pay customers $0.06-$0.10 per kW-hour for the power they generate, about in line with wholesale rates. The second proposal is to charge a fee that would reduce the average solar owner's savings from 70% of their bill to 30%-40%. That's no small impact for solar owners and could bring returns to such a low level that it kills residential and commercial solar immediately.

I claim no extraordinary powers of foresight or prediction, but this is precisely why I never gave a solar install on our new home a second thought 3 years ago even when available tax credits meant it theoretically penciled out in 5-7 years.

It's the same reason we're still paying tolls in NJ on bridges built 75 years ago.

Rob Dawg wrote:

I love it when a meme takes hold. So. How much was the equivalence two months ago at 3.5%?

Funny you should ask as that was the original calculation I ran:

$1,347 = $300,000 @ 3.5% = $262,500 @ 4.61% = $202,500 @ 7%

But I'm sure Its different this time

energyecon wrote:

RIGZONE - EIA Reduces 2013 US Natgas Production, Demand Estimates

The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday trimmed its estimate for domestic natural gas production in 2013, but expects output this year to be up about 1 percent from 2012's record-high levels.

As Americans we should all applaud our forward-thinking government for making those huge investments five years ago in a NG-powered transportation infrastructure that not only delivered tens of thousands of new jobs in the midst of recession but even now continues to wean us off of petroleum imports.

CR quoted:

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances ($417,500 or less) increased to 4.61 percent from 4.58 percent ...

Ooh! I almost forgot the obligatory weekly equivalency ...

$1,540 = P&I at 4.61% on $300,000 = P&I at 7% on $231,400

Someone needs to tell Ms. Wong that for a couple hundred thousand dollars less, she can get a tract home on an eighth of an acre located miles from the Pacific Ocean and an hour's drive from San Diego with $14k a year in taxes plus HOA and Mello-Roos.

Now that would be a savvy use of her bonus.

Without even clicking on the original link I can just about guarantee that the bank Ms. Wong trades for is of the TBTF variety.

I'm just glad that my contribution towards TARP five years ago is still being spent wisely to this day.

Whiskey wrote:

Yeah, that sounds about right. Everyone here has $1M lying around to put towards a weekday apartment. That's why I am so bitter that my Tuesday apartment isn't at least rent stabilized.

Not to mention that a sure sign of a successful and hard-edged trader is pulling off a coup like overbidding for the apartment and waiving all contingencies.

josap wrote:

As the question "No help, period" was not included - people are saying no to any help for home buying.

Well, No one 17 and under admitted - there goes my dream of owning my very own seven-figure tract home on a sixth of an acre in the far San Diegan exurbs.

Rob Dawg wrote:

$1400/mo taxes. Obscene.

So a PITI north of $6,000 a month for a tract home on a postage-stamp lot that's closer to the south gate of Camp Pendleton than to downtown San Diego?

I have no idea how these didn't all sell out on Day 1.

curious wrote:

Rents rose 3.9 percent year-over-year nationally, which was a big increase compared with inflation or income growth, but small compared with asking home price gains.
Might be worthy of some bold font.

I can't imagine why SFH rents might be growing more slowly than prices in hot markets:

Phoenix Rental Homes with Silver Bay Property Corp. 

My browser's Ctrl-F tells me there's 743 SFH's for rent from Silver Bay alone. Isn't that number about double what it was last month?

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

he's right in one respect though -- a mere 50% / year appreciation is more like normal price gains than 140%

Fortunately, rents continued to rise in the survey. As they will do, forever. The end.

Asking prices are wishing prices. According them undue statistical merit would be as stupid as the government basing a large portion of its CPI calculations on calling up non-landlords and asking them what they think their house would rent for, if they weren't living in it.

CR quoted:

"If you were worried about a housing bubble, July’s asking-price slowdown will probably be the best news you’ve heard this year,” said Jed Kolko, Trulia’s Chief Economist. “The asking home price slowdown in July could be the start of the return to normal price gains."

The force of denial is strong in this one.

Mary wrote:

More Dutch patients go to Belgium for treatment

I think that you should restrict that sort of remark to something artistic.

On-topic. If present trends continue, by this time next year the number of job openings tracked by this measure will exceed the number of new hires for the first time in the survey's history.

My limited anecdotal evidence suggests this is true - as evidenced by the average job in our company taking longer to fill than I can ever remember in the past.

I can suggest several interpretations of why this spread is narrowing so sharply, none of them enormously optimistic from a long-term labor market view.

Very true. For instance, the opening to our office didn't get an inch wider or narrower last month.

Whiskey wrote:

Another way to think of this is the guy dropping about $100K in down payment and closing costs to lower his monthly expenses by $100. That's not bad, as returns go

Only if your basis for comparison is investing based on POIC's newsletter.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

No but it has a six pack holder!

Voice-activated, too. It pops open automatically upon hearing the words, "Hold my beer and watch this!"

JP wrote:

As an example of what a probability calculation looks like: Here's the probability of 154 rolls of 2 dice that do not yield a 7 -
Comment by JP from thread 'Fed Survey: Banks eased lending standards, "experienced stronger demand in most loan categories"'

Casino table games have a fixed house edge. It's rule-based and enforced by law.

Let's say I took a pair of dice out of my pocket in front of you and rolled them 154 times in a row without a 7. I then offered you 6:1 odds instead of the probabilistic 5:1 if the next roll is a 7. Are you taking that bet?

Can someone remind me what happened the last time we had swelling home inventory in a rising-rate market? It's been sooooo loooong that I've plumb forgotten.

JP wrote:

I also believe that if I've just witnessed a 1 in 10^30 event, that the odds of then witnessing a 1/2 in 10^30 event are 50% for a fair coin.

False premise.

The odds that you've just witnessed a 1 in 10^30 event are, of course, 1 in 10^30. In other words - compared to all the ways in which the coin could in fact not be fair and you've thus witnessed nothing of the sort - effectively zero.

energyecon wrote:

If I pull what I tell you is a fair coin from my pocket

And that's the gist of the example. In fact, I don't even have to be lying; I may genuinely think the coin is fair, but it in fact was a weighted counterfeit that I got in change, or was erroneously struck at the mint, or someone broke into my house last night, took nothing, but switched all the change on my valet with rigged replicas.

As the number of consecutive heads you witness increases, so does the relative likelihood of any one of these insanely improbable events being the real reason for the streak.

energyecon wrote:

Certain with every lottery. Also, I did not dispute the notion that by and large people suck at probability estimation.

A large part of the problem is that the average layperson sucks at estimating probabilities, while the average statistician sucks at estimating when they should no longer apply.

Taleb's example remains the best and most succinct one I've read of this dilemma: If I pull a fair coin from my pocket and flip it in front of you 100 times, and it comes up heads each time, what are the odds it will be heads on the 101st throw?

The answer: It's not precisely calculable, but it's much closer to 100% than to 50%.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

The other thing that is nearly certain is that with a sufficient number of lotteries conducted, the house will enjoy a positive rate of return.

Every casino in existence today built its sweeping 20-story lobbies and spectacular multicolored fountains on a tenth of the house edge enjoyed by the typical state lottery.

blinkered wrote:

Who owns the government?

New Keyboard
I can only assume that's a rhetorical question.