U.S. homeownership rate falls to lowest in 19 years

[dmcowen674]

7-29-2014

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-s--homeownership-rate-falls-to-lowest-in-19-years-164357065.html

U.S. homeownership rate falls to lowest in 19 years

The homeownership rate in the U.S. fell to a 19-year low as rising prices and tight credit kept many first-time buyers out of the property market.

The share of Americans who own their homes was 64.7 percent in the second quarter, down from 64.8 percent in the previous three months, the Census Bureau said in a report today. The rate matched the level in the second quarter of 1995.

The homeownership rate for all Americans peaked at 69.2 percent in June 2004 and plunged as the housing market crashed, according to the Census Bureau.

 

[dmcowen674]

From the no shit sherlock dept.

What did Republitards think would happen when you:

Flood the country with cheap labor from south of the border

Ship all manufacturing out of the country

Stop wage growth for who is left

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Its not that bad. Its 10% off from its peak. Also look when the last low point was. Could this be a sign of a massive recovery? There seems to be pent up demand.

 

[smackababy]

Homeownership rates have fallen? We better force banks to give loans to people we know can't afford them! I'm sure that will fix the problem, right Clinton?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yadmtt

 

[schmuckley]

People can't buy homes when their job doesn't enable them to afford it.
..or the price of food,fuel,power,goods in general.

 

[fskimospy]

Homeownership rates have fallen? We better force banks to give loans to people we know can't afford them! I'm sure that will fix the problem, right Clinton?

It is amazing to me that this many years after the financial crisis that people still believe the CRA had anything to do with it. How deep in the bubble do you have to be to think that?

 

[Texashiker]

People can't buy homes when their job doesn't enable them to afford it.
..or the price of food,fuel,power,goods in general.

Banks do not care if people can afford to buy a home or not.

If home ownership is down 10%, and the federal reserve has been dumping $85 billion a month into the economy, things are a lot worse that we know.

For the past 3+ years the federal reserve has been shoring up the economy with $85 billion a month, something like $45 a billion of that goes straight into moratage backed securities.

• Federal reserve loans money to bank and almost zero interest.
• Bank loans money so family can buy home.
• Bank takes mortgages, bundles them, sells them to federal reserve.
• Bank has almost no risk.
• Federal reserve "hopes" to turn around and sell those mortgage backed securities to investors.

Bank does not care if you can not make your payments. Their profit is almost guaranteed because the federal reserve is buying mortgage backed securities. Let the fed deal with people who default.

Is the federal reserve worried about a family defaulting? Heck no. The fed can always print more money.

We still have the potential for a bubble as the federal reserve has been keeping home prices artificially high.

Artificially high prices mean less people can afford to buy.

 

[Attic]

Homeownership rates have fallen? We better force banks to give loans to people we know can't afford them! I'm sure that will fix the problem, right Clinton?

It was a decent idea, bad in practice.

But what created the real problems in housing was liar loans that pushed up prices and crashed the economy. Of course the government bailed out the liars and thieves behind this.


Housing rates now lag because household formation is dropping, dropping due to limited economic freedom and ability.

There is a huge cost to keep the wealth inequality so wide.

 

[fskimospy]

It was a decent idea, bad in practice.

But what created the real problems in housing was liar loans that pushed up prices and crashed the economy. Of course the government bailed out the liars and thieves behind this.

Housing rates now lag because household formation is dropping, dropping due to limited economic freedom and ability.

There is a huge cost to keep the wealth inequality so wide.

Why was it bad in practice? CRA loans didn't default at a different rate than regular ones.

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, housing is too expensive for what you get, at least in the bay area. Not in a hurry to buy, maybe if market crashes again, I'll take another look at it.

 

[Pulsar]

7-29-2014

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-s--homeownership-rate-falls-to-lowest-in-19-years-164357065.html

U.S. homeownership rate falls to lowest in 19 years

The homeownership rate in the U.S. fell to a 19-year low as rising prices and tight credit kept many first-time buyers out of the property market.

The share of Americans who own their homes was 64.7 percent in the second quarter, down from 64.8 percent in the previous three months, the Census Bureau said in a report today. The rate matched the level in the second quarter of 1995.

The homeownership rate for all Americans peaked at 69.2 percent in June 2004 and plunged as the housing market crashed, according to the Census Bureau.

It's about damn time. There are a whole lot of people who bought houses they could never afford, and the market is still catching up with them. We were in the biggest housing boom EVER, and the correction is still being made.

It used to be that you'd save up for a decade to make your down payment on your first house. It's about time we went back to the mantra of having the money before buying, rather than accruing debt.

Gasp. Look at that. The biggest housing bubble ever.

 

[Texashiker]

It used to be that you'd save up for a decade to make your down payment on your first house. It's about time we went back to the mantra of having the money before buying, rather than accruing debt.

You are only looking at half the problem.

The other half is cheap easy money from the federal reserve, and investors looking to buy mortgage backed securities as fast as the banks can put them together.

There is little to deter banks from making risky loans. For the past 3 years the federal reserve has been buying something like $45 billion a month in MBSs.

Your a bank owner, you want your piece of that $45 billion a month? You better get to lending money. Fewer people qualifying for a loan? Its ok, just lower the standards a little bit.

Wages have been stagnated since around the 1970s. Home prices need to go back to at least the 1990s.

 

[fskimospy]

You are only looking at half the problem.

The other half is cheap easy money from the federal reserve, and investors looking to buy mortgage backed securities as fast as the banks can put them together.

There is little to deter banks from making risky loans. For the past 3 years the federal reserve has been buying something like $45 billion a month in MBSs.

Your a bank owner, you want your piece of that $45 billion a month? You better get to lending money. Fewer people qualifying for a loan? Its ok, just lower the standards a little bit.

This has no bearing on reality. Please provide evidence of lower lending standards.

 

[Texashiker]

This has no bearing on reality. Please provide evidence of lower lending standards.

This what you were asking for?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-credit-compelling-wells-fargo-mortgages.html

Wells Fargo (WFC) & Co., the biggest U.S. home lender, two weeks ago cut its minimum credit score for borrowers of Fannie Mae-and Freddie Mac-backed loans to 620 from 660.

The step followed moves by smaller lenders, such as the U.S. unit of Canada’s Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), which lowered down payments to 3 percent without requiring mortgage insurance for some loans.

 

[fskimospy]

This what you were asking for?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-credit-compelling-wells-fargo-mortgages.html

You realize that still represents an increase over historical requirements, right?

 

[shabby]

The share of Banks who own Americans homes was 64.7 percent in the second quarter, down from 64.8 percent in the previous three months...

FTFY

 

[cabri]

From the no shit sherlock dept.

What did Republitards think would happen when you:

Flood the country with cheap labor from south of the border

Ship all manufacturing out of the country

Stop wage growth for who is left

The Dems have been in charge of the government (WH & policy implementation) for the past 6+ years.

The administration refuses to stop the influx of illegals. there is the cheap labor now.
What manufacturing have they stopped from leaving?
What encouragements has been done to onshore?

Wage growth is due to demand & supply. What have the Dems done to revive the demand.

It is your guy in charge wielding the pen. If the housing drops, it is on his watch, not a prev president.
It is his policies that are in place; live with them instead of passing the blame and stuffing your ears with your fingers.

 

[Texashiker]

You realize that still represents an increase over historical requirements, right?

Do not move the goal post. You asked for proof, I gave you proof.

As for how all that relates to the opening post, if the federal reserve printing free money can not get people into homes, the only that will work is ending free trade.

In two months the federal reserve printed enough free money to buy everyone in the US a home. Instead of using that money to help the people, it was given to the banks.

We are going to have another housing bubble. The only stopping it will be the fed corning the housing market.

 

[werepossum]

Do not move the goal post. You asked for proof, I gave you proof.

As for how all that relates to the opening post, if the federal reserve printing free money can not get people into homes, the only that will work is ending free trade.

In two months the federal reserve printed enough free money to buy everyone in the US a home. Instead of using that money to help the people, it was given to the banks.

We are going to have another housing bubble. The only stopping it will be the fed corning the housing market.

You're wasting your time, dude. He is incapable of perceiving that which does not fit. Government good, private sector bad, adjust perceptions to fit.

That said, while the GSEs led the charge in dismantling the "outdated metrics" of income verification, employment verification, & credit history, if it had been only the GSEs' loan we would have survived the crash pretty well. And had we not dismantled the last tired vestiges of Glass-Steagall, the crash would have been limited to one sector of banking and one sector of industry, and thus much less painful.

 

[fskimospy]

You're wasting your time, dude. He is incapable of perceiving that which does not fit. Government good, private sector bad, adjust perceptions to fit.

That said, while the GSEs led the charge in dismantling the "outdated metrics" of income verification, employment verification, & credit history, if it had been only the GSEs' loan we would have survived the crash pretty well. And had we not dismantled the last tired vestiges of Glass-Steagall, the crash would have been limited to one sector of banking and one sector of industry, and thus much less painful.

You are delusional and engaging in revisionist history.

Please stop lying about the causes of the crash.

 

[Texashiker]

You are delusional and engaging in revisionist history.

Please stop lying about the causes of the crash.

Ad hominem.

Do you have anything to contribute besides insults?

 

[zinfamous]

The economy crashed because dubya snorted coke while in the Air National Guard some decades ago, and because Clinton received hummers from some chunky chick in the Oval office.

 

[werepossum]

The economy crashed because dubya snorted coke while in the Air National Guard some decades ago, and because Clinton received hummers from some chunky chick in the Oval office.

Crap, and here I was all set to ask Dubya and Clinton for a repeat in hopes of returning the good old days.

 

[Attic]

Why was it bad in practice? CRA loans didn't default at a different rate than regular ones.

I'm unsure if we are comparing CRA vs regular loans or CRA vs other subprime when gauging rate of default. I'm looking at subprime as a whole, including CRA, in terms of defaults that took down the economy.

I'd freely admit that loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans (liar loans) so it is possible/likely they had different default rates. It was my understanding the cancer in subprime was generally evenly spread between, though a result of fraud in the banking and mortgage sectors rather than a direct result of CRA.