Live data from Hacker News

The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

thestreet.com

271–280 of 346 posts

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#271
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be snarky or obvious, but you should do what the people in the past did - find a better place to live that allows you to buy a home more easily. That's one of the reasons why there was a big migration to places like LA. Lots of jobs and cheap land to build on. To me, SF is like NYC. Unless you got in early or are one of the 1%, it's not a great place to try and build a life in (if you're looking to own a home)…

> Unless you got in early or are one of the 1%, it's not a great place to try and build a life in I mean, even if you got in early, you're still locking up lots of wealth in housing, an opportunity cost that could be differently spent. For example, suppose you bought a place in NY in the 80s for 200k that's now $3m. Sure, you got in early and your mortgage has been paid off and you live without any housing expenses (…

I’m not sure about the EU, but in the US you could do a cash-out refinance. Effectively, liquidate your equity in the house in exchange for interest payments that go to the bank (~3%), then invest that cash elsewhere.

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at the wealth, convenience, leisure and abundance all around you. Even people with lower income experience high standards of living. The system we have now is not without fault, but it has done better than any other before in meeting our needs and desires. You should spend some time in Appalachia if you think that's true.

You are making a logical fallacy and I don't think it's worth my time to actually attempt to discuss this with you.

There's nothing to discuss because you don't really have much of an argument. "Look around. Things are better than what they were" doesn't negate the fact that market forces are bad at distributing resources. You can look at the COVID-19 crisis as well. "Market forces" led to distribution channels with no redundancy, leaving the United States with a shortage of something super basic: PPE.

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm not sure I understand correctly is the second half of OP's content [how the change in downpayment requirement causes prices to rise such that a 5% downpayment is now the same as the prior 10% downpayment].

If you consider that the $500k house in the example is the same house that goes for $575k, then housing prices just increased to absorb the eager buyer at a lower percent down. And when the neighbor goes to sell, they see a similar house as their own sold for a higher price, so they try to sell for a higher price.

"so the downpayment is the same [for 5%] as it [was] for 10%"

That's what I'm not understanding. In your example, the downpayment is wildly lower.

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the federal reserve isn't part of the government, so hurray for us I guess.

Wikipedia says that it's under the jurisdiction of the Federal government of the United States. So maybe depends on how you define 'government'? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

If only there was a consolidated federal balance sheet.

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#275
post #140
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More difficult than the baby boomer generation most certainly, but not impossible. You could take the arbitrage further by increasing upfront and post move earnings and decreasing future expenses: - Save up "no thanks" money at the high cost of living place. Not "f * y " money, but a significant sum. - Ideally, find a remote job at the hight cost of living place. - Relocate to a low cost of living place with decent s…

"At least in the EU, there are nice and safe places with very low real estate prices, quite decent socialised medicine, very low taxes and easy cheap transportation links around the continent. " Oh? Like where?

For solo developers or childless couples, Riga, Latvia is not too bad if you can stand the long winters:

- The socialised medicine is not as bad as one would think. If that doesn't suffice, additional private medicine is affordable.

- The tax regime is simple. Rates are relatively low.

- Transport. Within the city, public transport is not too bad and taxis are very very affordable. In non-covid19 times, all of Europe is one cheap flight away.

Oh, the irony of writing this from overpriced Leuven, Belgium :-)

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#277
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t treat a couple hundred thousand dollars as an investment? Sounds privileged.

If the price of the house rises faster than inflation, it is a good investment. However, rising faster than inflation also means that they become proportionally less affordable over time. You cannot have both affordable housing and high returns from housing

Also, inflation causes the value of debt to decrease over time. (Wages are sticky, but when they catch up, inflation causes debt to go down as the value of currency decreases.)

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#278
post #244
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've got it backwards. If new cars all cost $200k, would you buy one as an investment? No -- you'd either not buy one (unprivileged) or buy one anyway realizing it's a cost (privileged). I might spend $100k on a house that I was going to live in for 20-30 years, even if I knew that at the end of that time it was going to be worthless. But I certainly wouldn't spend $500k+ on a house unless I knew I'd be abl…

What if the cost of the monthly interest on your mortgage for that $500k house was less than your rent?

If it's an interest-only mortgage, and you are sure the value isn't going to go down, then fine.

But if you're putting in capital, you have to factor in the cost of money. There are far better things to do with $500k than to park it in an asset that doesn't appreciate.

And of course, you have to factor in the risk that the price will actually drop. Risk isn't free either: it doesn't make sense to take a risk that you may lose money, unless there's a counter probability that you will actually gain money instead.

Even if your monthly payment was less than your rent, you still might be better off doing something else. To get a good interest rate you need 75% LTV; which means on a $500k house you need to put up $125k up front. You might be better taking that $125k and investing it in an S&P500 index fund, and then paying rent, than taking that $125k and putting it into a house and making a mortgage payment. (Obviously you need to do the actual math here to see if it makes sense or not.)

And of course there's the diversification aspect too. If your net worth is $300k ($500k house + $50k other investments - $250k mortgage), it would normally be a really poor decision to have 166% of that ($300k / $500k) in a single asset, whose value could drop drastically for any number of reasons.

All that to say -- if your house isn't an investment, it had better be significantly cheaper than renting before it makes financial sense.

From a societal flexibility perspective, it's much better if most people rent; particularly poorer people who can't as easily from the economic shock of having their house lose all its value. If the bottom fell out of the economy in the city I'm in, and my house's price dropped by half, I could afford to cut my losses and start over. A lot of people are stuck.

I'm told that Germany is very different. It's not at all expected that people strive to own their own home; people rent the same place for decades and are perfectly happy. Because they've never had out-of-control housing prices (at least, not in the last few decades), they can keep things rational.

If the UK's policies suddenly looked like Germany's I'd probably take a massive haircut on the house I own. Personally, I'd be willing to do that if I knew it would make things better for other people; I'd be OK financially. But a lot of people wouldn't, so I understand why it's difficult to change.

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#279
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, your 25% delinquency rate seems unreasonable. During the financial crisis, the subprime delinquency rate peaked at 26% [1] but the overall (whole US market) rate was just over 9%. Delinquency is also mostly just about being a leading predictor of foreclosure or some sort of renegotiated payment structure. The same stat suggests that foreclosures overall peaked at just over 2% (but up to 15% subprime) [1 aga…

actually, for many metro areas the delinquency rate is reaching 25%+ for FHA loans right now. they're surviving due to the feds preventing foreclosure. things are a little better in the other classes of loans but not much! if the economy stays weak and jobs dont come back, some metros may well see a housing price decline. Atlanta, Houston and san anton.

Sure, but the parent comment was saying they're worried the Fed will lose all the money. But the Fed is buying things broadly (initially they bought Bond ETFs/funds!), so while some places will be higher, others will be lower.

My guess is that even more than during the financial crisis, people are delinquent but would absolutely pay if they could. Was your housing price decline statement supposed to be about those homes becoming underwater and therefore the buyers walk away / end up in foreclosure?

Re: The Fed now owns nearly 1/3 of all U.S. mortgages

#280
post #137

Out of curiosity, why wouldn’t we want the government managing mortgages for the whole country? (Assuming the acquisition process isn’t slow AF because government.) Real estate seems like a pretty important part of the economy and, more importantly, the government artificially making housing more accessible for potential first time buyers creates a virtuous cycle where people can finally save money and the eventually…

You know the Federal Reserve is not a government agency, right?
Post reply on HN