Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Homebuyers must ‘learn to live’ with near-7% mortgage rates says RE/MAX chairman

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: Homebuyers must ‘learn to live’ with near-7% mortgage rates says RE/MAX chairman

#101

Post by nojvek »

candiodari wrote: post #95
nojvek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my deeper point is, someone could make a law - you can only max own 2 homes, after 3rd home and thereafter, taxes go through the roof for capital gain. Having homes as a speculative investment is a great way to have an entire generation having low home ownership. And I agree, both sides are equally worse. With colleges, homes, healthcare, daycares, food becoming so expensive, the effects will be huge but we’l…

... and then the rental market collapsed. I mean what do you want to do with companies that work by owning (or ...) 200 homes and renting them out? There's a LOT of these, responsible for a big part of the rental market. Economic systems are systems of dividing up stuff. Capitalism and communism, and everything in between change who gets which housing. They cannot solve housing shortages. They (obviously) do not chan…

There are rental multi family units and single family homes.

Dense multi family units - companies can go crazy building and renting them out.

Single family homes is a special American dream. Having them subject to rent seeking greed is not great.

It’s along the same lines of cities saying - in this zones you can’t have Airbnb short term rentals, in this zone primary home owners or second home rentals only, in this zone go crazy capitalistic do whatever you want.

I honestly don’t care about billionaires. But if they are taking a huge pie away from finite resources like livable land/housing, then that is a problem.

Focusing on income inequality or giving free money as universal income is wrong way to look at it.

We just need a healthy distribution of finite resources that yield supply of basic needs.

Needs being Food, water, electricity, internet, housing, clothing, transport, electricity, healthcare etc.

Price gouging of utilities is restricted, no reason why we can’t encourage building more homes and ensuring a healthy gradient of distribution.

Re: Homebuyers must ‘learn to live’ with near-7% mortgage rates says RE/MAX chairman

#102

Post by itake »

sofixa wrote: post #79
itake wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain this more? When I rented, I paid a flat rate. When rent increased, it only went up 10% at max. Now that I am a homeowner with a 30y fixed mortage, I have many unexpected jumps (thousands in home repairs, increasing property taxes and insurance). Unexpected jumps are way bigger as a home owner than they ever were as a renter. Oh, and my house value has dropped $100k since I bought it.

> When I rented, I paid a flat rate. When rent increased, it only went up 10% at max. 10% is still a pretty serious increase. In France there's an index that is the max that rents can be increased with, and it's usually at max 6-7% (usually lower), and cannot be increased in areas that have significant housing shortage vis à vis demand.

Doesn't rent control compound the problem? In areas with housing shortage, if no one can move, then the supply is further constrained. New people moving into the city (or young people moving out of their parent's homes) have to pay current market prices.

Re: Homebuyers must ‘learn to live’ with near-7% mortgage rates says RE/MAX chairman

#103

Post by SoftTalker »

pierat wrote: post #70
SoftTalker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sold my last house and bought my current one FSBO, no agents. They really don’t do much. Hire a lawyer to help with the closing if you feel better doing that, it’ll still be cheaper than an agent.

Maybe it's not well talked about enough, but I'm indirectly referring to https://www.realestatenews.com/2023/03/29/commissions-lawsui... When you sell a home and you hire a realtor (sellers agent), the buyer will also likely have a realtor (buyers agent). When the house is sold, it is "traditional" for 2.5% of the cost of the house to go to the seller's agent.... BUT ALSO 2.5% goes to the buyer's agent, from the sell…

If the seller didn’t have to pay the agents, the seller would be able to accept a lower offer. The buyer pays, in the end.

Re: Homebuyers must ‘learn to live’ with near-7% mortgage rates says RE/MAX chairman

#104

Post by sofixa »

itake wrote: post #102
sofixa wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I rented, I paid a flat rate. When rent increased, it only went up 10% at max. 10% is still a pretty serious increase. In France there's an index that is the max that rents can be increased with, and it's usually at max 6-7% (usually lower), and cannot be increased in areas that have significant housing shortage vis à vis demand.

Doesn't rent control compound the problem? In areas with housing shortage, if no one can move, then the supply is further constrained. New people moving into the city (or young people moving out of their parent's homes) have to pay current market prices.

> Doesn't rent control compound the problem

Depends on which problem you're talking about. People getting priced out of the places they live by increasing rents? That one is solved by rent controls. The other big one, of people being unable to find where to live, is compounded to an extent, but coupled with other efforts (highly incentivised building of affordable and social housing, as well as various programs to help people buy the first time, and incentives to buy to rent (at fixed rates) it's not that bad.

All the renter's protections do create obstacles to renting though, with e.g. landlords demanding proof of salaries at least x3 or a guarantor with such salaries.

Re: Homebuyers must ‘learn to live’ with near-7% mortgage rates says RE/MAX chairman

#105

Post by Gibbon1 »

pedrosorio wrote: post #96
Gibbon1 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't take the mortgage with you One wonders perhaps, why is that exactly? Why can't you trade one bit of collateral for another similar bit of collateral? You owe $300k backed by a $700k house and you want to swap that for a $500k house, why should the note holder be able to call in the loan when you do that?

Doesn’t the bank have the right to refuse to grant a mortgage in the first place, depending on the asset? It’s not like you tell them you’re buying a house worth x and they give you a mortgage for 0.8x, right?

Banks are heavily regulated and aren't loaning out their own money.
Post reply on HN