Im bowing out

[thusby]

They were throwing houses at us 15 years ago, then cutting you a $10,000 check just for taking it. The games we play.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Unless your a cash buyer I don't see how it's a pop. Gonna cost you the same or near the same with rising rates. No?

Buy when it’s down with a high rate then refinance later when rates drop?

Has anyone actually kept there mortgage rate for the full term?

 

[Nick87]

Buy when it’s down with a high rate then refinance later when rates drop?

Has anyone actually kept there mortgage rate for the full term?

I fully agree I'd much rather buy low at a high rate than vice versa.

 

[BigHornRam]

It is a fun time to buy a hunk of land and start planning a homested.

Whatever it does, it does. I can't wait forever to catch the perfect wave. Time won't stand still.

It's going to cost you less for materials and labor to build, then it did back when this thread started. You may have timed the wave just right.

 

[woods89]

It's going to cost you less for materials and labor to build, then it did back when this thread started. You may have timed the wave just right.

Materials for sure, but as short as the labor market is, I'm not sure on that one. I'm pricing my work considerably higher now than a year or two ago, as my overhead costs keep going up.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I fully agree I'd much rather buy low at a high rate than vice versa.

I’m buying in the spring so will let you know how it goes lol

 

[BigHornRam]

Materials for sure, but as short as the labor market is, I'm not sure on that one. I'm pricing my work considerably higher now than a year or two ago, as my overhead costs keep going up.

I think the labor situation will improve in the months to come. You may even be able to get competitive bids from subs shortly.

 

[woods89]

I think the labor situation will improve in the months to come. You may even be able to get competitive bids from subs shortly.

I'd settle for them just being available in a timely fashion.

All I know is my area, but there are a lot of 40-60 year old guys in and out of my lumberyard, and not very many of my fellow millennials. I think it may get somewhat better as well, how much is the question.

 

[SAJ-99]

WSJ has its faults, but it sucks less than the rest - which really is the standard all of life needs to be held to if we are honest.

WSJ stopped making solid intellectually honest arguments on economic issues over a decade ago. It seems like they “suck less” because you agree with the argument or you hear it from everyone else and just assume it to be true.

would building more homes actually not increase supply?

Mortgage rates have been low by historical standards for almost 20yrs. Builders jumped on board in 2005 and 2006 and paid the price. They had no desire to repeat that mistake, and didn’t. But if builders aren’t going to match new household formation when rates are 3% and valuations at all time highs, we can pretty much write off it ever happening.

Yeah, it’s more than just that. It’s a two tiered customer base - those with money and those without- and more strict banking regulations that are in place to prevent the mistakes of 2005-2008. Those with money live longer healthier lives restricting turnover in those homes. And many have second and third homes). The whole thing comes from a system that encourages home ownership (American Dream) and provides benefits to that make it easier and cheaper.

The trope “we aren’t building enough new homes” only looks at one solution, and an unworkable one at that. Does anyone think builders are going to flood the market with new homes to drive down price? The supply demand mismatch isn’t getting solved that way.

 

[TOGIE]

WSJ stopped making solid intellectually honest arguments on economic issues over a decade ago. It seems like they “suck less” because you agree with the argument or you hear it from everyone else and just assume it to be true.


Mortgage rates have been low by historical standards for almost 20yrs. Builders jumped on board in 2005 and 2006 and paid the price. They had no desire to repeat that mistake, and didn’t. But if builders aren’t going to match new household formation when rates are 3% and valuations at all time highs, we can pretty much write off it ever happening.

Yeah, it’s more than just that. It’s a two tiered customer base - those with money and those without- and more strict banking regulations that are in place to prevent the mistakes of 2005-2008. Those with money live longer healthier lives restricting turnover in those homes. And many have second and third homes). The whole thing comes from a system that encourages home ownership (American Dream) and provides benefits to that make it easier and cheaper.

The trope “we aren’t building enough new homes” only looks at one solution, and an unworkable one at that. Does anyone think builders are going to flood the market with new homes to drive down price? The supply demand mismatch isn’t getting solved that way.

So, drops in new home starts won’t affect anything?

 

[Nick87]

I think the labor situation will improve in the months to come. You may even be able to get competitive bids from subs shortly.

We are LONG way from that atbkeast from what I'm seeing here. Not that it can't happen eventually.

 

[SAJ-99]

So, drops in new home starts won’t affect anything?

I guess, with the math and all. But the first line of the article is "It is harder to build it when you aren’t so sure they will come." So, you know, maybe?
But newly formed households can buy existing homes too. They don't just buy newly built homes. The last decade, minus the covid shitshow, was a home builders wet dream. They have been operating in the best environment possible- the government allowed their customer to borrow money at very low rates and pay back a little each month over 30yrs in order to buy literally the most expensive product almost everyone will every buy, AND BUILDERS STILL DIDN'T MEET DEMAND. Is it intentional maybe?

The article falls in the "Blame the Fed category". We just have to remember that this entire thread was started because pries were too high and supply too low. The Fed raised rates very quickly to fix the inflation problem, knowing that housing would be the first hit, and now the WSJ complaint is the Fed is killing housing? News flash, that was the point. I don't see a solution here without some pain, which results in the latest American pastime of assigning blame. Maybe people will just live with mom and dad in the basement. I don't entirely disagree with the conclusion, but my response is 'WTF did you want them to do?'

"The danger is that over the long haul, builders’ pulling back only exacerbates the home shortage. In the end, that might only put upward pressure on prices, rents and, ultimately, inflation. The sad irony is that rather than fixing America’s housing problems, the Fed’s actions might only make them worse."

 

[VikingsGuy]

because you agree with the argument or you hear it from everyone else and just assume it to be true.

You are getting out over your skis on this characterization - I guarantee you I have done more deals and weathered more economic cycles than you so I may actually have my own independent thoughts on things from time to time. Somewhere in the last year, you have gone from one of the more interesting posters to one of the more condescending. Not a good look.

 

[Nick87]

You are getting out over your skis on this characterization - I guarantee you I have done more deals and weathered more economic cycles than you so I may actually have my own independent thoughts on things from time to time. Somewhere in the last year, you have gone from one of the more interesting posters to one of the more condescending. Not a good look.

The irony.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The irony.

Yup - happy to give you a softball.

 

[TOGIE]

I guess, with the math and all. But the first line of the article is "It is harder to build it when you aren’t so sure they will come." So, you know, maybe?
But newly formed households can buy existing homes too. They don't just buy newly built homes. The last decade, minus the covid shitshow, was a home builders wet dream. They have been operating in the best environment possible- the government allowed their customer to borrow money at very low rates and pay back a little each month over 30yrs in order to buy literally the most expensive product almost everyone will every buy, AND BUILDERS STILL DIDN'T MEET DEMAND. Is it intentional maybe?

The article falls in the "Blame the Fed category". We just have to remember that this entire thread was started because pries were too high and supply too low. The Fed raised rates very quickly to fix the inflation problem, knowing that housing would be the first hit, and now the WSJ complaint is the Fed is killing housing? News flash, that was the point. I don't see a solution here without some pain, which results in the latest American pastime of assigning blame. Maybe people will just live with mom and dad in the basement. I don't entirely disagree with the conclusion, but my response is 'WTF did you want them to do?'

"The danger is that over the long haul, builders’ pulling back only exacerbates the home shortage. In the end, that might only put upward pressure on prices, rents and, ultimately, inflation. The sad irony is that rather than fixing America’s housing problems, the Fed’s actions might only make them worse."

I’ll be honest I mostly just glanced at the article to look at the charts and read the first three paragraphs.

But now I know to blame the boomers!

 

[SAJ-99]

You are getting out over your skis on this characterization - I guarantee you I have done more deals and weathered more economic cycles than you so I may actually have my own independent thoughts on things from time to time. Somewhere in the last year, you have gone from one of the more interesting posters to one of the more condescending. Not a good look.

Wasn’t a personal attack. I just know how you lean. Fiscally conservative, a bit liberatarian. That is where the WSJ has gone. It kind of stopped being a news organization over the last decade. It also stopped giving interesting takes and more those that followed the ideology of its readership. Pretty much like every other “news” org.

 

[BigHornRam]

I’ll be honest I mostly just glanced at the article to look at the charts and read the first three paragraphs.

But now I know to blame the boomers!

We can turn all the failing shopping malls into boomer encampments. Problem solved!

 

[BigHornRam]

Wasn’t a personal attack. I just know how you lean. Fiscally conservative, a bit liberatarian. That is where the WSJ has gone. It kind of stopped being a news organization over the last decade. It also stopped giving interesting takes and more those that followed the ideology of its readership. Pretty much like every other “news” org.

So if a person found Jon Stewart to be a credible news source, what would their ideology be?

 

[SAJ-99]

I’ll be honest I mostly just glanced at the article to look at the charts and read the first three paragraphs.

But now I know to blame the boomers!

Here is an article with some data. I don’t know much about the calc but trend doesn’t surprise me. We also know that the market prices mortgages off the 10yr bond because the duration matched the best. Not sure how strongly that holds anymore.

The Typical U.S. Home Changes Hands Every 13.2 Years

Homeowner tenure flattened near its peak in 2021 after steadily rising for nearly a decade

www.redfin.com