bostonbubble.com Forum Index bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SPONSORED LINKS

Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com

YOUR AD HERE

 
Go to: Boston real estate bubble fact list with references
More Boston Bubble News...
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed. As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.

Option ARMs / Alt-A mortgages in Masschusetts
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Greater Boston Real Estate & Beyond
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tztthinkagain



Joined: 31 Oct 2009
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:12 pm GMT    Post subject: Option ARMs / Alt-A mortgages in Masschusetts Reply with quote

Hi, does anyone know where can one find information on how many mortgages in Massachusetts (by county or town) are Option ARMs / Alt-A mortgages? From what I know these will start resetting peaking around 2012.

I want to find out how healthy/sick the Massachusetts housing market is, particularly in towns like Canton, Norwood, Needham, Acton, etc.

As bad as the subprime debacle is affecting the nation, Massachusetts seem to do a lot better than CA/FL/NV, etc. I want to know if the more Prime mortgages will cause housing in MA value to go down further.

I am debating should I wait until then for a cheaper house but risk having a bigger 30yr fixed rate, or buy it now if price won't go down any further because mortgages are healthier in those area.

Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
balor123



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 1204

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:27 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Larger 30yr rate => lower price
Lower price => lower risk

I don't think houses in nice neighborhoods suffered so much from creative financing but rather large leverage due to low interest rates. Typical households are borrowing 5-7x income, which exposes you to a lot of interest rate risk. Furthermore, the likelihood of people continuing to pay these premiums for housing here depends on what the price is relative to other cities, where the price has been dropping. It appears as if the MA economy is lagging the rest of the economy for the moment and that will put pressure on incomes. My plan is to hold out until interest rates rise to historic norms and see where prices settle then. Personally I'd rather not set sail in the middle of a hurricane just because the seas have been relatively calm so far knowing that there's turbulent water all around.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:23 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your position seem to be popular. Could you offer some more context around the strategy?

For instance, if you plan to relocate within a certain amount of time, or you have so much for a down payment, etc.

I heard this great guy on the radio this weekend; a personal finance guy. He said that although he didn't recommend leasing a car, that it was a decent option for someone who had trouble getting credit. He said that if you leased a car and made the payments on time, you'd build up credit so the next time, you could buy a car....

There are two types of risks for banks: first, that borrower won't pay back the money regardless of the economic condition, and second, the economic condition and future cost of capital (inflation premium).

What I'm saying is, if you're waiting for the good old days for historical norms, they also included 20% down payments so be sure that's in your plan.

One potential mistake or assumption I have made is that I thought that you can't really have inflation without growth, meaning if inflation goes up quickly so too will my cost of living adjustments at work so I'll be making more in four or five years and I'll eventually grow into the house I bought (like in the 80's).

I'm coming to understand that there is a possiblity that we can have inflation and not have domestic growth. This is due to the US Dollar falling among other currencies. Economists like Krugman say that this will help exports, but your buying power does diminish for foreign products.

This fear is called Stagflation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation

from link above:

Quote:
Neo-Keynesian theory distinguished two distinct kinds of inflation: demand-pull (caused by shifts of the aggregate demand curve) and cost-push (caused by shifts of the aggregate supply curve). Stagflation, in this view, is caused by cost-push inflation. Cost-push inflation occurs when some force or condition increases the costs of production. This could be caused by government policies (such as taxes), or from purely external factors such as a shortage of natural resources or an act of war.


also from above:

Quote:
This type of stagflation presents a policy dilemma because most actions to assist with fighting inflation worsen economic stagnation and vice versa.


Anyway, you guys all know my position regarding Obama, but I think some of the policies such as extending unemployment benefits or helping families pay their COBRA or even the $8k first time home buyer to the "Cash for Clunkers" do seem to help provide nourishment to those who are getting creamed. I do think that many who disagree are also right because many patiently waited and delayed their gratification and were responsible and this is their time to be rewarded for being responsible. I think that the prices for entry level homes were plunging and the foreclosure rate was too high so the families stuck in ARMS couldn't refinance to fixed rates because of their Loan to Value. This $8k arrested this plunge and I think that is a good thing because it was the Subprime mortgages that froze the credit markets and all that bad debt was the poison that put our economy into septic shock last September. That was the fire that needed to be put out. Now, sure if you're a first time homebuyer, that's not fair, but do you really want that fire to burn down the whole economy? I think you should be thankful that you avoided the fire and you're in a safe place. Patience is still a virtue in this situation. I remember thinking when I bought about all the seller that I thought were greedy, but that was in 05 and 06 and today is a different story. I think there is something almost cannibalistic to want others to fail miserably so you can have what you want, the polar opposite of the greed I saw on the other side in 05/06. We're at the point where a lot of good people are losing their homes now, not just the irresponsible ones so I think we need to be more Christian about our perspective. I know many might think I'm a total Capitalist, but I see Capitalism as a Utopia you have to earn and work hard for and I pray that Obama uses his power to provide a bridge to that proper balance of capitalism and democracy and not turn us into Socialistic Europe. My fear is that the "bridge" he's building pushes the shore further away....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:26 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

One other thing, I don't think this is an argument about Keynes or Friedman, it is about rapid globalization.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tztthinkagain



Joined: 31 Oct 2009
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:07 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is good to keep an eye on the interest rate. Waiting now is a good idea.

I think the cash for clunkers and housing credit, student loan, government subsidies are bad for the economy in general and especially for those who are late to the party, usually people who save and are responsible.

Wall street/Washington/fascism/corporatism/cronyism/insiders/etc., they just keep destroying the hard working people, even though some probably deserved it.

One good thing comes with this crisis is that it wakes me up to pay more attention to what s really going on.

Thanks for sharing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
balor123



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 1204

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:25 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

john p wrote:

For instance, if you plan to relocate within a certain amount of time, or you have so much for a down payment, etc.


My plan is to try and relocate as soon as my wife is done with grad school, which sadly won't be until mid to end of 2010. Hoping for Austin but Raleigh is looking good. If not, then I guess we'll have to be patient.

john p wrote:

What I'm saying is, if you're waiting for the good old days for historical norms, they also included 20% down payments so be sure that's in your plan.


Actually, I'm counting on it. That downpayment will take me further if everyone else has to do the same. I always wondered how people were coming up with $100k - $150k downpayments after only a few years since graduation. After looking at housing records, looks like they simply weren't!

john p wrote:

One potential mistake or assumption I have made is that I thought that you can't really have inflation without growth, meaning if inflation goes up quickly so too will my cost of living adjustments at work so I'll be making more in four or five years and I'll eventually grow into the house I bought (like in the 80's).


I've heard that from so many people and I've never really understood how people could preclude the possibility so easily. That's the scenario that I was thinking of but I'm sure there are others that I can't imagine.

john p wrote:

I think there is something almost cannibalistic to want others to fail miserably so you can have what you want, the polar opposite of the greed I saw on the other side in 05/06. We're at the point where a lot of good people are losing their homes now, not just the irresponsible ones so I think we need to be more Christian about our perspective.


I can't speak for everyone but I don't want others to fail. I'd rather that everyone have a nice house in a nice town near where they work at a price they can afford. Many cities have done it and I don't see why it shouldn't be possible here either but unfortunately such a goal is not popular around here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
balor123



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 1204

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:36 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

john p wrote:
I pray that Obama uses his power to provide a bridge to that proper balance of capitalism and democracy and not turn us into Socialistic Europe. My fear is that the "bridge" he's building pushes the shore further away....


I'm not a huge Obama fan either but I see bigger problems than him right now. We really need campaign finance reform. It looks like big change won't happen until the Fed is crushed and dollar topples over with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Renting in Mass



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 381
Location: In a house I bought in December 2011

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:27 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Now, sure if you're a first time homebuyer, that's not fair, but do you really want that fire to burn down the whole economy?


I understand that to prevent complete collapse, we had to reward banksters and homebuyers who acted recklessly, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I'd prefer that there had been more barriers to acting recklessly, so that we weren't in a position of having to reward them.

Quote:

I think there is something almost cannibalistic to want others to fail miserably so you can have what you want, the polar opposite of the greed I saw on the other side in 05/06. We're at the point where a lot of good people are losing their homes now, not just the irresponsible ones so I think we need to be more Christian about our perspective.


It's got nothing to do with wanting others to fail. It's about wanting a rational system that doesn't reward risky behavior and punish those who don't engage in it. Taking risks should have the potential for big rewards and big losses. If you create a system where you let people enjoy the rewards and you cushion them from the losses, the result is that people take on too much risk, and that inevitably leads to crashes.

Sure, some risk takers are going to fail. That's part of the deal. But I'm not rooting for individual failures. I'm rooting against a broken system.

And no, I don't like to see innocent people lose their homes. A system that doesn't encourage risk taking would help prevent that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Renting in Mass



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 381
Location: In a house I bought in December 2011

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:38 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

To expand on my previous post, I consider anyone who bought a house for more than 3.5 times their income or took on a PITI of more than 28% or a total debt load of more than 42% a risk taker. Same goes for those who put less than 15% down.

Those numbers are approximate. What I'm getting at is that somebody with a household income of 75K who bought a 400k house with 5% down isn't "innocent."

I can't imagine that too many people who bought houses using the metrics I described are losing their homes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:44 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This $8k arrested this plunge and I think that is a good thing because it was the Subprime mortgages that froze the credit markets and all that bad debt was the poison that put our economy into septic shock last September. That was the fire that needed to be put out.


That was the fire that we have been told needed to be put out, according to those who stood to gain the most by doing so (banks, lenders, Wall Street). Where is the control group in this experiment? How do we in fact know that the economy would have collapsed had we not given the lenders exactly what they asked for?

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Renting in Mass



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 381
Location: In a house I bought in December 2011

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:56 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That was the fire that we have been told needed to be put out, according to those who stood to gain the most by doing so (banks, lenders, Wall Street). Where is the control group in this experiment? How do we in fact know that the economy would have collapsed had we not given the lenders exactly what they asked for?


Admin, do you ever listen to the Planet Money podcast? I think you'd like it. Anyway, I share your skepticism, but the Planet Money guys (who seem pretty reasonable, aren't political, and have examined this issue from every angle) believe that as much as it sucks, we really did need to bail out the bad guys. They coined a nice phrase the other day. Instead of "collateral damage" the bankers received "collateral benefits."

Believing that to be true helps me get through the day Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:06 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't want responsible people like Admin and Renting to be punished for being responsible, but the choice is either pay a premium on your home due to irresponsible people, or lose a decade of your career or at least some major potential of your career due to living in a dead economy.

I graduated college in 1992 and many people didn't have a chance to get experience so they were learning in their 30's what they should have in their 20's. I think this is worse than paying an extra 10% on your house because we only live once and if you don't gear into your professional career in your 20's and early 30's it puts pressure on the expenses of having kids and such.

I honestly care about you guys and have gathered that you're not mean spirited, but if you weigh in your minds the current situation and see through the prism that the current Administration is seeing things, new first time buyers might be collateral damage in saving this Economy, so I want you to have your eyes open to the potential government interaction and take measure of how significant government interaction in the past has had significant impact on the market. Further, the current interaction might have more of an impact than the Community Reinvestment Act/ Dot.com bubble, the changes to the tax rates in the 80's etc.

I think the big thing to weigh in your mind is running two models: first the risk of buying a place today to have it worth 10% less next year, versus buying a house next year at a much higher mortgage rate. Because the Government has stake in the banks, they can't afford a housing market plunge so what happens to prices if mortgage rates can't stay low?

Geitner said the key to everything is GROWTH. If first time home buyers can see wage inflation, their focus will be on their plan to be a player in the industry and they will be more prone to settling in to build a career. I'm saying the growth might be in exports because we all see the dollar weakining which means that exports is the potential area of growth, so no matter what gearing into growth is the key strategy as Geitner said no matter whether you buy or rent...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:30 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

I don't want responsible people like Admin and Renting to be punished for being responsible, but the choice is either pay a premium on your home due to irresponsible people, or lose a decade of your career or at least some major potential of your career due to living in a dead economy.

Are those the only choices, or is that a false dichotomy? I'm of the mind that home price declines are a symptom of the problem (overly loose credit), not the cause. In that case, trying to prop up prices is actually worsening the situation.

Quote:

I think the big thing to weigh in your mind is running two models: first the risk of buying a place today to have it worth 10% less next year, versus buying a house next year at a much higher mortgage rate.

I don't consider higher mortgage rates a "risk" at all. I would overwhelmingly prefer them, specifically because of risk. The payments will be the same with higher rates (assuming that they create a ceiling for the market), but the risk of further price declines induced by higher rates will be much lower when rates are already high.

Also, I'm not sure that I would characterize rates going back to 6.5% as "much higher." By historical standards, that's still really low. If the government's winding down of its subsidies (via rates and the tax credit) leads to a 10% price drop all by itself as you contemplated in the other thread, I think that when considering the risk involved in a purchase, a 10% decline is very optimistic (in real terms, anyway).

Quote:

Admin, do you ever listen to the Planet Money podcast? I think you'd like it. Anyway, I share your skepticism, but the Planet Money guys (who seem pretty reasonable, aren't political, and have examined this issue from every angle) believe that as much as it sucks, we really did need to bail out the bad guys. They coined a nice phrase the other day. Instead of "collateral damage" the bankers received "collateral benefits."

Believing that to be true helps me get through the day Wink

No, I haven't heard that podcast. Thanks for the suggestion.

Maybe action was necessary, but I suspect that the action could have been far more punitive than it was. I understand the desire to put out the fire before working on overhauling the fire code. We should be seeing some drastic changes now, though, not record profits from Goldman, et al.

- admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Renting in Mass



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 381
Location: In a house I bought in December 2011

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:00 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
We should be seeing some drastic changes now, though, not record profits from Goldman, et al.


Agreed!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:48 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Admin said:
Quote:
Are those the only choices, or is that a false dichotomy? I'm of the mind that home price declines are a symptom of the problem (overly loose credit), not the cause. In that case, trying to prop up prices is actually worsening the situation.


I see this as slowing the rate of correction. I think things need to ratchet down incrementally so that there is a marginal benefit in waiting, but not so much where people hold out for a complete plunge. What a complete plunge means is that those people that face adjustable rates resets can not refinance into a fixed rate because of their loan to value, then they can't sell their homes because they'll be upside down and then because the taxpayers are on the hook for the banks and the guaranteed mortgages we all share in the loss. What I want is for people who should never have been in a home to be able to get out of their commitments because they won't be paying the price of the problem, the taxpayer will. If we take too big of a bite out of the shit sandwich we'll go into septic shock. Don't you agree that the credit crisis of Sept. 2008 was caused by the people in Subprime mortgages going belly up and the associated commercial paper being worthless? Do we want a bite out of that sandwich again? If you think, good, those buyers, and investers caused the problem then why aren't people out there wanting to push out Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Obama, the same guys that were pushing banks to issue Subprime loans? I mean people still don't get that our government guaranteed, and encouraged Subprime lending and when we got the big wave of adjustable rate resets and the bad alignment with the LIBOR, all the people in ARMS got screwed and because the FED let mortgage rates increase 1.5 points from the peak, the affordability reach height was too much for people to buy the homes that were now being foreclosed upon. I know some of you think that let's just clear this out of our system once and for all, but we're talking entire State's that are neck deep in the shit right now, California, Arizona, Florida, etc. I think it needs to ratchet down for the good of all.

I think the more constructive way to solve the problem is to have a softer landing and grow people to the affordability reach height by giving them an economy where they can reach their potential and grow into the current prices.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are stress cracks in the system that point to double digit mortgage rates in our future, but we have to really think about inflation versus stagflation because if it is costs pushing up inflation i.e. gasoline or transportation costs and not driven by growth maybe mortgage rates don't go up because we are getting the worst of deflation forces and inflation forces simultaneously. I do think that one way we might get inflation without growth is the debasement of the United States. Lenin said that the way to destroy a capitalistic power was to debase their currency.

The most interesting and important thing I have read this month is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_accumulation

Oh, regarding Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson worked for them and I am also not comfortable with the access they have to the game planning of Geithner.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/161374/Tim-Geithner-Too-Close-to-Goldman-Sachs-to-Be-Treasury-Secretary-Critic-Says?tickers=GS,C,BAC,XLF,MS,JPM,%5EDJI

The rest of us don't know what hand this Administration is going to play, but they are showing Goldman Sachs the cards and it seems that they benefitted from the bailout of AIG.

This is exactly the opposite of how Obama said he would govern.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Greater Boston Real Estate & Beyond All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group