It took 40-50 years for many of these area homes to reach a value of between 100k-150k.
Then their value goes up by 400k in just 6 fucking years?
What was so special about those 6 years?

Nothing happened other than people are willing to pay that much to live here.

No doc loans, baby. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.

$100k to $500k in 6 years?

Not around here.


Maybe $300k to $500k.

You're way off on your timing.

$100K was more like the late-80s.

They did go up a lot from 2000- but around here it was more like $300-$500 for single family homes.

It was a function of a good economy, mass delusion and specualtion, and a shift to larger, higher-end mix in home construction (aka McMansions).

example? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $100k to $500k in 6 years?
>
> Not around here.
>
>
> Maybe $300k to $500k.

Yes
$100k to $500k in 6 years.
It happened.

Well then provide an example of it, dickhead

mVttt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're way off on your timing.
>
> $100K was more like the late-80s.
>
> They did go up a lot from 2000- but around here it
> was more like $300-$500 for single family homes.
>
> It was a function of a good economy, mass delusion
> and specualtion, and a shift to larger, higher-end
> mix in home construction (aka McMansions).
>
> src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons
> /1/1f/Median_and_Average_Sales_Prices_of_New_Homes
> _Sold_in_the_US_1963-2010_Monthly.png">

Your example in no way covers the extreme example of the overpriced shit hole that Fairfax County became during those years.
150k, 160k, 170k, 180k all the way up to 500k and up happened here during those years and it happened a lot.

Nope, not around here.


Show some examples.

You could never get a SFH home for $100k in Fairfax, maybe in the 80s.


Zillow is only showing back to 2002 values.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7413-Annanwood-Ct-Annandale-VA-22003/51845370_zpid/


2002 $4,190 -- $365,600


2006 $4,323 +3.2% $442,360 +21.0%


http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/603-Gibson-Dr-SW-Vienna-VA-22180/51772183_zpid/


2002 $4,309 -- $381,000


2006 $4,118 -4.4% $462,180 +21.3%

I thought you guys on here were more intelligent and more knowledgeable about the county.
Either you were not living here back then or do not have a good memory.
Did you just move here in the past 5 years to leech off of the government and/or the local economy?

Fairfax County is not the norm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your example in no way covers the extreme example
> of the overpriced shit hole that Fairfax County
> became during those years.
> 150k, 160k, 170k, 180k all the way up to 500k and
> up happened here during those years and it
> happened a lot.


Actually it does. This area followed the same trend, it just started higher and had a higher top range. i.e., it was on the higher side of the average/median.

I paid $130K in 1987 for a typical SFH inside the Beltway at the time. Tax assessments hit the $300K range by the mid-90s.

Did you just move here? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought you guys on here were more intelligent
> and more knowledgeable about the county.
> Either you were not living here back then or do
> not have a good memory.
> Did you just move here in the past 5 years to
> leech off of the government and/or the local
> economy?


+1

OP is a transplant from Florida

He is the same guy that constantly bitches about the weather.

http://fairfax.homebyschool.com/fairfax-county-real-estate-market-updatemay-2013/

I bought my house brand new in 1999 for $100K. In 2005 it was worth $450K according to appraisal we had done. Now its worth maybe $275K

$275k for home in Fairfax?


Sheet, I'll make you an offer now, $290k cash.

Cornball Brother's brother Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bought my house brand new in 1999 for $100K. In
> 2005 it was worth $450K according to appraisal we
> had done. Now its worth maybe $275K


BS

Both bought and sold in late November which basically amounts to the end of the year and beginning of the next year.

January 1998 $177,000
January 2006 $499,000

wEmvj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> src="http://tryimg.com/up/temp/reale369.png">
>
> Both bought and sold in late November which
> basically amounts to the end of the year and
> beginning of the next year.
>
> January 1998 $177,000
> January 2006 $499,000


That looks more like a bogus assessment that someone did for a greatly over-valued refi.

wEmvj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> src="http://tryimg.com/up/temp/reale369.png">
>
> Both bought and sold in late November which
> basically amounts to the end of the year and
> beginning of the next year.
>
> January 1998 $177,000
> January 2006 $499,000

It was fully renovated in 2005, and "as-is" in 1997. Probably would have sold for around $200k in 1997 if it was renovated. "As-is" sales will always go for less.

From the 2005 listing



"BRICK HOME WITH BEAUTIFUL IVY SURROUND FOR CHARACTER!NEW KITCHEN(W/CORIAN COUNTERS & TABLE),NEW BATHS-WALKOUT FAMILY ROOM W/NEW HALF BATH, NEWLY FENCED AND LANDSCAPED BACKYARD,DRIVEWAY WITH CARPORT,SGD TO DECK WITH HOT TUB!!! HARDWOODS ON MAIN AND BEDROOM LEVEL. FAMILY ROOM LEVEL ALSO A W/O LEVEL!EASY ACCESS TO SPRINGFIELD MALL,METRO OR 395/95 & LAKE ACCOTINK! OPEN HOUSE 10/30 FROM 1-4!!"

real estate. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wEmvj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > src="http://tryimg.com/up/temp/reale369.png">
> >
> > Both bought and sold in late November which
> > basically amounts to the end of the year and
> > beginning of the next year.
> >
> > January 1998 $177,000
> > January 2006 $499,000
>
> It was fully renovated in 2005, and "as-is" in
> 1997. Probably would have sold for around $200k in
> 1997 if it was renovated. "As-is" sales will
> always go for less.
>
> From the 2005 listing
>
>
>
> "BRICK HOME WITH BEAUTIFUL IVY SURROUND FOR
> CHARACTER!NEW KITCHEN(W/CORIAN COUNTERS &
> TABLE),NEW BATHS-WALKOUT FAMILY ROOM W/NEW HALF
> BATH, NEWLY FENCED AND LANDSCAPED
> BACKYARD,DRIVEWAY WITH CARPORT,SGD TO DECK WITH
> HOT TUB!!! HARDWOODS ON MAIN AND BEDROOM LEVEL.
> FAMILY ROOM LEVEL ALSO A W/O LEVEL!EASY ACCESS TO
> SPRINGFIELD MALL,METRO OR 395/95 & LAKE ACCOTINK!
> OPEN HOUSE 10/30 FROM 1-4!!"

There were shit loads of "as-is" houses in this county being sold in 1999 & 2000 in the 130k, 140k, 150k, 160k, 170k, 180k price range that sold for 500k and over just a few years later.

Where were you at?

example? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $100k to $500k in 6 years?
>
> Not around here.
>
>
> Maybe $300k to $500k.

I just love how this asshole went from 300k down to 200k in less than 2 hours. I could easily make him lower his numbers again from 200k down to 100k if I really wanted to. These fucking transplant pieces of shit all think they know everything. Fuck them. Go the fuck back to Florida.

real estate. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wEmvj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > src="http://tryimg.com/up/temp/reale369.png">
> >
> > Both bought and sold in late November which
> > basically amounts to the end of the year and
> > beginning of the next year.
> >
> > January 1998 $177,000
> > January 2006 $499,000
>
> It was fully renovated in 2005, and "as-is" in
> 1997. Probably would have sold for around $200k in
> 1997 if it was renovated. "As-is" sales will
> always go for less.

LOL

I love it when this happens. LOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> example? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > $100k to $500k in 6 years?
> >
> > Not around here.
> >
> >
> > Maybe $300k to $500k.
>
>

I just love how this asshole went from 300k
> down to 200k in less than 2 hours. I could easily
> make him lower his numbers again from 200k down to
> 100k if I really wanted to. These fucking
> transplant pieces of shit all think they know
> everything. Fuck them. Go the fuck back to
> Florida.

And you went from $100k to what would have been closer to $200k by 2000 in your own example.

Because some idiot got suckered into way overpaying $500k for a crappy little house in the barrio right next to 495 at the top of the market doesn't mean that was any kind of realistic price.

Neither one of you were right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love it when this happens. LOL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > example? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > $100k to $500k in 6 years?
> > >
> > > Not around here.
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe $300k to $500k.
> >
> >

I just love how this asshole went from 300k
> > down to 200k in less than 2 hours. I could
> easily
> > make him lower his numbers again from 200k down
> to
> > 100k if I really wanted to. These fucking
> > transplant pieces of shit all think they know
> > everything. Fuck them. Go the fuck back to
> > Florida.

>
>
> And you went from $100k to what would have been
> closer to $200k by 2000 in your own example.
>
> Because some idiot got suckered into way
> overpaying $500k for a crappy little house in the
> barrio right next to 495 at the top of the market
> doesn't mean that was any kind of realistic price.

Read the OP's post again.

"It took 40-50 years for many of these area homes to reach a value of between 100k-150k.
Then their value goes up by 400k in just 6 fucking years?
What was so special about those 6 years?"

Now answer the original question.

"What in the hell was so special about the years 2000-2006 to cause area housing prices to rise from 100k all the way up to 500k in just 6 years?"

I just love how this asshole went from 2000 down to 1997 in less than 2 hours. I could easily make him lower his numbers again from 2000 down to 1990 if I really wanted to. These fucking transplant pieces of shit all think they know everything. Fuck them. Go the fuck back to Florida.

I just love how these 12-year old shit-for-brains assfucks think that they win if they can post the same dumb shit five times in a row. Go fuck your worthless self, you pathetic dickless twerp.

Clinton's legacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No doc loans, baby. In 1995 Clinton loosened
> housing rules by rewriting the Community
> Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on
> banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.

Way to swallow the bullshit, dumbfuck.

Is the world coming to an end? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It took 40-50 years for many of these area homes
> to reach a value of between 100k-150k. Then their
> value goes up by 400k in just 6 fucking years?
> What was so special about those 6 years?

Mortgage interest rates fell by 335 basis points between mid-2000 and mid-2003. Interest rates and long-term asset prices are inversely related. There was an instant hot market in new mortgages, refinancings, and home equity lines. There simply is no mystery here. Just as inevitably, interest rates rose again, and the rise in home prices came to an end in the Spring of 2006.

OP is a dumbfuck.


Can't afford a home? Mad?


Its okay.

pic unrelated...

The dems caved to the republican demands to deregulate the mortgage industry, claiming they can self-regulate. Prices skyrocketed, loans were given to people who couldn't pay and eventually it all crashed and burned.

Then the Republicans needed to save their rich ass bankers, so they had the govt give them a shit load of the middle class's tax money to 'bail' them out and save the economy, which they promptly took and spent on vacations and houses. While everyday people got foreclosed on and screwed.

It was financial services that were increasingly deregulated as part of a 30-year process of deregulation in general. Some of that worked out well enough, but a lot of it didn't. We were promised that deregulation would unleash the engine of the US economy, thereby providing consumers with innumerable benefits as the result of increasing competition. All that actually increased of course was concentration, as the big fish simply swallowed up all the little fish until there wee only big fish left. Really big fish. Stockholders 1, Consumers 0.

As was noted above, real estate prices rose in response to declining interest rates. That's normal. What was not normal was the greedy behavior of Wall Street in securitizing what they knew to be defective original mortgages into the secondary markets. It was the eventual but inevitable failure of more and more of those bad notes that created the credit crisis that bled out into asset markets which quickly collapsed and began the credit-driven, self-reinforcing, downward spiral that became known as the Great Recession. Nobody came out of that a winner.

The bailouts meanwhile did not involve tax dollars and were carried out not to benefit any bank, but rather to keep the financial system itself afloat. Had that instead collapsed as it could have, the consequences might well have included a long-term global depression of simply staggering magnitude that would have stalled economic activity everywhere and crushed the lives of billions. We should all be glad for the steps that helped stave off such a fate.

Today, it's the reverse.

IQ = Bottom 20% Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clinton's legacy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No doc loans, baby. In 1995 Clinton loosened
> > housing rules by rewriting the Community
> > Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on
> > banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.
>
> Way to swallow the bullshit, dumbfuck.

Every word posted is true. All you have is an ad hominid insult. You can't dispute it, so you decide to be a major fucking asshole.

Go take your seat. Good day, sir!

Home flipping shows and lax lending practices under Bush. People were hyping the pricing making crazy investments.
Attachments:

Clinton's legacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every word posted is true. All you have is an ad
> hominid insult. You can't dispute it, so you
> decide to be a major fucking asshole.

No, asswipe. You're just a stooge of the disinformation media. What Clinton altered was the CRA regulatory process. He put some enforcement behind the law by telling banks and S&Ls that took federal deposit insurance that they'd better have acceptable CRA reviews if they wanted favorable federal action on proposed mergers and applications for interstate banking operations. What the law itself had always stated was that, consistent with safe and sound operation, such institutions had an affirmative responsibility to meet the credit as well as the depositary needs of the communities they were chartered to do business in. In plain words, they needed to make actual efforts to find qualified borrowers in neighborhoods they had simply ignored for decades. They didn't have to make a single loan. They just had to advertise, solicit loan applications, and then actually read and evaluate the ones they received. Imagine their surprise when nearly half the new loan applicants uncovered were qualified at prime terms, and nearly all the rest at Alt-A, the level just below prime. It is easy to make money by lending into a pool of borrowers like that, and that's exactly what banks began doing. CRA loan portfolios of the 1990s performed better than industry averages. It turned out that CRA was both good policy and good business.

> Go take your seat. Good day, sir!

You lose. Want to play again?

Flipping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Home flipping shows and lax lending practices
> under Bush. People were hyping the pricing making
> crazy investments.

Whatever you call them, speculators are an important part of every market. Always have been. Buy low and sell high is certainly (and thankfully) not a crime. What was problematic were the lending practices that were not just tolerated, but encouraged under Bush, especially those of private brokers (such as Countrywide, Ameriquest, and New Century Financial) who were ultimately ignoring all traditional loan underwriting standards, then selling their corrupt, tricked up, and bound-to-fail paper off through Wall Street and into the secondary markets. These "private label" securitizers were a key bypass around the standards and filters of the GSE's that allowed fatal levels of bad loans to build up on the balance sheets of major secondary market players. When these global-level players were jammed up, we had a credit crisis, and that ultimately bled out into asset markets, the collapse of which put the wheels of the Great Recession into high gear.

Is the world coming to an end? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It took 40-50 years for many of these area homes
> to reach a value of between 100k-150k.
> Then their value goes up by 400k in just 6 fucking
> years?
> What was so special about those 6 years?

A big thing was HUD approving the use of downpayment "charities" so that builders and sellers could front buyers with the money to pay the downpayment and closing costs. This occurred in 2001. They jacked up the price and paid all these settlement costs for the buyer, and in some cases, walked into a new home with extra spending money.

They also stopped verifying financial information for subprime buyers. The banks and the federal banking regulators blocked the states from enforcing consumer protection laws that required verification of the borrower's ability to repay loans.

The two ensured that people with bad credit could buy and sell homes many times without any money so long as they could pull out equity from the home. If they didn't have the income, hey could refinance and pull out equity to make the payments for a while until it was time to refi again.

There's more, but that is the gist of what happened along with WS pushing to make bad home loans so they could sold to investors and shorted by their inhouse traders.

Properties. Demand drives prices.

From 2000 to 2006 the real estate market was what was absorbing inflation caused by the spike in money printing and debt during Bush. That initiated speculation which eventually led to financial collapse. The dollar remains inflated in the aftermath.

Commodities and food caught up thereafter.

Why so mad?

You know... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flipping Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Home flipping shows and lax lending practices
> > under Bush. People were hyping the pricing
> making
> > crazy investments.
>
> Whatever you call them, speculators are an
> important part of every market. Always have been.
> Buy low and sell high is certainly (and
> thankfully) not a crime. What was problematic
> were the lending practices that were not just
> tolerated, but encouraged under Bush, especially
> those of private brokers (such as Countrywide,
> Ameriquest, and New Century Financial) who were
> ultimately ignoring all traditional loan
> underwriting standards, then selling their
> corrupt, tricked up, and bound-to-fail paper off
> through Wall Street and into the secondary
> markets. These "private label" securitizers were
> a key bypass around the standards and filters of
> the GSE's that allowed fatal levels of bad loans
> to build up on the balance sheets of major
> secondary market players. When these global-level
> players were jammed up, we had a credit crisis,
> and that ultimately bled out into asset markets,
> the collapse of which put the wheels of the Great
> Recession into high gear.


The GSEs loaded up on plenty of junk themselves whether it was labelled as such or not. They were a primary driver and we've stashed away a ton of the left-over risk and over-vaulation in them.

Sept 11th resulted in a lot of money pumped into the local economy on homeland security. The results were a big increase in home values.

w4PNK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The GSEs loaded up on plenty of junk themselves
> whether it was labelled as such or not. They were
> a primary driver and we've stashed away a ton of
> the left-over risk and over-valuation in them.

No, they didn't. The GSEs bought small, experimental portfolios of subprime paper from 2000 to 2003. Thanks to the success of CRA lending, subprime and previously ignored markets had become the hot new thing, and the GSE's assumed they would come to play for subprime the same role they played for prime. They were working on model instruments that would protect lenders against additional risk while allowing borrowers to perform their way into better terms. But Wall Street wouldn't wait. They swept in and defined the market themselves, and their definitions were that whatever made them the greatest profit was just fine. It was just short-term greed. The GSE market share of primary market acquisitions had been 70% and above early in the decade, but by late 2006, it had sunk below 25%. The bad guys drove out the good.

The GSE's did end up owning good amounts of Wall Street crapola. Some of that came from ordinary hedging operations, but a sizable chunk came in late 2006 as Congress demanded more help to low-income housing, and shareholders clamored for profits more like those that Wall Street was reeling in. The large buys of high yield paper that Fannie Mae in particular pulled off in response had almost all failed within 18 months.

Looking at the matter of overall GSE exposure, most of that arose from guaranty of mortgage-backed securities, the bulk of those having been arranged by the GSE's themselves. Those notes didn't fail because the underlying assets were flawed from the beginning. They began to fail because the perfectly solid and credit-worthy borrowers who took them out began losing their jobs and hence the means to make their payments. It's quite important to distinguish between the first wave of defaults triggered by bad paper generated by predatory lending, and the second wave of defaults triggered by the massive job and credit losses that the the Great Recession itself produced.

GSEs portfolios were constrained during the bubble. The regulators lifted the caps to bail out the investment banks because investors were refusing to buy the garbage due to early payment defaults (i.e., loans defaulted within 6 monhts). By 2008, investors also started dumping mortgage agency debt as well, pusing the two into bankruptcy.

The collapse of the banks was engineered in 2007. The SEC eliminated the uptick rule on short sales in July 2007 (exact market top). Goldman Sachs and other major investors could now push down the price of rival banks with naked shorts. In addition, the regulators invoked fair value accounting of assets which exposed the banks that were left holding the bag on the garbage mortgages they couldn't sell. Overleveraged banks like Bear Stears, Lehman, and Citigroup were immediately mark down the value of assets and raise cash.

A lot of the blame falls on the crony regulators. Congress exempted the banks from the Enron rules that allowed them to hide leverage off-balance sheet. The Fed kept interest rates too low, may have manipulated long-term rates using interest rate swaps, and just ignored the illegal practices by the banks.

c Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OP is a dumbfuck.
>
>
> Can't afford a home? Mad?
>
>
> Its okay.
>
> pic unrelated...
>
>
> src="http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2014041423
> 1203/vampirediaries/images/e/e7/Dr-zoidbergs-butth
> urt-cream-300x225.jpg"/>

GO FUCK YOURSELF GORDON. The current 350k price tag for an unattached house is not some unattainable feat.

iLester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GSEs portfolios were constrained during the bubble.

By a need to restate income thanks to Bush's phony charges as part of an effort to kill them and turn the busibness over to Wall Street. The dupe was wroking fro them the entire time. Worst President ever.

> The regulators lifted the caps to bail out the investment
> banks because investors were refusing to buy the garbage
> due to early payment defaults (i.e., loans defaulted within
> 6 monhts). By 2008, investors also started dumping mortgage
> agency debt as well, pushing the two into bankruptcy.

Joke alert. Leverage limits on the Wall Street Big Five were lifted so they could follow Bush's commands that they do even more of what they had been doing -- pushing worthless paper into the secondary markets. They had no trouble at all in selling this stuff. By 2008, the party was long since over. The bar closed in 2006. Everything thereafter was about the hangover. You should have paid a lot more attention.

A few things happened....

Internet came to everyone, we saw how good we are compered to the rest of the nation, and self realization that we (DC Metro, mostly NVA) are better than most other places in the country, low crime, lots of jobs, no natural disasters.

After 09-11-01 we witnessed the stock market and financial center crumble so naturally we valued out "real property" more and were willing to pay for it.

And yes as the previous posted people were willing to pay more for it, transplant douches from the Midwest and N.E.came here with easy getting loans and would pay for it because they like the area.

It was a good time I make 300k on a house in a few years...haha most people think I'm rich now when they see what I have now LOL

In the early 2000s, the real estate market was steadily improving. Yet, it was improving only for folk who could afford to pay their monthly PITI.

Along came the Democrats, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, and the rest, who threatened every single bank in America with federal investigations unless they lent in large numbers to the poor.

And, of course, there were the "red line" laws, too.

Anyway, combine this federal requirement, on top of loose lending laws, on top of greedy and mendacious real estate agents, along with greedy mortgage "brokers", along with dumbass lenders (who only made those junk loans because they knew they would immediately sell it to some other entity created by the Democrats), and you get a real estate bubble.

Anybody who bought years before the bubble, and are still living in the same house now, did not feel the bubble at all (unless they took out money on a second trust, HELOC, etc.)

iLester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The collapse of the banks was engineered in 2007.
> The SEC eliminated the uptick rule on short sales
> in July 2007 (exact market top). Goldman Sachs
> and other major investors could now push down the
> price of rival banks with naked shorts. In
> addition, the regulators invoked fair value
> accounting of assets which exposed the banks that
> were left holding the bag on the garbage mortgages
> they couldn't sell. Overleveraged banks like Bear
> Stears, Lehman, and Citigroup were immediately
> mark down the value of assets and raise cash.

Buy a vowel or something. And stop reading the manufactured hogwash slopped to right-wing trough-feeders by dumbass sites like zero-hedge et al. Credit was frozen by mid-2007 because the world's largest banks could no longer trust each other's balance sheets. The invisible tentacles of systemic risk suggested that in fact everyone was now sitting on quite a lot of something tied to deteriorating assets. Huge mark-to-market losses had to be taken, and absent a hugely expensive bailout then (which was proposed), the next stop was a hugely expensive bailout a year later. End of story. Your babble-nonsense simply doesn't enter into it.

> A lot of the blame falls on the crony regulators.
> Congress exempted the banks from the Enron rules
> that allowed them to hide leverage off-balance
> sheet. The Fed kept interest rates too low, may
> have manipulated long-term rates using interest
> rate swaps, and just ignored the illegal practices
> by the banks.

Do you even know what an interest-rate swap is? Yes, the two largest components of the crisis were the massive greed of cowboy capitalists on Wall Street who should have known when to quit their rapacious games but didn't, along with incomprehensibly stupid Bushie regulators playing their worse than defective laissez-faire free-market nonsense games. The Fed should of course have clamped down on credit market abuse but Greenspan did the Ayn Rand thing instead. Later said it was the biggest mistake of his career, as if that mattered. He was told and told and told again and still did nothing. That's a problem. In the end, tax cuts for the rich had failed, but all the hapless Republicans could do in response was to double-down on stupid. Just see how well that worked out.

bbbeeker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few things happened....
> Internet came to everyone, we saw how good we are
> compered to the rest of the nation, and self
> realization that we (DC Metro, mostly NVA) are
> better than most other places in the country, low
> crime, lots of jobs, no natural disasters.

LOL! You might have been the last name on the distribution,list. The rest of us had been keeping up with this stuff for decades. The internet just made information available more quickly. It didn't change what the information was.

> After 09-11-01 we witnessed the stock market and
> financial center crumble so naturally we valued
> out "real property" more and were willing to pay
> for it.

9/11 was a big emotional and psychological shock. In economic terms, it was not even a significant blip. A decent-sized hurricane does more economic damage than that. The effects had all been absorbed and accounted for by the end of the calendar year. All that trickled into 2002 was a softness in short-range airline travel and a still sagging tourism sector. Bush gave $20 billion to the airlines. He gave nothing to out-of-a-job hospitality workers.

> And yes as the previous posted people were willing
> to pay more for it, transplant douches from the
> Midwest and N.E.came here with easy getting loans
> and would pay for it because they like the area.

Like you're not a douche. Go fuck yourself, moron.

MCN6X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the early 2000s, the real estate market was
> steadily improving. Yet, it was improving only for
> folk who could afford to pay their monthly PITI.

Your PITI, as you like to call it, is heavily dependent upon mortgage interest rates which declined by 335 basis points between mid-2000 and mid-2003. The exact same monthly P&I payment that supported a $325K mortgage in 2000 could support a mortgage of more than $450K in 2003. What do you think that meant? Any clue at all?

> Along came the Democrats, Maxine Waters, Barney
> Frank, and the rest, who threatened every single
> bank in America with federal investigations unless
> they lent in large numbers to the poor.

Amazing how members of the minority can exert such power! You live in a land of fairy tales, numbskull.

> And, of course, there were the "red line" laws, too.

Yeah, those say you cannot deny a person credit simply on the basis of his or her street address.

> Anybody who bought years before the bubble, and
> are still living in the same house now, did not
> feel the bubble at all (unless they took out money
> on a second trust, HELOC, etc.)

If you did not refinance a pre-2000 mortgage at least twice since that time, you were a bloody fool. Standing pat would have cost you tens and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You know... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> w4PNK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The GSEs loaded up on plenty of junk themselves
> > whether it was labelled as such or not. They
> were
> > a primary driver and we've stashed away a ton
> of
> > the left-over risk and over-valuation in them.
>
> No, they didn't. The GSEs bought small,
> experimental portfolios of subprime paper from
> 2000 to 2003. Thanks to the success of CRA
> lending, subprime and previously ignored markets
> had become the hot new thing, and the GSE's
> assumed they would come to play for subprime the
> same role they played for prime. They were working
> on model instruments that would protect lenders
> against additional risk while allowing borrowers
> to perform their way into better terms. But Wall
> Street wouldn't wait. They swept in and defined
> the market themselves, and their definitions were
> that whatever made them the greatest profit was
> just fine. It was just short-term greed. The GSE
> market share of primary market acquisitions had
> been 70% and above early in the decade, but by
> late 2006, it had sunk below 25%. The bad guys
> drove out the good.
>
> The GSE's did end up owning good amounts of Wall
> Street crapola. Some of that came from ordinary
> hedging operations, but a sizable chunk came in
> late 2006 as Congress demanded more help to
> low-income housing, and shareholders clamored for
> profits more like those that Wall Street was
> reeling in. The large buys of high yield paper
> that Fannie Mae in particular pulled off in
> response had almost all failed within 18 months.
>
>
> Looking at the matter of overall GSE exposure,
> most of that arose from guaranty of
> mortgage-backed securities, the bulk of those
> having been arranged by the GSE's themselves.
> Those notes didn't fail because the underlying
> assets were flawed from the beginning. They began
> to fail because the perfectly solid and
> credit-worthy borrowers who took them out began
> losing their jobs and hence the means to make
> their payments. It's quite important to
> distinguish between the first wave of defaults
> triggered by bad paper generated by predatory
> lending, and the second wave of defaults triggered
> by the massive job and credit losses that the the
> Great Recession itself produced.


Yes they did. Both directly and indirectly. You forget that they also purchased MBS and significantly drove the MBS market. Some 40% of the market at the height. In 2005, 25% of the loans purchased by Fannie Mae were originated by Countrywide alone. 10% of those purchased by Freddie Mac. Accumulation of sub-market crap began long before 2006. What drove the GSEs wasn't some Congressional mandate. It was the narrowing of the spread in 2004 which no longer provided the ability to play the margin buying and reselling their own debt anymore and a fall of of -25% in the origination market and -40% in refinancing after 2003 which pushed them to seek other means of generating revenue.

Truly predatory lending was a tiny part of the problem. The larger component was loans to buyers who knew exactly what they were potentially doing but didn't care because they either couldn't afford to buy what that they wanted otherwise or were living in a dream world where real estate prices only go up and they couldn't lose. These loans didn't become 'predatory' until the bottom dropped out and they had to face the reality of that potential and looked for someone else to blame other than their own greed. It also included substantial speculative and investment purchases. That's reflected in the location of the bulk of problem properties being in places like AZ, FL, parts of CA, Las Vegas and similar locations.

It was greed on everyone's part from borrowers, to real estate agents, to brokers, to Wall Street, to the GSEs, to Congress.

IQ = Botoom 20% Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clinton's legacy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Every word posted is true. All you have is an
> ad
> > hominid insult. You can't dispute it, so you
> > decide to be a major fucking asshole.
>
> No, asswipe. You're just a stooge of the
> disinformation media. What Clinton altered was
> the CRA regulatory process. He put some
> enforcement behind the law by telling banks and
> S&Ls that took federal deposit insurance that
> they'd better have acceptable CRA reviews if they
> wanted favorable federal action on proposed
> mergers and applications for interstate banking
> operations. What the law itself had always stated
> was that, consistent with safe and sound
> operation, such institutions had an affirmative
> responsibility to meet the credit as well as the
> depositary needs of the communities they were
> chartered to do business in. In plain words, they
> needed to make actual efforts to find qualified
> borrowers in neighborhoods they had simply ignored
> for decades. They didn't have to make a single
> loan. They just had to advertise, solicit loan
> applications, and then actually read and evaluate
> the ones they received. Imagine their surprise
> when nearly half the new loan applicants uncovered
> were qualified at prime terms, and nearly all the
> rest at Alt-A, the level just below prime. It is
> easy to make money by lending into a pool of
> borrowers like that, and that's exactly what banks
> began doing. CRA loan portfolios of the 1990s
> performed better than industry averages. It
> turned out that CRA was both good policy and good
> business.
>
> > Go take your seat. Good day, sir!
>
> You lose. Want to play again?

I said good day, sir. That was your cue to take your seat in tha back of the class where you belong. Apparently you are too stupid to get that too.

UYTUP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes they did. Both directly and indirectly. You
> forget that they also purchased MBS and
> significantly drove the MBS market. Some 40% of
> the market at the height.

LOL! The GSE's accounted for 40% of the secondary market issuances at the BOTTOM. As the market makers, they were historically responsible for 60-70% of issuances at least. But those notes were not the problem. The problems all came from the private-label, no-standards bullshit underwriting that was the hallmark of the era in the private sector. See that red line below? That's the fucking credit crisis and Great Recession being manufactured for you.
.
Attachments:

By 2006 there were people living next door to each other in Ramblers who originally paid around 80k for their house with neighbors who had just paid over 500k for the same house. Thats some fucked up shit.

UYTUP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 2005, 25% of the loans purchased by Fannie Mae
> were originated by Countrywide alone. 10% of those
> purchased by Freddie Mac.

Boy, you were easy pickin's for some propagandist somewhere. Did you not realize that in addition to being major subprime players, Countrywide was the nation's largest dealer in PRIME mortgages? When Angelo Mozilo was yelling at the top of his lungs at Fannie Mae, he was demanding that they purchase massive amounts of his subprime paper on pain of his taking all his prime business to Wall Street also. The GSE's you see were not allowed to buy loans that did not meet established HUD underwriting standards. Those standards effectively WERE the difference between prime and subprime. If a loan was conforming/prime, the GSE's would buy it. If it was not, well, you might have to go off and sell it to the crooks on Wall Street instead. Wall Street didn't have any such filters or standards. They would deal in anything.

> Truly predatory lending was a tiny part of the problem.

This and the rest of your peevish post are the simple rants of an internet-trained faux-geek wannabe. Wall Street's game worked fine for a while. But eventually, everyone who wanted and was qualified for a new mortgage already had one. That should have been the end of things, but "things" included big fat profits and bonuses for Wall Street, and they were not willing to give those up. High-pressure predatory lending practices were behind more and more loans from that point on, most noticeably in subprime markets where the least amount of sophistication was to be found. It was deliberate exploitation of people. It was clear what was going on, And nobody did anything about it.

Clinton's legacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said good day, sir. That was your cue to take
> your seat in tha back of the class where you
> belong. Apparently you are too stupid to get that
> too.

Dude, you're bloviating know-nothing. You have no clue at all as to what CRA is or how it and its regulatory functions developed and functioned in the 1990's. My cats could tell me more than you have. Go shrink in shame somewhere.

No Income. No Job/Assets.

Rambler Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By 2006 there were people living next door to each
> other in Ramblers who originally paid around 80k
> for their house with neighbors who had just paid
> over 500k for the same house. Thats some fucked up
> shit.

Why would you say that? That $80K that someone paid for a house in 1970 would be the same as $416K by 2006. And that's with no real appreciation of the asset at all. Just an inflation adjustment.

NINJA LOANS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No Income, No Job or Assets.

But typically, a positive credit rating and history indicating an ability to borrow and repay. Of course, if you are a predatory lender who's just out to cheat people anyway, you don't care about the credit history either.

Really? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rambler Man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > By 2006 there were people living next door to
> each
> > other in Ramblers who originally paid around
> 80k
> > for their house with neighbors who had just
> paid
> > over 500k for the same house. Thats some fucked
> up
> > shit.
>
> Why would you say that? That $80K that someone
> paid for a house in 1970 would be the same as
> $416K by 2006. And that's with no real
> appreciation of the asset at all. Just an
> inflation adjustment.

You are obviously not from here.
There were still single family homes available for 70k & 80k as recently as the late 1980s & early 1990s.

"There were still single family homes available for 70k & 80k as recently as the late 1980s & early 1990s."


Not true. We came here in the late 80's and a cheap townhouse (the piece of crap we bought) was 150K. Now it is selling for 375K.

You know... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UYTUP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes they did. Both directly and indirectly.
> You
> > forget that they also purchased MBS and
> > significantly drove the MBS market. Some 40%
> of
> > the market at the height.
>
> LOL! The GSE's accounted for 40% of the secondary
> market issuances at the BOTTOM. As the market
> makers, they were historically responsible for
> 60-70% of issuances at least. But those notes
> were not the problem. The problems all came from
> the private-label, no-standards bullshit
> underwriting that was the hallmark of the era in
> the private sector. See that red line below?
> That's the fucking credit crisis and Great
> Recession being manufactured for you.
> .


As buyers separate from being issuers. They provided a significant market outlet for the crap. From about $30 billion in 2001 to $60 billion in 2002 and then on to +$200 billion 2004 - 2006.

They were playing the exact same game and chasing yield right along with everyone else.

You know... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UYTUP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In 2005, 25% of the loans purchased by Fannie
> Mae
> > were originated by Countrywide alone. 10% of
> those
> > purchased by Freddie Mac.
>
> Boy, you were easy pickin's for some propagandist
> somewhere. Did you not realize that in addition
> to being major subprime players, Countrywide was
> the nation's largest dealer in PRIME mortgages?
> When Angelo Mozilo was yelling at the top of his
> lungs at Fannie Mae, he was demanding that they
> purchase massive amounts of his subprime paper on
> pain of his taking all his prime business to Wall
> Street also. The GSE's you see were not allowed
> to buy loans that did not meet established HUD
> underwriting standards. Those standards
> effectively WERE the difference between prime and
> subprime. If a loan was conforming/prime, the
> GSE's would buy it. If it was not, well, you
> might have to go off and sell it to the crooks on
> Wall Street instead. Wall Street didn't have any
> such filters or standards. They would deal in
> anything.
>
> > Truly predatory lending was a tiny part of the
> problem.
>
> This and the rest of your peevish post are the
> simple rants of an internet-trained faux-geek
> wannabe. Wall Street's game worked fine for a
> while. But eventually, everyone who wanted and
> was qualified for a new mortgage already had one.
> That should have been the end of things, but
> "things" included big fat profits and bonuses for
> Wall Street, and they were not willing to give
> those up. High-pressure predatory lending
> practices were behind more and more loans from
> that point on, most noticeably in subprime markets
> where the least amount of sophistication was to be
> found. It was deliberate exploitation of people.
> It was clear what was going on, And nobody did
> anything about it.


Unfortunately, a lot of it was not truly prime regardless of classification or semantics. Your HUD restrictions are true only in fantasy land. They did in fact buy and hold significant amounts of non-prime loans purchased from Countywide and others. Freddie's loans at 100% and 110% current loan-to-value went from 4% and 2% in 2003 to 40% and 30% respectively in 2006. Those with borrower FICO scores of less than 660 went from 4% to 13%. Interest-only loans from 0% to 20%. They were up to about 30% of their current portfolio being less than prime before the crash. Similar numbers for Fannie - about 15% of their loans held in 2006 were interest-only. 10% were +90% loan to value. About 3% were negative-amortizing. The 'propaganda' sources for the above numbers are their own annual reports.

Anyone who thinks that the GSEs were sitting on some pristine portfolios which were only affected by A+ borrowers losing their jobs during the recession is an idiot.

9ULEY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are obviously not from here. There were still
> single family homes available for 70k & 80k as
> recently as the late 1980s & early 1990s.

No, I'm not from here, but I've been here since the 1960's. There were certainly still homes in that price range in decent neighborhoods in the late 1970's and early 1980's. I think you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something like that a decade later however, even with the effects of the 1990-91 recession. And the fact remains that $80K in 1970 and $416K in 2006 are the same thing in inflation-adjusted terms.

LDVC7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As buyers separate from being issuers. They
> provided a significant market outlet for the crap.

They were not allowed to buy "the crap" through the front-door. Hence, they didn't. Non-conforming loans had to go to Wall Street. They were allowed to purchase experimental portfolios as subprime lending itself increased from being a tiny market to being a small market. This market increase was a response to the success of CRA lending, though a substantial portion of that had involved prime borrowers. Freddie Mac took the lead in subprime exploration early on, Fannie Mae being barely involved until 2003. Business targets of the time called for the GSE-share of subprime originations purchased to rise from roughly 15% of a small market to at least 50% of a much larger market, but that never happened, as has already been noted.

As was also already noted, the GSE's acquired some high-yield MBS's via the back-door as part of short-term portfolio hedging operations, and they were later brow-beaten into much larger purchases that did them no good at all.

> From about $30 billion in 2001 to $60 billion in
> 2002 and then on to +$200 billion 2004 - 2006.

Those are tiny numbers. The relevant order of magnitude for the GSE business book is and was "trillions".

> They were playing the exact same game and chasing
> yield right along with everyone else.

No, they weren't. Institutional investors were looking for yield because the Fed had marked some of their favorite things down to 1%. Wall Street was looking for profits and bonuses which they earned as origination and pass-through fees and commissions. They wanted to churn and slice-and-dice. The GSE's were looking to carry on with their traditional "core" line of business while preparing to add a major new one. George W Bush was looking to carve up the GSEs however he could and privatize the mission by turning more and more of it over to Wall Street.

The bee keepers is what happened. They came in, blew smoke in our faces (9-11) and stole our honey (surplus) and replaced it with sugar water (debt)

noper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "There were still single family homes available
> for 70k & 80k as recently as the late 1980s &
> early 1990s."
>
>
> Not true. We came here in the late 80's and a
> cheap townhouse (the piece of crap we bought) was
> 150K. Now it is selling for 375K.

Very true indeed. You should have looked harder.

Really? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 9ULEY Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are obviously not from here. There were
> still
> > single family homes available for 70k & 80k as
> > recently as the late 1980s & early 1990s.
>
> No, I'm not from here, but I've been here since
> the 1960's. There were certainly still homes in
> that price range in decent neighborhoods in the
> late 1970's and early 1980's. I think you'd be
> scraping the bottom of the barrel to find
> something like that a decade later however, even
> with the effects of the 1990-91 recession. And
> the fact remains that $80K in 1970 and $416K in
> 2006 are the same thing in inflation-adjusted
> terms.

Do you consider the Springfield area as scraping the bottom of the barrel?
My mid 80s HS graduating class was over 95% white.

NCCUW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately, a lot of it was not truly prime
> regardless of classification or semantics. Your
> HUD restrictions are true only in fantasy land.

No, they were inescapable. If you couldn't get a loan to clear through Desktop Underwriter, Fannie Mae would not buy it. Period. DU was set to impose HUD standards and limitations. If you couldn't hack it, you had to go off to Wall Street. They had no such standards and limitations. Untold billions worth of the primary loans that actually failed were forced to follow that very route. The private-label shops were a giant profit-making bypass around the GSE's for soft, thin paper. They ended up poisoning the well and causing a disaster.

> They did in fact buy and hold significant amounts
> of non-prime loans purchased from Countywide and
> others.

Significant? In the eyes of whom, the Mises Institute? The GSE's were slowpoke dabblers in the purchase of subprime. That dabbling was for the purposes indicated and came along well into the game. They were in any case playing with one hand tied behind their back after OFHEO's 2004 probes into accounting practices, and the GSE's ultimately played a comparatively insignificant role in the unfortunate developments down the road. They had simply been overtaken and pushed to the side of the road by the profit-mad men of Wall Street. These were the people who drove things over the cliff.

> Anyone who thinks that the GSEs were sitting on
> some pristine portfolios which were only affected by
> A+ borrowers losing their jobs during the recession
> is an idiot.

Speak for yourself. No serious person believes that CRA or subprime lending or the GSE's were the cause of the credit crisis and ensuing Great Recession. The loans that failed were typically written between 2004 and 2006 with high-cost/high-profit terms by private brokers for immediate sale and securitization through Wall Street's private-label facilities. That's where "the crap" came from, that's how it got into the system, and that's what caused the problems. Those are the facts today, and they will be tomorrow and the next day as well.

Springfield Maller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you consider the Springfield area as scraping
> the bottom of the barrel?
> My mid 80s HS graduating class was over 95% white.

Neither race nor the demographics of any mid-1980's high school graduating class has a single thing to do with it. Springfield meanwhile could be almost anything, including "bottom of the barrel." The larger point however is that while homes in the price ranges contemplated were common enough in the area in the late 70's and early 80's, they were noticeably less so a decade later.

You know... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NCCUW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unfortunately, a lot of it was not truly prime
> > regardless of classification or semantics.
> Your
> > HUD restrictions are true only in fantasy land.
>
>
> No, they were inescapable. If you couldn't get a
> loan to clear through Desktop Underwriter,
> Fannie Mae would not buy it. Period. DU was set
> to impose HUD standards and limitations. If you
> couldn't hack it, you had to go off to Wall
> Street. They had no such standards and
> limitations. Untold billions worth of the primary
> loans that actually failed were forced to follow
> that very route. The private-label shops were a
> giant profit-making bypass around the GSE's for
> soft, thin paper. They ended up poisoning the
> well and causing a disaster.
>

You conveniently left out Freddie which was a primary contributor. And you're not considering a ton of alt-A, heavy cash-out refinancings, and other marginal loans that they bought directly and in secured form, all of which were major contributors beyond strictly 'sub-prime.' They provided a substantial market for the packaged crap and promoted the same crap as being legitimate.


> > They did in fact buy and hold significant
> amounts
> > of non-prime loans purchased from Countywide
> and
> > others.
>
> Significant? In the eyes of whom, the Mises
> Institute? The GSE's were slowpoke dabblers in
> the purchase of subprime. That dabbling was for
> the purposes indicated and came along well into
> the game. They were in any case playing with one
> hand tied behind their back after OFHEO's 2004
> probes into accounting practices, and the GSE's
> ultimately played a comparatively insignificant
> role in the unfortunate developments down the
> road. They had simply been overtaken and pushed
> to the side of the road by the profit-mad men of
> Wall Street. These were the people who drove
> things over the cliff.
>

There was lots of people helping to drive that bus off of the cliff, the GSEs included.


> > Anyone who thinks that the GSEs were sitting on
>
> > some pristine portfolios which were only
> affected by
> > A+ borrowers losing their jobs during the
> recession
> > is an idiot.
>
> Speak for yourself. No serious person believes
> that CRA or subprime lending or the GSE's were the
> cause of the credit crisis and ensuing Great
> Recession. The loans that failed were typically
> written between 2004 and 2006 with
> high-cost/high-profit terms by private brokers for
> immediate sale and securitization through Wall
> Street's private-label facilities. That's where
> "the crap" came from, that's how it got into the
> system, and that's what caused the problems.
> Those are the facts today, and they will be
> tomorrow and the next day as well.


I didn't say that they were the cause. I said that they, along with many others, contributed to a collective clusterfuck of greed and unintended consequences. To that end, actually many agree. e.g.,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626_3.html

For the most part, the guilty collected the fees and commissions while not having to deal with the consequences since the regulators are captured and there are no clawbacks for securities fraudsters. That created a great incentive to create these securities and involve others in the fraud (mortgage brokers, ratings agencies, etc.). Congress inserted a clause in the CRA in 1995 to allow securitization of subprime mortgages, but the bankers found a much bigger market by repackaging these securities in CDOs and having the ratings agencies bless them with the highest investment grade ratings. Even Greenspan was cheerleading the industry by encouraging everyone to get into ARMs in 2005 just before he started raising interest rates.

Built in 1956.
It took from 1956 to 1997 (41 years) to reach a value of $177,000.
Then only 8 years (from 1997 to 2005) to reach a value of $500,000.

Very interesting.

tVuVV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You conveniently left out Freddie which was a
> primary contributor.

No, I mentioned Freddie Mac prominently.

> And you're not considering a ton of alt-A, heavy
> cash-out refinancings, and other marginal loans
> that they bought directly and in secured form, all
> of which were major contributors beyond strictly
> 'sub-prime.'

Newsflash: Alt-A IS subprime, Just not by a lot. Cash-out refi's were meanwhile possible because of the increased equity in a home that results from the same decline in interest rates that lets a fixed P&I payment support a $325K mortgage at one point and a $450K mortgage three years later. You would have to be just plain stupid to turn down a deal like that.

> There was lots of people helping to drive that bus
> off of the cliff, the GSEs included.

It's a matter of degree. The GSE's played an insignificant role. The Wall Street cabal and dumbfuck Bushie regulators and policy-makers played very large roles.

> I didn't say that they were the cause. I said
> that they, along with many others, contributed to
> a collective clusterfuck of greed and unintended
> consequences.

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon? Really?

> To that end, actually many agree.

Not the people you linked to. They point out that it was others who produced the crap that the GSE's happened to walk into as part of carrying out their other business.

M7EUH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It took from 1956 to 1997 (41 years) to reach a
> value of $177,000. Then only 8 years (from 1997
> to 2005) to reach a value of $500,000.
> Very interesting.

Frankly, it isn't interesting at all. Except perhaps if one were somehow a principal with a relationship to this property.

Really? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M7EUH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It took from 1956 to 1997 (41 years) to reach a
> > value of $177,000. Then only 8 years (from 1997
>
> > to 2005) to reach a value of $500,000.
> > Very interesting.
>
> Frankly, it isn't interesting at all. Except
> perhaps if one were somehow a principal with a
> relationship to this property.

Yes it is very interesting.
In the shit town you came here from, nothing remotely close to that ever happens.

Very interesting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes it is very interesting. In the shit town you came
> here from, nothing remotely close to that ever happens.

You all are just so suave. Stupid though.

Really? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very interesting Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes it is very interesting. In the shit town you
> came
> > here from, nothing remotely close to that ever
> happens.
>
> You all are just so suave. Stupid though.

Thats why you came here to leech off of the government and the local economy.

You = Government Leech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats why you came here to leech off of the
> government and the local economy.
.
Attachments:

So my house doubled in price from 2000 to 2005 and peaked in 2007 until it dropped 37% between 2011 and 2012 and now is on the steady rise since 2012.

Typo on prior comment. Dropped 7%, not 37% between 2011 & 2012.

Nice informative post.

Real estate prices parallel the huge boomer generation. The leading crest of the boomer wave bought their first house @1970 and as their purchasing power increased, it's been up and away ever sense. The problem is this leading edge is downsizing and trying to escape the shithole FX County has become but are facing the prospect of so many potential buyers with limited incomes to pay the asking price(greater fool theory).

(just typing what I am thinking- this may not make a point but hope it helps your thoughts!)


All I will say is this- boomers- if you want the full value for your house, SELL IT NOW while the interest rates are still low and enough people have jobs.

Once the market crashes again (and it will) it will make 2007 look like a cakewalk. There will be a FLOOD of houses on the market once people lose their jobs and can no longer afford their mortgages....and without jobs, where do they intend people to qualify for the larger mortgages these homes will require?

This time, I doubt there will be enough people making enough income to pay for these over-inflated real estate values.

Someone making $100k right now (median income in Ffx) would be lucky to get a $350-400k mortgage- which we know here in the Northern VA/Ffx area barely gets you a 2 bedroom condo if you didn't want to live on Route 1. Most of us don't want to admit it, but we make more like $50-60k in our jobs- but put everything on the credit card to make it look like we make $100k with the flashier car, clothes, overextending buying a house but having no furniture to put in it (seen this at friends houses- gorgeous 4 bedroom house but barely any furniture and it was cold too like they were too cheap to turn up the heat!) just to say "I live in Reston" or whatever pretentious area.

Who is going to buy all those mc-mansions that are now worth $500k+ (median value of a home in Ffx) with not as many 6-figure jobs going around anymore and the heavy debt load of student loans?

(median stats here: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/51059 )

If you think about it- THAT may be why "the powers that be" want a lot of immigrants. They (overall) are ok with living in large groups- and with the recent passage of the fannie/freddie rule one can use their relatives/roommates income to qualify for a loan- they will grab that $600k nice house, and instantly move 10 "family members" in as that is the only way they can make the mortgage with all of them only working $10/hour jobs.

Us American families (mainly speaking on white/black people) push to be independent/ "bootstraps"- so one has to qualify for a loan on their own or with a spouse- not much family help there. So with our $100k income but $50k of student loans on our backs best we can do is rent an apartment for $1600 a month if we want to live in a decent area.

I honestly think once the market crashes (again, only a matter of time) the prices around here will drop once sellers realize no one is buying at their ego inflated prices "I spent $30k renovating this kitchen so i want it all back at the sale" type people- who bought their house for $120k back in 1988 and it is now worth $700k and they want ALL $700k at cashout when it is really only worth MAYBE $300.

People put their homes as a "bank" to take loans from and not a place to live- well that bill will come due soon! Who is to say in some financial crisis, the bank can call all loans due NOW and those who cannot pay their balances will lose their homes- or foreclose super fast- like in 30 days when you get evicted from an apartment- used to take 6 months but now...I would not put it past them!

Reverse mortgages will suck too- the older people who can't sell will be forced to reverse mortgage it to get money to pay for their medical needs which means no inheritance to their kids (best way to pass down wealth). Then the kids will be struggling even harder to maintain (not saying all kids are due an inheritance, just saying!) Medicaid is a whole other can of worms, they make you give up ALL your assets before they give you free care- and nursing homes ain't cheap- $7k a month for a place like sunrise for a private room for your dear mother/father, you can find cheaper but you get what you pay for....most people's pensions got yanked from them, 401k's crashing....but this is for another thread just saying how it is all connected...


Thanks for letting me ramble.

Clinton's legacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No doc loans, baby. In 1995 Clinton loosened
> housing rules by rewriting the Community
> Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on
> banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.


The community reinvestment act covered banks. It had strict guidelines to offer loans. The no doc loans and all the other bullshit loans came from "mortgage companies" who were not banks and the CRA did not apply to them.

As a matter of fact, loans issued by CRA banks had a much less default rate then the mortgage companies loans that did not fall under the CRA.

housing prices FELL DURING OBAMA, as DID AMERICA'S CREDIT RATING, IRA RETIREMENT SAVINGS OF MOST AMERICANS WERE HAVLED IN THE GREAT IRA SCANDAL, ETC

yet another Gerrymanderer article claiming something wonderful happened that actually was the reverse

housing prices shot up during Ronald Reagan

Two other factors are the tax treatment of real estate. After tax reform in the 1990s, one could sell real estate without a capital gains tax. At the same time, real estate became one of the last good federal tax loopholes, as the mortgage interest, fees, and property taxes were all deductible.

Inside the beltway real estate has an attribute that won't change--they aren't making any more of it.

Clinton's legacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No doc loans, baby. In 1995 Clinton loosened
> housing rules by rewriting the Community
> Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on
> banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.


You got it! Also big contributor to the collapse in 2008.