SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JBTFD who wrote (94497)2/21/2009 5:16:27 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
When I hear that someone is posting longer term median house prices against median income and ignoring the effect of interest rate
===

May be to some extent, but the lowering of rates was an illusional too. Most of the really low rates were made on some type of ARM. Very few would lock in on 30 yr. fixed at 5% when they could get a teaser at 2 or 3% IO(I even heard of 1% ARM's!). That style of loan really drove the RE market up in 2005 and over the cliff. That is artificial because it's not sustainable. A better comparison would be to gauge the climb compared to average 30 yr fixed rates in different time periods using a basket of similar homes.

The size of homes has also increased pretty dramatically, overall, IMO.



To: JBTFD who wrote (94497)2/21/2009 7:54:42 PM
From: Sr K  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
>>It's simple math. It's not debatable in my opinion. <<

It's not debatable only if you assume $0 down and interest only mortgages.

If you use 20% down and 20 year amort. then

$300,000 at 12% is $3,300 per month and $3,300 per month at 5% is $500,000, not $720,000. And the first loan would require $75,000 down and the $500,000 loan would be $125,000 down.