網路城邦
回本城市首頁 不平則鳴
市長:麥芽糖  副市長: 一葉孤鴻*Jackey*逸名blackjack
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會政治時事【不平則鳴】城市/討論區/
討論區太公的荊洲 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
歪理一牛『糞』?
 瀏覽1,962|回應2推薦2

曾太公
等級:8
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (2)

早早安(顏俊家)
麥芽糖

歪理一牛『糞』?
2010/01/07 11:27:15 瀏覽18|回應0|推薦0

10 years...no gain in home prices

By Les Christie, staff writer


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Taking into account inflation, home prices are actually lower than they were 10 years ago, according to a report from the National Association of Realtors released Wednesday.

The median home price in November 1999 was $137,600, NAR said, and by November 2009 it had risen 25% to $172,600. But with cumulative effect of inflation, prices are actually 3% lower in real terms.

The good news is that wages have risen in the past 10 years, so homes are now affordable than they had been, especially at the height of the boom in the middle of this decade, said Walter Molony, a spokesman for the Realtors.

The median home price peaked in June of 2006 at $231,000. (See how much you gained on your home.)

There have been other changes in the workings of the housing market over the past 10 years: More house hunting is now done online, a greater percentage of the homes purchased are in the suburbs and more multi-family home units -- condos, townhouses and coops -- are being bought.

There has also been an increase in the number of single folks buying homes on their own. Back in 1999, single men accounted for 9% of all home sales and single women 18%. It was families who formed the big majority of buyers, 66%, with unmarried couple at 6%.

Today, the number of single men buyers is up a point to 10% while single women are quite a bit more active in the market, making 21% of all purchases in 2009. The market share of families dropped to 60% and unmarried couple purchased 8% of all homes sold. 

**** **** ****

From this JUNK commercial propaganda, here arise at least 2 questions deserve our furhter examination:

1. It is one of the conventional wisdom: real estate is the BEST hedge vehicle against INFLATION.  If in fact its real "price" is decreased 3%, do you think anyone should buy real estate?  As a realtor or agent with conscience, you won't recommend others to buy them and should advise everyone to avoid buying a property like plague, right or wrong?

Okay, let's assume NAR is correct in stating "housing price is cheaper."  If it is the case, then why we have to buy?  It is a bad investment compared to other investment.  Does here NAR impliedly suggest us not to do it? Ouch! good help from NAR, Benanke should say. 

Furthermore, there are so many angles for us to "touch" an elephant.  Value or Price is a relative noun, not an absolute term.  From which base NAR claimed housing price is less? Enclosed herewith for reference is an article doing the opposite in terms of real household income to claim it is too expensive:

Buying a Home in America today is Expensive Thanks to the Banking Sector: Examining Income and Home Prices from 1950 to the Present. Can Home Prices Fall Another 38 Percent?

2. What's "our American value of family" as claimed by GWB to protect? Marriage is a promise broken.  From the figures provided above, you can get an idea of the social reality that it is norm for an average JOE to stay away from getting marriage to avoid so-called "marriage penalty," right or wrong?


雲遊去了﹐有緣自聚

本文於 修改第 3 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=50539&aid=3782449
 回應文章
他們說﹐您在放屁﹗房地產﹐當然是要漲的啊﹗
    回應給: 麥芽糖(myata) 推薦1


曾太公
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

早早安(顏俊家)

Who disagrees that house prices will continue to fall?

Everyone making money off you!

  1. Buyer's agents disagree, because they get nothing if there is no sale. Agents want their clients to buy no matter how bad the deal is, which is the exact opposite of the buyer's best interest. Agents take $100 billion each year in commissions from buyers. Agents claim the seller pays the commission, but always fail to mention that the seller gets that money from the buyer. Think about it: who brings the money to the table - the seller or the buyer? All money comes from buyers. No buyer, no money.

    Real estate in America is all about deception. There is no free market because bids on houses are never published and bids are often faked to get you to think you have to pay more. There should be a law to make all bids public and validated by a bank, but the NAR is one of the largest lobbyists in Congress, so don't expect any changes soon.

    If a house is a really good deal, you'll never hear about it from any realtor. Great quote from a reader Linda:

    Realtors ALWAYS GET FIRST DIBS AT EVERY HOUSE even before it is listed. Realtors always have a shot at the best deals. In fact, IF A LISTED HOUSE WAS NOT ALREADY PURCHASED BY A REALTOR OR one of their buddies---that means IT IS A BAD DEAL. If it were a "good" deal---they would have bought it. Under the REALTOR / MLS monopoly system--- prospective buyers only get to look at the junk left over that Realtors and their "friends" do NOT want.

    This means that your best chance of finding a good deal is by looking at the listings the MLS is hiding from you: FSBO sites, Craigslist, foreclosures, builder inventory. It's also productive to talk to people you know who might want to sell, or send out postcards in a certain area. Avoid the realtors and you'll come out way ahead.

    Why should you give up nearly two years of your life working to pay a realtor who is not even really helping you? 6% of the 30 years it takes to pay off a house is 1.8 years of donating your working time to realtors. Just find a house on your own, hopefully a house for sale by owner, and get a real estate lawyer by the hour to draw up the offer and complete the sale.

    There are buyer's agents who really believe they are helping the buyer, but they're in denial about their conflict of interests. Author Upton Sinclair had a great explanation for this: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." The NAR (National Association of Realtors) has harmed America far more than terrorism did. At some level, people know this, and that's why realtors are consistently rated the lowest "profession".

  2. Mortgage brokers disagree, because they take a percentage of the loan. They want buyers to take out the biggest loan possible to maximize their commission. Even worse - mortgage brokers get paid according to how bad the deal is for the buyer. The worse the deal is (higher interest rate, points, fees, etc) the more the mortgage broker gets!

  3. Banks disagree, at least when they can get origination fees and then sell the mortgage, because in that case they do not care about the bankruptcy of borrowers. Banks sold most loans to the government agencies Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, and now use the FHA the same way. The conversion of low-quality housing debt into "high" quality government debt was the main support for the housing bubble. Fannie and Freddie already imploded, and the FHA is now on the edge.

    The other way for banks to dump the risk of loan default has been the Wall Street market for mortgage-backed securities. Now that mass foreclosures have eliminated the loan-resale market, banks are under pressure to increase loan quality.

  4. Appraisers disagree, because they are paid by mortgage brokers and banks, so they are going to give the appraisals that mortgage brokers and banks want to see, not the truth. Appraisers that kill a deal by telling the truth do not get called back to do other appraisals.

  5. Newspapers disagree, because they earn money from advertising placed by realtors, lenders, and mortgage brokers. Papers are pressured by that money to publish the real estate industry's unrealistic forecasts. Worse, realtors have a near-monopoly on sale price information, and newspaper reporters never ask realtors hard questions like "how do we know you're not lying about those prices?" The result is an endless stream of stories reporting that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) says it's a good time to buy. Asking the NAR about housing is like walking into a used car dealership and asking the salesman if today would be a good day to buy a car.

  6. The Federal Government disagrees, because everyone in Congress gets campaign bribes (oops -- I meant campaign donations) from the NAR and from the banks. So every Federal law will be aimed squarely at increasing commissions for the NAR and increasing interest payments to banks. Buyers lose, because they have no lobbyists in DC. The very laws of our country have been corrupted to squeeze more profits out of you.

  7. Current owners disagree, because they do not want to believe they are going to lose huge amounts of money. Anyone who owns is likely to encourage you to buy too, to prop up their own house value via comps, and so that they can feel that they are not alone in their sinking boat.


本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=50539&aid=3864919
誰說房地產一定要漲?
    回應給: 曾太公(et13808) 推薦1


麥芽糖
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

早早安(顏俊家)

誰說房地產一定要漲?
蛋頭學者 炒作的商人 都不足可信!
所以國父說要漲價歸公!
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=50539&aid=3784954
引用者清單(1)
2010/02/16 10:51 【曾太公落美洲】 他們說﹐您在放屁﹗房地產﹐當然是要漲的啊﹗