Sunday November 04, 2007
Mortgages, Stocks, Real Estate, Jobs and Risks
I recently met this guy, a young successful
professional who just bought a house. Nothing very exciting about that
(no offense of course). We were talking about the housing market in
general, and in California in particular. I asked the innocent
question: "how do young people buy a house these days? It must be
extremely expensive". To which he said, to my great surprise: "not at
all, I just bought one". He went on and described the zero down
payment, ten years interest only mortgage loan he found. Happy person,
living in a house in which he will have no equity ten years from now,
having paid interest only and putting no down payment on the house. I
pushed on. What if, I said, what if something goes wrong? What if you
lose your job? No problem, he said, I'd get another job in no time.
In fact, he said, my expertise is sought throughout California, I would
be hired in a matter of minutes. I didn't let go. What if, I said,
what if you, God forbid, get sick? My family will help, he said. They
would probably rather help than see their son or sibling homeless. My
both hands shot up to the air, I surrender, I said, but one more
question please. "Shoot", he said. I asked if it didn't bother him
that for ten years he will pay no principal whatsoever, which shall
leave him with no equity in his own home after ten years of payment.
At this point he laughed. He said that it's nothing short of madness
to pay principal, while everyone knows that the money can perform a lot
better in the stock market.
So the reasoning is this: take the money that you would have paid in
principal, and invest it in the stock market. After ten years, you
should easily be able to pay off the principal, and still have a ton of
money leftover - the result of your great profits off the stock market
and the constant rise in real estate prices. Obviously, he said,
within ten years, the house will be worth a lot more than it does
today, and thus my equity will be worth a lot more, and I'd have a lot
of change to spare. Just before I turned around, I said "and what
about the risk?". "What risk", he said.
And after this conversation I realized. The American real estate, as
well as the stock market have come up with the only possible conclusion
given the surrounding business reality, the business news, the Federal
Reserve, the analysts, the mortgage bankers: "whatever happens, someone
is going to save my neck". If there's a "credit crunch", the Fed will
lower the rates, creating more opportunities to take cheaper loans, and
kick the economy. Because no matter what happens around the world,
America is driven by its economy, and its economy only. The legend
says that one day after President George W. Bush Sr. had lost the
election to Bill Clinton, a big sign showed up just outside the White
House saying: "It's the Economy, Stupid". Seems that the message have been read. The future is not important, in order to survive the present, the economy must do well. In fact, it must do better than that. It must show growth, opportunities, it must be outstanding, not just good. Then again, if a bright young man has no reservations about mortgaging his own future for his present well being, why should a country?
A crazy idea hit me. Is it really possible that some people think that they can't lose? Is it possible that from what they see they concluded that no matter what, the stock market will only go up, and so will the prices of the houses? And that there'll always be a great job waiting for them somemwhere? Is it possible that some people will be driven to take
even higher risks as a result of the thought that they can't lose? Have we completely forgotten the bubble? Short reminder: people did buy property only to find that they owe the bank a lot more than the property's worth, and people did find themselves in the position of foreclosure when they couldn't pay their monthly payments. It does happen.
This isn't about investment tips and ideas. This is about
understanding the difference between economic stability of a country
and an individual. Risk taking for a pension fund which manages many
billions of dollars and a household. Economies rarely collapse.
Individuals often do. There is a chance that the house in which
you live will lose value overtime, and that some of your investments
will evaporate.
Years ago, a friend of mine made a bid on a house. The negotiation
process was long and hard, during which a large amount of money was
released from some investments. My friend thought that if he found the
right investment, he could make a few bucks until the money is needed
for the house (I'm talking about the old days, when people used to put
down payments on their houses). To make a long story short, he used a
common friend who worked on Wall Street at the time, and chose a stock
on which he put much of the money. The company went under, the stock
lost much of its value. The house was bought but with a lot less
equity, and the friendship disintegrated.
Assuming that the stock market will always go up, that the job market
will always be good for you, that your house's value will only go up,
is basically assuming that there's no risk. This assumption is wrong,
and risky. As in the world of the Corrida or the bull fighting, the bulls don't always lose...
Posted at 05:28PM Nov 04, 2007 by Amiram Hayardeny in Personal | Comments[12]
| « November 2009 | ||||||
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 | 30 | |||||
| Today | ||||||
Today's Page Hits: 255
| www.flickr.com |
You hit the nail on the head.
I understand the "no risk - no gain" and "law of attraction" theories, but prefer the middle road. Believing that one's friends & family are a bullet-proof safety net and justification for pegging the risk-o-meter is a recipe for a lonely life. Hoping it is all sunshine and daisies for your friend and those on the same plan, but I do wonder if rewarding the bullet-proof safety net during the good times is part of the plan.
Posted by Skrocki on November 04, 2007 at 09:58 PM CST #
Agreed.
Also, this post is a prime example of why privatizing social security is a horrible idea. That is, giving money taken for use by the social security system back to individuals so that they can "invest as they see fit".
Posted by Robs on November 05, 2007 at 07:45 AM CST #
What a lucky he bullfigter is.
Posted by lapa on November 07, 2007 at 02:13 PM CST #
I understand the "no risk - no gain" and "law of attraction" theories, but prefer the middle road
Posted by oyun on November 10, 2007 at 10:12 PM CST #
Your professional in California is living in a dream, housing prices will collapse as well as the entire housing and real estate market.
Those zero down payment, ten year I/O only is another name for a suicide loan. As can be seen with what is going on in the current market, all I can say is 'good luck'. Another sucker....
Posted by IwasakiUkyo on November 20, 2007 at 08:44 AM CST #
He's completely right that there's no good reason to pay principal, and he's even right about the reason.
He's also close to right about the job. If he loses his job, he may or may not be able to find a new one, but, either way, he'll be better off in the interim time with a smaller mortgage payment (rather than the mandatory savings component of a traditional mortgage).
If the real estate market goes bad, he's also better off with an interest-only mortgage - after all, there is no recourse to the buyer for a purchase money owner-occupied residential mortgage in California. In other words, he can't lose equity he doesn't have, so he's got less financial risk, not more financial risk, with an interest-only mortgage. Even if the loan were non-purchase money or recourse to the buyer, his savings are probably in retirement accounts that are generally isolated from creditors anyway.
Buying a house always entails the risk that the price will decline. Anyone who doesn't realize this is being silly. On the other hand, there is not much that one can do about this risk (other than not buy a house), so why fret?
The level or risk really has little to do with the type of mortgage selected. The real question is, given the degree to which these type of loans favor the buyer/borrower relative to the bank, why is the bank willing to take the risk?
Posted by cody on December 22, 2007 at 06:46 AM CST #
If the real estate market goes bad, he's also better off with an interest-only mortgage - after all, there is no recourse to the buyer for a purchase money owner-occupied residential mortgage in miami.
Posted by güzel sözler on April 03, 2008 at 10:25 AM CST #
He's completely right that there's no good reason to pay principal, and he's even right about the reason.
Posted by tv izle on May 19, 2008 at 11:21 PM CST #
After 2 years and I rad about your post. It is more genius than ever.
That kid must be educated by Yahoo. (Just kidding) I tried to establish a case where buying makes more sense even housing apprecaite at negative rate. I tried a few popular buy-vs-rent calculator. The one from Yahoo treats limit house appreciation rate to be greater than zero.
The one from http://www.yourbonus.org take negative house appreciation value and it explains the result well. Even just for fun, enter an negative house appreciation value into calculator and see what happens.
Posted by buy vs rent on March 17, 2009 at 05:18 AM CST #
risk of our lives been indispensable.
good luck
Posted by oyun on July 02, 2009 at 07:18 AM CST #
Thanks for sharing
Posted by oyunlar on July 02, 2009 at 07:21 AM CST #
very nice site
Thank you for sharing
Posted by sikiş on October 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM CST #