Sunday morning reading for those that didn't go to Coachella

Two great articles about real estate have appeared in today's Sunday papers.

First is an article re bubble market tactics.  It's by Kenneth Harney for the L.A. Times.  It discusses the pros and cons of escalation clauses, no-contingency offers, and low listing prices to draw lots of bidders.

Next is an article from the esteemed Robert J. Shiller for the New York Times entitled "Why home prices change or don't."  It's a bit wonky, but among other items, it discusses how technological advances in home building have helped keep costs down.  I thought it was really interesting.  

Happy reading or happy hanging out at Coachella.

Sunday morning reading

There are two interesting articles in the newspapers today:  First, from the NY Times, the esteemed Robert Shiller says that we're NOT in another housing bubble, and the future of housing still has many clouds.  He does agree that the market is improving, however.

And Alejandro Lazo of the L.A. Times has a feature on the Calculated Risk blog.  Please note that CR is in this blogroll, and this blog is on CR's blogroll.  Yes, the blog is a little wonky, but for those of you that like stats, you might want to check it out.

NYT: A bounce? Indeed. A boom? Not yet.

Economist Robert J. Shiller has recently completed a very interesting study of current home buying habits. The title above is the link to his article about it in today's NYT. Among the more interesting quotes: "This year’s survey coincides nicely with the upturn in home prices, the sharpest change in direction we have ever seen," "The sudden turn could signal a new housing boom, but is more likely just a sign of a period of higher short-run price volatility," and most especially, "The suddenness of this shift surprised me. In my column in June, I wrote that home prices might well continue to decline for years." Nice to know that noted economists can admit they were wrong.

Sunday reading plus comments. Yes, from the NYT Business Section.

Here are two great articles from today's New York Times' Business section. Gretchen Morgenson wrote the first, titled Was There a Loan It Didn't Like? about a senior mortgage underwriter's experiences at WaMu. As you might expect from the title, the underwriter, Ms. Cooper, was pressured by higher-ups to approve any and all loans, regardless of what the loan applications and packages looked like.

I take issue, though, with a couple of statements in the article. First, mid-way through the article and Ms. Cooper's story: "Although Ms. Cooper couldn't see it, the wheels were already coming off the subprime bus." C'mon. Everybody who thought about this process at all figured out in advance that many people would eventually not be able to pay back their huge debts. This is why usury laws have existed throughout history. Also, "Hidden fees meant brokers could easily make between $20,000 and $40,000 on a $500,000 loan." Huh? How hidden could fees be when they're thoroughly itemized at closing? And all states require complete itemization as part of their consumer protections. And $20k to $40k? The standard origination fee is 1%, and that would be $5,000. Yes, there are garbage fees like processing, document fees, etc., but I've never, ever heard of them amounting to more than 2% of the loan. But whatever; it's a great article anyway.

The second article is by my new favorite economic columnist next to Ben Stein, Robert J. Shiller. Titled Challenging the Crowd in Whispers, Not Shouts, and it's about the group-think that led the Fed, prominent economists and other major financing institutions to ignore the mortgage market meltdown until it was too late. The article's tag says, "A taxi driver seemed to sense what economists didn't." Uh, yeah.

The Mortgages of the Future

Yesterday, Robert J. Shiller's editorial titled The Mortgages of the Future appeared in the NY Times' Business section. He calls for re-thinking and possibly re-structuring the typical 30-year mortgage into "continuous workout mortgages." These would adjust the mortgage balance and payment, automatically and systematically, in order to help homeowners continue to pay their mortgages even during harsh economic times.

I'm no economist, but hasn't this been tried many times before? Specifically, with the "negative amortization" loans that were so popular for so many years? Most folk with "neg" loans wound up owing more several years down the line than they did at the beginning of the mortgage. I guess I'd have to see one of these "continuous workout mortgages" in action before believing that this could work.