4 ms·

Maybe some of that jargon went over my head, but I'm not convinced that his option for investors to "prune their portfolio and keep the accrued equity gains" ..

Maybe some of that jargon went over my head, but I'm not convinced that his option for investors to "prune their portfolio and keep the accrued equity gains" ... "When the bubble pops and speculators are suddenly underwater" is practical. Are said investors not themselves speculators who would be underwater post bubble pop? If you have a high confidence that "the correction isn't going to be quick, nor is it going to be soon", then sure, it makes sense to lever up and take on more debt - IFF you're similarly confident that you can get out before prices drop! Re: your situation - I wouldn't call it stupid, but you do now have a ~50% larger share of your assets in your home, and so you're now that much more subject to future shifts in home prices in your area.

ABCLAW 8y ago
>Are said investors not themselves speculators who would be underwater post bubble pop? Not really? A lot of the institutional money sloshing around is being invested as a de-risked hedge against more volatile returns. They don't really care if the market goes down temporarily, because their other options would have gone down even more. Additionally, there's a significant chunk of money that's being laundered through these home sales, so they don't really care if they lose 20%. They care that they can now show a source for the capital when they want to funnel it into other investments that have AML requirements. Home owners who are underwater have a disincentive to sell, but functionally unless their income is tied to their home valuation, they can just ride out the downturn, like most people do with their other equity holdings. It only sucks if you're forced to sell. That said, for the actual small to mid sized speculator, the 'being underwater' fears only hurt if you commence your leveraging the year before the bubble pops. You can just sell some of your portfolio to cover the loss and still end up ahead. The comparison is between owning 20% of 10 properties vs. 85% of 1. Even if your portfolio takes a haircut, the total volume of equity you build dramatically outstrips the more conservative approach.

ABCLAW 8y ago

>Are said investors not themselves speculators who would be underwater post bubble pop? Not really? A lot of the institutional money sloshing around is being invested as a de-risked hedge against more volatile returns. They don't really care if the market goes down temporarily, because their other options would have gone down even more. Additionally, there's a significant chunk of money that's being laundered through these home sales, so they don't really care if they lose 20%. They care that they can now show a source for the capital when they want to funnel it into other investments that have AML requirements. Home owners who are underwater have a disincentive to sell, but functionally unless their income is tied to their home valuation, they can just ride out the downturn, like most people do with their other equity holdings. It only sucks if you're forced to sell. That said, for the actual small to mid sized speculator, the 'being underwater' fears only hurt if you commence your leveraging the year before the bubble pops. You can just sell some of your portfolio to cover the loss and still end up ahead. The comparison is between owning 20% of 10 properties vs. 85% of 1. Even if your portfolio takes a haircut, the total volume of equity you build dramatically outstrips the more conservative approach.