4 ms·
A lot of these "analyses" ignore one simple fact: you need to live somewhere. The way I describe this is that you constantly have a short position on the local
by cletus 5y ago
A lot of these "analyses" ignore one simple fact: you need to live somewhere.
The way I describe this is that you constantly have a short position on the local real estate market. If rents go up, you lose. If house prices go up, you lose. If either goes down, you win. That's a short position.
So I view buying real estate as essentially canceling out your short position. Think about it: if the local market moves, it largely doesn't affect you. You can argue if you're underwater, it's bad. It's not good but your actual liability tends to be limited, particularly in no recourse states. For those unfamiliar, no recourse states give the lender the option to foreclose on the property if it's in default or to go after you for the debt. They can't do both.
The author claims mortgages trap the poor in bad investments. The counterargument to that is you give stability to those who are most likely to be priced out by rent hikes and forced to move. Efforts to avoid that (eg rent control) don't really solve anything and just create the same problems that incumbent home ownership does: first come, first served.
The author bemoans the lack of labour market flexibility with higher home ownership. This is true but is it bad? You have to remember he's talking about the 1930s when people were destitute and were forced to chase work. Should this really be a policy goal?
The lack of the 30 year mortgage would likely disproportionately affect poor people.
Real estate does need reform. I think we need to stop allowing funds and the super-rich to park money in real estate. Cities should be for those who live in the city, not Russian oligarchs who are anonymously "investing" via a REIT. We also need to stop subsidizing ultra-luxury building as happens in NYC (eg 421a abatements).
But the 30 year mortgage? This feels like an attack on the most economically vulnerable to me.
EDIT: corrected "negative short" to "short".
- chis 5y agoI've never heard anyone describe the implicit "negative short" all renters have for housing but that totally makes sense. I wonder what the takeaway is for someone who isn't interested in buying a house soon - maybe individuals should be investing in residential REITs which match the kind of housing they pay for? Buying real estate doesn't exactly "cancel out" your negative short position. On a long enough time horizon everyone who buys a house will end up selling it. Plus buying a house requires you to take money out of other investments, like stocks.
- sokoloff 5y agoOver a long enough time horizon, everyone who was born "short housing" will die, closing out that short.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jimmyvalmer 5y ago"negative short" = "short short" = "long". Something tells me that derivation is flawed.
- jaybrendansmith 5y agoStability, especially for children, is an unequivocal good thing. Moving often can have a very detrimental effect. 30 year mortgages prevent bubbles and macro financial changes from impacting families and provide tremendous stability. Are they a good investment? Probably but it depends on your situation. Before the existence of the mortgage, you had to save to buy your entire house while you were paying rent. This made it nearly impossible for the working poor to keep a non-depreciating asset and build family wealth and/or retirement. 10/15/30 year mortgages are one of the building blocks of a healthy middle class, alongside free education, Social Security, Medicare, Unions, 401k, 503b, HSA/FSA, etc. These are the investments we make to have a healthy society.