3 ms·
Actually I don't think this metric goes far enough. In my opinion a homeowner should "own" their home. I.e should have majority equity in his or her home. An ow
by tndibona 2mo ago
Actually I don't think this metric goes far enough. In my opinion a homeowner should "own" their home. I.e should have majority equity in his or her home. An owner who pays 3% down is basically a risk bearer for the bank. The bank really owns the majority and is renting out the "owner". I don't think my opinion is fringe. It does measure the risks of not being able to make rent and getting evicted.
- bell-cot 2mo agoYes. Unfortunately, the Minneapolis Fed would get a whole lotta push-back if they suggested any such metric. That risk bearing & interest-rent is a near-perfect way for the 0.01% to milk the "could afford a house" demographic.
- ozgrakkurt 2mo ago50 year mortgage incoming to raise the home ownership rate to 90%
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoThat's not a useful metric, because the mortgage interest deduction means that it's almost always financially optimal to take out a mortgage even if you have the assets to pay cash.
- tndibona 2mo agoPoint taken. But surely there must be a way to account for that. Can we assume if the net asset value of the individual is greater than the value of the house by some percentage? Then they are owners instead of renters.