Perspectives on the global economic changes

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by vina »

Singha wrote:>> you need free movement of goods, services, people and of course income transfers

but arent all EU citizens now able to freely move around and work within that zone (with no need for work permits?) and there are easy and cheap transfer of goods via road and rail?
Movement yes, but not really work. There was an uproar in France when Polish plumbers started taking over the trade. Each country in Europe tries to "play" the local market in goods and services any more crucially employment in it's favour. The labor market in Europe is very sticky. Jobs are not easy to find in the first place, the laws protect the local guys, youth unemployment is really high , there are a plethora of registration and certification restrictions by geography.

And more importantly, there is NO fiscal union and fiscal transfers don't take place from regions which are doing well in that part of the business cycle to one that isn't unlike in India or US or any normal country. For e.g., Germany doesn't pay for unemployment benefits for Greeks, Italians, Portugese, Spanish etc, despite being a direct beneficiary of a weakened currency and soaring surplus precisely because of them sharing the currency and weakening it.

Give the Germans a 20% rise in the currency like what the Swiss face and they will quickly come to their senses. The Euro as it is is simply unsustainable.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Austin »

vina wrote: Get real. The QE put millions of Americans back to work after the meltdown post 2008 . US is now back to nearly full employment and wake hikes seem to be happening now, there is not much slack left in the US labor market.
It seems most of the job gains are the low end type like bartender etc the real job has not gone up

http://gainspainscapital.com/2014/01/08 ... eate-jobs/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-0 ... added-2012
The QE fashioned by Ben Bernanke was fully worth it. I do hope that the US does the sensible thing and recognises Ben Bernanke and his "unorthodox" economics and gives him a Medal of honour or something.
Surely he deserves the Nobel of Economics along Barak Obama lines for Peace :lol:

Jokes apart its too early to say QE works , QE has been going for 4 years and it would take around 2-3 years to see of US economy is growing at steady pace or if Fed resorts to QE 4

I suspect the ECB QE is planned to take off when US QE stops

The Father of QE Greenspan has this to say few months back

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-1 ... omy-stinks

This fetish with Gold and tightening and this and that is the flip side of the St Stephens/JNU/DSE/ISI ding-dongism. Missing the wood for the trees and being doctrinaire even in the face of real experiential evidence.
Greenspan's Stunning Admission: "Gold Is Currency; No Fiat Currency, Including the Dollar, Can Match It"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-0 ... lar-can-ma
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

I have to say the 30 year mortgage is the ultimate slave machine. No better wealth drain has any organization devised to bankrupt and transfer wealth to a handful of bankers. Just this week a colleague of mine posted a proud e-mail with pictures of his new house. $800,000+ is what I heard with monthly payments in the $5,000 range, before taxes, utilities, maintenance, etc. His age, a sprightly 56 years young!! He will be making payments on that house till 2045, or he is 86 years old, which ever comes first.

Americans got taken for a ride because they got to sell their souls for a depreciating bauble like their house. Reminds one of the beads + Native Americans - New York.

In the example above, if the fellow takes that $5,000 per month and invests it at 8% ROI for 30 years, at the end he will have $7.5 million. Instead he will be stuck with a $800,000 house + inflation.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Austin »

Peter Schiff on ECB 'easy money' - 'Things are going to get worse'

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by vina »

It seems most of the job gains are the low end type like bartender etc the real job has not gone up
A "low end bartender" in the US typically owns his own house, and can take his family on a 3 day vacation to Las Vegas, which will include booking a hotel room and flight tickets! How many countries in the world exist where this happens ?

Contrast that with Oiero Peons who will b*tch about "low end bartender" like work , can't get even that, and collect dole! And in France, all the "low end bartender" type jobs in restaurants etc are unionised! And no, it aint no Norway , where you will find no fast food outlets because the labor costs are so high, and unemployment is low. But Norway is a White Kuwait. It is as unreal as that.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by vina »

Theo_Fidel wrote:In the example above, if the fellow takes that $5,000 per month and invests it at 8% ROI for 30 years, at the end he will have $7.5 million. Instead he will be stuck with a $800,000 house + inflation.
It is close to impossible get an 8% ROI for 30 in the US , especially for a Mango 6 pack Joe. Why even most professional funds will kill for that and sell their CEOs into slavery if they can get anything like that. And last I read, inflation seems rather nonexistent at this moment !
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Suraj »

Fixed rate mortgages picked up at the right time on a depressed priced home, can be a superb inflation hedge for the long term. At 3% inflation, over 30 years, your last payment in todays dollars is just ~40% of the current payment. If your payment is $1000/mo today, the value of that payment in 2045 is $410 in todays dollars. You pay a fixed nominal amount per month, and for those who lucked out and got 3.5% 30 year fixed mortgages, they have rates approx 0.5-1% more than average inflation. On top of that, rental income rises with inflation. Buying low, and then refinancing down to the lowest rate possible if you luck out on an early rate cycle bottom, is a fantastic way to build wealth.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by ldev »

vina wrote:
QE increases asset prices. It does not increase incomes. Only the 1 percenters have assets in meaningfully large amounts to benefit from QE and hence they control more and more of global assets/wealth as the Federal Reserve and now the ECB QE programs are implemented.
Get real. The QE put millions of Americans back to work after the meltdown post 2008 . US is now back to nearly full employment and wake hikes seem to be happening now, there is not much slack left in the US labor market.

The QE fashioned by Ben Bernanke was fully worth it. I do hope that the US does the sensible thing and recognises Ben Bernanke and his "unorthodox" economics and gives him a Medal of honour or something.

This fetish with Gold and tightening and this and that is the flip side of the St Stephens/JNU/DSE/ISI ding-dongism. Missing the wood for the trees and being doctrinaire even in the face of real experiential evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_ ... ted_States

US household income in constant dollars from wikipedia.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

Where the US bailout money went in 2008. Of the $600 billion, $60 billion went to GM and Chrysler (well worth it IMO), the rest 90% i.e. $540 billion went to banks.

Since 2008 US GDP in constant dollars has gone up from about $13.6 trillion to about $14.6 trillion, about 1 trillion dollars. US government debt has gone up from $10 trillion to $17 trillion. The size of the Federal Reserve Balance sheet has gone up from less than a trillion dollars to $4.5 trillion.

So you tell me, after increasing debt by $7 trillion and increasing the Fed's balance sheet by $3.5 trillion, GDP increased by a measly $1 trillion and median household income is barely breaking even. You really think Bernanke should get a medal of honor for this dismal performance or should he get a medal of shame for only looking out for his banking, finance and trading buddies?

Now if the US wants to commit economic suicide its their prerogative. But in this era of globalization, where US dollar flows affect everything from the price of oil and copper to the Sensex, why should the rest of the world also be dragged off the cliff?

The gold standard is an anachronism in today's world, but fiscal and monetary prudence and conservatism is not.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by vina »

led wrote:So you tell me, after increasing debt by $7 trillion and increasing the Fed's balance sheet by $3.5 trillion, GDP increased by a measly $1 trillion and median household income is barely breaking even. You really think Bernanke should get a medal of honor for this dismal performance or should he get a medal of shame for only looking out for his banking, finance and trading buddies?
True. But as we speak now, America is close to full employment and wages are surely rising and any slack in the labor market is nearly gone. That IS a monumental achievement and is worth expanding the Fed's balance sheet for that. After all , if you DONT borrow when capital is dirt cheap when ELSE can you borrow it ?
The gold standard is an anachronism in today's world, but fiscal and monetary prudence and conservatism is not.
There is a time and place for everything. In a world which is characterised by deflation and mass unemployment and next to no growth, fiscal and monetary prudence is NOT a virtue but a vice. ( I know in India, thank's to the Congress idiocy , we managed to run double digit inflation when the rest of the world was in deflation!). The Germans will discover the truth of that when the Euro collapses, which it surely will, if Germany doesn't act in it's self interest to preserve it. A Eurozone reduced to German, France and BeNeLux won't work unless they have a full fiscal and monetary union and become one "country" with some 4 or 5 flags , with the European parliament as the sovereign.
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1674
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by nandakumar »

Singha wrote:>> you need free movement of goods, services, people and of course income transfers

but arent all EU citizens now able to freely move around and work within that zone (with no need for work permits?) and there are easy and cheap transfer of goods via road and rail?
Singha
Yes of course, they have all that as you say. But the operative part of what Vina said is this.
Quote: "and of course income transfers". Unquote.
What I think Vina means is that if only Germans could be pursuaded to unbelt a little more by way of taxes, the money could be used for safety net payouts to unemployeds, healthcare for the aged, debt repayments etc. in PIIGS countries. There would then be no need for austerity measures that ECB is demanding of them as a condition for fresh loans. The irony is that the fresh monies would be mostly used to bail out German banks which had invested in the debt of the nations in the periphery of EU.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by ldev »

After all , if you DONT borrow when capital is dirt cheap when ELSE can you borrow it ?
Capital has been made cheap by the Fed itself bidding via its proxies on Treasury debt. The average cost of debt now to USG is 2.2% vs a 20 year average of 5.6%. You work out the math on outstandings of $17T at both rates and its impact on USG budgets. Revenues will be 50% of expenditures.

The business cycle has been killed, price discovery is dead and volatility was expunged from the markets, until oil and then other commodities got out of control and then the SNB let loose its bazooka. The problem with artificially smoothening out market volatility and the business cycle is that when the Central Banks finally loose control, it will crush everything. IMO in 2008, the financial sector especially the US money center banks should have been allowed to fail, the bad blood would have been let out of the system and it would have healed itself. The regional banks would have survived and continued to do real financing of industry and the cost to the Fed would have been lower. But the Fed cannot let its owners go bankrupt can it?

The result today is layer upon layer of financial intermediation with each layer making a spread between bid/ask and asset/liability. Even non funded assets such as derivatives earn fees and if there is a squeeze at settlement, the USD gets whipsawed around since a majority of these secondary/tertiary assets are USD denominated.

i.e. the cost of rescue has been very high for the system and for every one outside the financial sector and there is no guarantee that the entire house of cards will still not collapse.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by vina »

if only Germans could be pursuaded to unbelt a little more by way of taxes
On the contrary, Germany runs a balanced to slightly surplus budget. Germany has fiscal room. It should boost spending and/or cut taxes and start inflating the Eurozone. This idiocy of running a balanced budget in a recessionary environment and deflation in the wider Eurozone, just because Germany alone is sort of okay is stupid.

An analogy would be like this. If suppose in India MH, Guj, and the Southern states are doing well, i.e. growing well, the industry is humming along and people are employed because of a favourable rupee (and okay to give into German arguments, they saved, invested and were industrious over the previous 20 years) , while the rest of India, the vast indo gangetic plains, the central and eastern parts of India are in deep trouble with high unemployment and India as a whole is witnessing deflation, what will the Govt and RBI do ? Do income transfer from MH,GUj and Southern States to rest of india and do easy monetary and fiscal policy, or be captive to the politicos from those states and hang on and run a tight monetary and fiscal policies ? Now what would happen if MH,Guj and Southern States had their one currency and the rest of India had it's own currency ?

Look at this graph German Deficits

Germany actually sharply shrunk it's deficits from 2010 to 2012 and reached a balanced budget in 2013 & 2014. And this is precisely the period that the Eurozone recovery also sputtered and stalled. This premature removal of expansionary policy doomed the Eurozone. Contrast the experience of America which pursued inflationary policy until the recovery was firmly in place and still hasn't raised interest rates!
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Austin »

A good thing about ECB QE would be that we would see the bubble in many sectors continue to grow without fear of bursting till atleast the QE last which is mid 2016.

Which would mean the Stock Market in India would remain in the high so good time to invest atleast things would be safe till 2016 and keep buying metals/gold if you can
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Austin »

vina wrote: Look at this graph German Deficits

Germany actually sharply shrunk it's deficits from 2010 to 2012 and reached a balanced budget in 2013 & 2014. And this is precisely the period that the Eurozone recovery also sputtered and stalled. This premature removal of expansionary policy doomed the Eurozone. Contrast the experience of America which pursued inflationary policy until the recovery was firmly in place and still hasn't raised interest rates!
Unless debt dont mean any thing which as per your link is around 76 % of GDP and for US its more than 100 % with little hope they would ever be able to repay it back and if any thing will only grow.

Then QE is a good idea , Not allowing markets to figure out interest rates and rather dictate it and put out phoney inflation figure is a good idea then money printing is a good thing something all nations must pursue ......who needs disciplined and sound economic policy when you can generate credit out of thin air
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Suraj wrote:Fixed rate mortgages picked up at the right time on a depressed priced home, can be a superb inflation hedge for the long term. At 3% inflation, over 30 years, your last payment in todays dollars is just ~40% of the current payment. If your payment is $1000/mo today, the value of that payment in 2045 is $410 in todays dollars. You pay a fixed nominal amount per month, and for those who lucked out and got 3.5% 30 year fixed mortgages, they have rates approx 0.5-1% more than average inflation. On top of that, rental income rises with inflation. Buying low, and then refinancing down to the lowest rate possible if you luck out on an early rate cycle bottom, is a fantastic way to build wealth.
But that is true of anything. You could also be WB and generate 20% rate of return on your investment! For the median folks, the vast majority, esp. with a Jumbo loan none of these things is true. Even then, unless it is for rental you will struggle to make 4%-5% return on investment. Once you account for taxes (always increasing), Utility costs (always increasing), maintenance cost (always increasing), the 30 year mortgage is the perfect personal wealth destruction machine there is out there. Only people who benefit are the Bankers who generation after generation get to bleed people dry over essentially the same set of assets. It is a completely different story if you buy land, develop the assets/infrastructure/buildings and then sell the improved capital stock. Not to mention the assumption is that you can continue to make payments for 30 years or the bank takes everything if anything bad happens to you even for 6 month.

All one has to do is look at the American middle class which has been bankrupted over their house obsession....
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

ldev wrote:So you tell me, after increasing debt by $7 trillion and increasing the Fed's balance sheet by $3.5 trillion, GDP increased by a measly $1 trillion and median household income is barely breaking even. You really think Bernanke should get a medal of honor for this dismal performance or should he get a medal of shame for only looking out for his banking, finance and trading buddies?
Are you kidding me? It was well worth the price. In fact USA got off cheap IMHO. Rest of the developed world would kill to get this sort of benefit ratio.

In 10 years at 3% inflation, that 17 Trillion will be worth less than 10 Trillion.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by ldev »

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Are you kidding me? It was well worth the price. In fact USA got off cheap IMHO. Rest of the developed world would kill to get this sort of benefit ratio.

In 10 years at 3% inflation, that 17 Trillion will be worth less than 10 Trillion.
Exactly, the US got off cheap because the rest of the world paid the price. The price has been paid and continues to be paid in the form of:

1. Loss of control over domestic monetary policies.

2 Constant adjustment of domestic monetary policies to account for the sequential flooding in and flooding out of US dollars.

3. Equity markets meddling with banks such as the SNB openly have 10%-15% of their portfolio in equities. Are you kidding me? Where does the average investor have the firepower to go against moves initiated by Central Banks?

4. The rest of the world's savings are being used as a giant piggy bank so that the US money managers can continue their disastrous policies.

5. If you have studied Eco 101, this is the tail wagging the dog. Equity markets are supposed to respond to corporate earnings, PE multiples are supposed to reflect profitability or lack of it. But such fundamentals have been suspended since 2008. Today the only thing that matters is how much hot money generated by the Fed or the ECB or the Bank of Japan sloshes its way into any specific market, whether it be oil, other commodities, equities, bonds or mortgages. And the only way you can get that money is if you are a FRB dealer or a big EU bank i.e. you are then a direct beneficiary of exchanging worthless crap on your balance sheet with shiny new dollars or euros ready to go and play in the casinos, whether it be equity or oil futures, mortages or government bonds. That is all that bank's and traders today bet on. Yes, even in India, where before Modi, a $ 10 Billion FII inflow would see the Sensex take off.

Finance should always play a supporting function to industry. Today in the US and by extension because of the reserve role of the US dollar in the rest of the developed world certainly, finance takes an outsize portion of income and uses it only to play the game of asset appreciation. Remember, the reason there are problems today is because income is no longer sufficient to service debt and this is inspite of interest rates having been gradually reduced close to zero. The point is that monetary expansion since 2008 has been horribly inefficient in creating the right kind of GDP growth. QE is doing nothing to increase incomes and without an increase in incomes, just look at Japan since 1990, they know what QE is about, they are in round 10-12 of continous QE and yet the Japanese economy has been sick and contracted over the last 25 years. Incomes have stagnated, the once fabled savings rate is below 5%, their frontline companies are making losses. And yet today the Fed and ECB have this endearing faith in QE. In reality they are just kicking the can down the road. The pyramid is dangerously inverted.

There is asset inflation i.e. real estate, bonds, commodities until about 6 months ago, but there is no CPI inflation. That will not happen until either China which is the global factory stops exporting deflation to the rest of the world or unless they helicopter drop money which Bernanke once famously threatened to do. However if there is CPI inflation, interest rates will have to go up. Good luck then servicing the mountains of growing debt.
Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 689
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Vamsee »

vina wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:In the example above, if the fellow takes that $5,000 per month and invests it at 8% ROI for 30 years, at the end he will have $7.5 million. Instead he will be stuck with a $800,000 house + inflation.
It is close to impossible get an 8% ROI for 30 in the US , especially for a Mango 6 pack Joe. Why even most professional funds will kill for that and sell their CEOs into slavery if they can get anything like that. And last I read, inflation seems rather nonexistent at this moment !
Last 30 years S &P 500 index itself did > 12% CAGR (including dividends) and >10% excluding dividends. So the math of Theo worked fine in the last 30 years (in fact it was an underestimate)
:-)
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Suraj »

Theo: your contention doesn't match reality. One of the most significant attributes of mango high net worth individuals is real estate ownership. There's a very good reason for it. Buying intelligently and refinancing down, and using the tax benefits, is a long proven wealth building approach in the US.

Carrying costs apply regardless of whether you rent or buy. You think you don't have to pay maintenance costs if you rent ? You do - you pay a larger rent. There's no free lunch offered by the landlord that way. Ditto for utilities and taxes. Whatever bill you're not getting is being paid along with rent. Utilities are anyway paid regardless of what you reside in, and has no relevance to the underlying loan; you're not paying more or less because the loan is different.

The American tax system benefits home buyers, at least to the extent that your mortgage interest and property tax is deductible. Of course, the benefits start to diminish as you approach the $1 million range. But most sensible buyers who get rich, don't buy a few large albatrosses. They buy several smaller properties at opportune times and rent them out, ending up cash flow positive from day one.

As with any investment, buying wrong will not work out. People often buy homes under peer pressure, because others are, or because of family compulsions. That doesn't necessarily work out, unless you're lucky.

As far as the loan itself goes, I'd rather pay in tomorrows devalued money than today's $s. The 30 year fixed with a low rate is perfect for that. Of course, not a lot of people actually got that rate; they bought at the peak and then were underwater and could not refinance. In their case, yes, they're stuck. But that's a consequence of a wrongly timed investment and not the term of the loan.
Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 689
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Vamsee »

Suraj wrote:Theo: your contention doesn't match reality. One of the most significant attributes of mango high net worth individuals is real estate ownership. There's a very good reason for it. Buying intelligently and refinancing down, and using the tax benefits, is a long proven wealth building approach in the US.

Carrying costs apply regardless of whether you rent or buy. You think you don't have to pay maintenance costs if you rent ? You do - you pay a larger rent. There's no free lunch offered by the landlord that way. Ditto for utilities and taxes. Whatever bill you're not getting is being paid along with rent. Utilities are anyway paid regardless of what you reside in, and has no relevance to the underlying loan; you're not paying more or less because the loan is different.

The American tax system benefits home buyers, at least to the extent that your mortgage interest and property tax is deductible. Of course, the benefits start to diminish as you approach the $1 million range. But most sensible buyers who get rich, don't buy a few large albatrosses. They buy several smaller properties at opportune times and rent them out, ending up cash flow positive from day one.

As with any investment, buying wrong will not work out. People often buy homes under peer pressure, because others are, or because of family compulsions. That doesn't necessarily work out, unless you're lucky.

As far as the loan itself goes, I'd rather pay in tomorrows devalued money than today's $s. The 30 year fixed with a low rate is perfect for that. Of course, not a lot of people actually got that rate; they bought at the peak and then were underwater and could not refinance. In their case, yes, they're stuck. But that's a consequence of a wrongly timed investment and not the term of the loan.
Not sure about the highlighted part. If I remember correctly from "The millionaire next door" book which did research on large number of millionaires in US, Business ownership (from car washes to plumbers to truck owners to mcdonald franchise owners etc) is responsible for large number of millionaires. Average home equity was around $250,000 (may have increased now due to inflation)

--Vamsee
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

ldev,

To be perfectly honest USA folk are a little tired of acting as the worlds currency of last resort.
Right now the USA is going gang busters and what happens… …the US dollars goes through the roof weakening the export power of USA. It’s like we can’t get any growth in USA without the rest of the world trying to piggy back on and steal away the dynamism of the US economy. Give the USA get a break occasionally. Ideally the USA dollar should remain cheap so the growth in US can be protected and nurtured. No doubt China/EU would ‘manage’ this….

That said I don’t disagree with you that the outsize nature of the finance industry is acting as a tax/brake on further economic expansion. Not only that, it is acting as a sponge for the skilled and driven people of USA. Instead of focusing their energy on material innovation the focus is on financial wacko jiggery… ..I don’t know the answer to this problem. Trust me even USA hates the speculators sloshing around the hot money. There unfortunately are no ideas on how to build a modern economic system without including such types in the mix.

WRT interest problem. The USA has quite a bit of free space. Right now only 17% of GDP is taxed for federal income. Even increasing it 2% or so to 19% of GDP would be enough to service 5% type interest on the debt. The debt problem in the USA has everything to do with a low taxation problem. Right now it is cheaper for USA to borrow cash than to bother taxing folks. When that equation changes approach will change as well, despite the anti-tax nuts out there...

The real problem is NO ONE wants to spend any money. Everyone is saving money, no one is investing, at least WRT the tremendous amounts of cash sloshing around the system. The only entity willing to borrow and spend is the GOTUS. If the GOTUS too stops spending the entire World economy will probably fall into deflation in order to destroy cash and depress asset prices. Destroying the world economy along the way.
--------------------------------

I would like to point out one other thing. Last year, the moment the USA talked about raising interest rates the India rupee collapsed. Fear and doom was in the air. The Indian economy too is now addicted to QE money. There are many other out there.....
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Suraj wrote:Theo: your contention doesn't match reality. One of the most significant attributes of mango high net worth individuals is real estate ownership....

The American tax system benefits home buyers, at least to the extent that your mortgage interest and property tax is deductible....

As far as the loan itself goes, I'd rather pay in tomorrows devalued money than today's $s. The 30 year fixed with a low rate is perfect for that. Of course, not a lot of people actually got that rate; they bought at the peak and then were underwater and could not refinance. In their case, yes, they're stuck. But that's a consequence of a wrongly timed investment and not the term of the loan.
I don’t think so as a percentage of their assets. Home/Homes ownership is typically kept under 20% or even 10% or less for most high net worth types. There is chart I need to find that shows this relationship. They make their money first then buy a home, for all the poor saps in America the system foolishly convinces them it is the exact opposite. It is home we are talking about even though per chart below even real estate ownership is kept low.

Also I don’t buy the Tax /Interest benefit stuff. So you spend $10,000 in interest to get back $3,000 in tax break from GOTUS. You are still -$7,000. For the vast majority of Americans living on $40,000+- pa, and in the 15% tax bracket the saving is even less.

I think the opportunity cost you are paying, by outlaying heavy interest upfront is terrible for the average abdul trying to create assets.

Lets be clear what I’m trying to say here. It is the 30 year loan that is problem. Yes you can mitigate its deficiencies by hitting the sweet spot as you have done but for 90% of transactions that will not happen. And even for you, what the 30 year loan does is force you drain your wealth at the earliest parts of your life. The time when wealth creation is most necessary in order to let compounding do its thing. Even the 3.5% interest rate does not help as you end up buying more home than you can normally afford.

OK I found a chart, it is not the exact one but similar. You can see what a terrible indictment it is on the asset draining power of home ownership under the 30 year mortgage model. The rich, even the upper middle class never have more than 30% of assets in home ownership. This was true during their entire life. Anytime your assets in home ownership is over this line you are destroying personal wealth and diminishing your assets later in life.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/as ... 107250.png
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Suraj »

Theo: taxes and maintenance are not an argument against a 30 year fixed loan. You pay them, one way or another, regardless of whether you own a home or rent one. You pay the same amount or more too, in the form of a component of rent. There's no free lunch from choosing a different option.

Of course you need to put down money to buy a home on the best terms. Buy a good home in a down market, put 20% down, refinance down to the lowest you can, and you're well set long term. You can rent that house out for more than your principal+interest+taxes+insurance.

I don't advise buying when the rates are lowest - that leads to people choosing to buy more home than they can afford, yes. I stated previously and said again - buy low and refinance down lower. House prices fall when rates rise, since it lowers affordability, and markets tend to reflect that with lower prices.

Mortgage/property tax deductions work in your favor to mitigate the front loaded interest of a loan. The effect of inflation helps erode the real costs at the tail end of the loan term. Homeowners love inflation. Give me 3-4% inflation with my 3.5% loan term, and I'll happily rent both homes out and essentially have two homes at zero carrying cost, including a maintenance fund for both. It's really simple math - keep your recurring costs fixed , and your gains indexed to inflation at minimum. If inflation exceeds the the carrying cost of the underlying loan, you're on top even if prices rise no more than inflation.

Why would you blame the loan term for buying at the wrong time ? It's a fantastic tool, when used right. Not knowing how to use it, and then blaming the tool does not have much meaning. Lets look at some simple numbers: a 3.5% 30 year loan is about 60% of the original cost of the house in added interest, less in actual terms because of an interest deduction benefit. In 30 years, most homes are worth well in excess of 2x of their nominal prices 30 years ago. In the better places, the figure is as much as 6-7x in that period. In those same places, rents increase by much more than inflation because of demand. A 30 year term is your lowest cost option towards building wealth here. With any other option, you'll pay more over the same time period.

If you buy an expensive house, pay 30 year fixed and sell it 5-6 years later and say the 30 year loan is bad, it's not really an issue with the loan but your own bad choices here - buy high and pay 5% commission, pick the loan with the most frontloaded interest, and then sell for another 5% commission cost. Whoever does that has no wealthbuilding imperative anyway, so why blame the loan ?

Beyond say, $10 million net worth, most owe their wealth to business equity rather than home equity simply because they can't quite own and manage that much home, unless they buy and rent out multiple duplexes/condos etc. There are many who make the first few million out of home equity gains, some even taking out some of that equity to invest in business.

If I were a banker, I would not want to offer 30 years fixed loans. Not in this environment. It requires a huge level of faith in the monetary policy of a country for banks to offer a 30 year fixed term; in essence saying they don't expect inflation above offered rate for that long. Even US history shows average inflation higher than 3-4% over decades, particularly with the US tendency to get embroiled in regular wars.

Considering the current level of debt overhang in the world economy, future inflation is almost guaranteed - it's the only way they can lower the value of the debt effectively over the long term.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by ldev »

Meanwhile at Davos now, enjoy the $55 Cesars salad and the $43 hot dog!! Oh, to mingle with the movers and shakers of the world!!

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Gus »

my understanding is if rent > mortgage (includes property tax, maintenance, insurance, tax benefits without considering utilities which are roughly the same on both sides), then it makes sense to buy. When I r2m'd I looked to move into a house asap and did so in a few months, as rent was 1300 for a 2BR and I knew we would need a 3BR with two kids and rent would be 1500 or so. 30yr mortgage in my area was about the same with all costs included. I actually took a 15 yr mortgage as it was only up by a few hundreds and I felt I would be moving after 5 to 7 years, so wanted to build more equity (and we are better off putting that money elsewhere than keeping in checking account and spending it on crap...not a stock investing or any other investing person other than 401k at office)

if you buy a mcmansion at higher price and higher interest rates etc - then yeah you be a fool to do so. but to say homeownership as a whole is some sort of wealth draining conspiracy is ..well ..laughable.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Gus,

I didn’t say home ownership is a wealth draining concept. Don’t make straw man arguments when you are refusing to follow the argument.
-------------------------------------------

Suraj,

I did not say that it is a bad idea but that it is a wealth destroying idea. There is a reason bankers are so rich while all the folks with 30 year mortgages are getting creamed. Even at 3.5% the banker is making a bet that you will not be able to endure due to job, money, health, marriage, transfer, etc situation that you will have to get out well before then. The banker is betting that he will win and in the majority of the cases, at least he is right.

Lets take 2 hypothetical people. A Dedicates $2000 month for his home and saves $500 per month in other 8% investment. B rents at $1000 and saves $1500 pm. After 30 years A will have $500,000 home (inflated from $250,000) plus $750,000 cash for a total of $1.25 million, while B will have $2.25 Million dollars cash, just from compounding. Essentially double what A has. And keep in mind this is despite B essentially throwing away $1000 pm in rent.

Just that alone should tell you what a drag the 30 year mortgage is on wealth generation.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Suraj »

Theo, a fundamental flaw in your calculation is the fact that the buyer buys a larger home, and commits to a larger monthly payment ($2000) than the renter ($1000) . That's a fallacy, or a distortion of your argument. There's no market where the same kind of house goes for that much for any sustained period of time, definitely not 30 years. In any sane market you'll pay approximately the same cost in rent for the same size home, as you would in principal/interest/tax/insurance.

If you want to compare a $2000 payment on a 3-bedroom house to a $1000 studio apartment and say '30 year loan is bad', you're really not making a proper argument here. The reason for your calculations being the way they are is not the 30 year loan but the fact that you're comparing a thrifty rental option and a much larger purchase option to begin with.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

I took the numbers straight out of my local newspaper. Essentially 2 houses on the same street with same value. So I don’t know how you can say that is not a correct comparison. $850 (correction apologies) $945 pm to rent + utilities and ~ $250,000 lumpsum to buy. Yes I can see rental cost escalating but then I did not escalate the mortgage either for taxes, maintenance, upgrades, etc.
Last edited by Theo_Fidel on 24 Jan 2015 01:27, edited 1 time in total.
Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Gus »

You cannot extrapolate one location to everywhere. In general, in suburbs Good neighborhood good schools - 3br rent is ~ as 30 yr mortgage
Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Gus »

Local issues may distort rent and house value numbers.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Gus,

My experience is rental income is always 5%-6% of Capital value. Like you say there may be distortions from the mean, but it always returns to about 5%+- in a normal market in normal areas. Which is a P/E ratio of about 20. We would all like a lower P/E but you may not get good renters at high rates. Rent could go a lot lower if your area turns crime ridden say or your schools deteriorate. For good schools your property tax will be very heavy, no escape....

BTW India is a complete other animal.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Suraj »

Theo_Fidel wrote:I took the numbers straight out of my local newspaper. Essentially 2 houses on the same street with same value. So I don’t know how you can say that is not a correct comparison. $850 (correction apologies) $945 pm to rent + utilities and ~ $250,000 to buy. Yes I can see rental cost escalating but then I did not escalate the mortgage either for taxes, maintenance, upgrades, etc.
We are speaking of 30 years loans here. There's no way you'll find 50% rent vs buy ratio in any stable market for any extended period of time. No one owning a home is going to give you a 50% free ride like that. If they do, it's a reflection of the fact that they've been owning long enough, and the market is weak enough, that they're still coming out ahead. You absolutely should rent rather than buy, if temporary factors dictate a lopsided rent vs buy calculation in your favor.

But in any stable long term market, you'll pay more to rent, because the renter gets to pay the inflation, the property tax, maintenance and upgrades, all on the part of the buyer, while the underlying buyer holding the property at a fixed rate cost benefits from inflation working in his favor. No buyer is going to subsidize a renter in any healthy market where he can charge a premium over his original costs constantly, to pay for all his fixed AND recurring costs and still come out ahead.

In your digs, there's quite likely an oversupply of underwater houses, considering rents are so far below list prices. The houses aren't easily renting out, thus the low prices, and buying costs aren't equalized to monthly rent, suggesting someone's holding on to an expensive loan gained at the wrong time. Someone is eating the loss there, because it's not a healthy market, and an example from there does not prove the original theory about 30 year loans being bad.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Suraj,

In 35 years saar you are the first one who has ever implied that the Bay Area realty market is a healthy situation. :D Made my day. The rest of America realty is not remotely like the bay. Myt neigbhor who owns 17 properties for rent in the midwest has some pithy comments about the west coast market....

In any case my point is not the Rent/Mortgage spread. Renting is also a wealth destroyer. My point is that the 30 year home mortgage destroys the owners wealth and transfers it to the banks.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Suraj »

Theo, I would say the situation here is better your digs. There's no 50% rent vs buy distortion, simply much greater prices and rents, driven by demand. Your area cannot sustain 50% rent vs buy. Everyone with any sense will try to rent. The few owners will respond to the rental demand by raising rents, restoring equilibrium. You're simply in a place where the rental market is very weak and/or the owners are long term owners with such low fixed costs that the rents are also low, and therefore points to renting over buying.

In a healthy market rental and buying costs would be generally similar. Buyers would need to put down a substantial down payment, in exchange for which they get to fix their cost of capital for three decades. There are exceptions - say in Manhattan or rural Midwest, renting might work out cheaper over long term, for different reasons - NYC is land constrained and prices are high (as are rents, but often lower than mortgage costs IIRC). In rural areas, there's simply not a substantial rental market, holdings are long term, there's little market churn.

In general, over a 30 year period of inflation the nominal wealth gain far exceeds the amount owed to the bank. A 4.5% rate means your total interest over 30 years is ~80% of the house value before the tax benefit. Deduct that benefit, say 25%, and you pay ~60% of the house purchase price, in deflated currency, over the 30 years. Your price in year1 currency is less than half of that, assuming 3-4% inflation. With a lower rate loan, the numbers are even better.

In other words, over the 30 year period, the cost of capital of the house bought on a 30 year fixed 4.5% rate is approx 1.3x-1.35x the purchase price, in day1 dollars. All of your recurring expenses - prop taxes, insurance, maintenance, all apply in a rental situation too. If your house rises 4-5x in nominal value in that period , the difference between that 4-5x and 1.35x, less your recurring costs, is your wealth. The bank made 0.35x in constant dollars, in that time. Your gain after all recurring costs would be roughly 3x . In other words, you made 10 times the wealth the bank extracted as the cost of its capital .

If you rented the house out, your gains are even greater because someone else is paying your costs and letting you keep the gains. There are plenty of people who essentially live on a collection of real estate holdings that they acquired years ago, which earns them a constantly rising stream of rental income that more than covers their original fixed costs as well as recurring costs, everything else being their own wealth gain.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Suraj wrote:In other words, over the 30 year period, the cost of capital of the house bought on a 30 year fixed 4.5% rate is approx 1.3x-1.35x the purchase price, in day1 dollars. All of your recurring expenses - prop taxes, insurance, maintenance, all apply in a rental situation too. If your house rises 4-5x in nominal value in that period , the difference between that 4-5x and 1.35x, less your recurring costs, is your wealth. The bank made 0.35x in constant dollars, in that time. Your gain after all recurring costs would be roughly 3x . In other words, you made 10 times the wealth the bank extracted as the cost of its capital .

If you rented the house out, your gains are even greater because someone else is paying your costs and letting you keep the gains. There are plenty of people who essentially live on a collection of real estate holdings that they acquired years ago, which earns them a constantly rising stream of rental income that more than covers their original fixed costs as well as recurring costs, everything else being their own wealth gain.
I don't disagree. Once the house/property is paid down it turns into a cash machine. Just make sure you don't live there eating up the cash potential! But my comparison is high net worth individuals who are cash rich, people we would call wealthy. Almost none of them got rich by buying an expensive house and then allowing the 30 year mortgage to do its thing.

I simply can not imagine a house rising 4x-5x in 30 years in most of America. The house itself does not have that value, it is merely the land value. As you point out this can only happen in a tiny sliver of the country. My wives friend bought her house for $89,000 in 1981. Nice house, 4 bedroom, small pool in backyard, relatively good area, she sold it last year $115,000 and she paid closing costs. So tell me what sense does it make for her. This is the real situation for vast majority of Americans. This is why the middle class is broke. They got sold a bill of goods including the 30 year mortgage. The lady in the above case had a monthly payment of $530. Obviously whittle down by inflation per your calculations. But quick calculation shows, if she had instead socked it away @ 8% for 30 years she would now have ~800,000 dollars. Not counting the upfront down payment she put up.

I still go back to my straight comparison.

$1500 socked away per month @ 8% rate of return = $2.25 million
$1500 socked away per month @ house mortgage = $500,000 +- house (if lucky)
That is personal wealth destruction you are seeing there.

The person making the difference is the banker.

Another data point. The 20% down payment. On a $250,000 house. ~ $50,000.
If it is socked away @ 8% for 30 years ~ $550,000!

That is a 10x type return.
vish_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 647
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 05:07

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by vish_mulay »

Theo Suraj i am following this conversation interestingly as i am in the process to buy a property. Theo does your calculation takes in account the rent per month. I mean i get 1500 investment vs mortgage calculation but i still need place to live and will have to pay rent for that. If i do what you suggest and rent rest of my life until retirement, haven't i lost 800 USDX12 monthsX30 years to rent with nothing to show for it at the end? Furthermore since we are calculating the 30 yr return on investment,shouldn't your calculation be for 700 USD/month @8% and not the whole 1500USD? Cheers!
Last edited by vish_mulay on 24 Jan 2015 05:18, edited 1 time in total.
vish_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 647
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 05:07

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by vish_mulay »

Forgot to add i have not adjusted the monthly rent for future inflation and rise.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Suraj »

Theo_Fidel wrote:I simply can not imagine a house rising 4x-5x in 30 years in most of America. The house itself does not have that value, it is merely the land value. As you point out this can only happen in a tiny sliver of the country.
No. This is the countrywide housing price index trend:
Image
~250 in 1980, ~950 in 2010 . And that's when you compare the middle of a rising phase (1980) vs the bottom of a crash (2010). It's gone higher past 1000 since since. The only reason CPI data seems depressed is those CPI figured themselves are understated by the Fed - housing is generally just following inflationary trend.

Your quoted case is an anomaly. Bad location, no gains. It happens. But a house lets you take the gains from leveraging other people's money, in this case, the bank loan. Add periods of rental income, and you make out even better than the 4x above. Yes the bank takes the cut for letting you use other peoples' money, but you come out way on top, unless you made a bad investment.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Has that index been adjusted for existing homes. New homes have been getting bigger and bigger and commanding bigger prices. Existing homes are not seeing anything like it. In any case most of the Midwest has seen little of that appreciation.

The point to be noted to is the housing keeps up with inflation, maybe a smidge more.
And you are right it is a leveraged play. As with leveraged plays the longer you play it the worse the terms become.

------------------------------------

vish,

I would not make any decision on your house based on this discussion.
IMHO your house is your home and you should make sure you can keep it under ALL circumstances.
It is not an investment like the system markets to you.
But everyone's situation and thoughts are different. JMT etc.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Post by Suraj »

Theo_Fidel wrote:Has that index been adjusted for existing homes. New homes have been getting bigger and bigger and commanding bigger prices. Existing homes are not seeing anything like it. In any case most of the Midwest has seen little of that appreciation.
The price of living in the boonies :) That's the aggregate index, not new constructions alone. Also, that graph can be back computed to a ~5% CPI, rather more than the official rate. If you have an FRM lower than that, you're coming out on top even with your house never doing better than that.

I'd disagree with you on the leverage issue of 30 year loans. It's the term length that makes it so attractive. Just don't do something stupid like refinance into another 30 year term after 10 years... The very fact that it's going out of fashion today is an indicator that banks no longer like them. The future inflationary potential is simply too high for banks to be comfortable with 3-4% 30-year FRMs . If CPI runs at 5%, the banks are losing money on those loans. I would not be surprised if, after 2-3 years of 5%+ inflation, banks offer attractive term to leave a 30 year FRM and move into a floating rate mortgage, or try to armtwist Washington into letting them abrogate those loans unilaterally.
Post Reply