Morning Report: Housing Affordability falls 9/22/15

Stocks are lower this morning on overseas weakness and slumping commodity prices. Bonds and MBS are up.

Slow news day.

House prices rose  0.6% in July, according to the FHFA. They are now within 1.1% of their March 2007 peak. The Mountain states performed the best, while the Northeast performed the worst.

The Richmond Fed Manufacturing Index fell in September. The strong dollar is hurting manufacturing.

Scott Walker dropped out of the Republican presidential campaign yesterday. His staffers went to the Rubio campaign, which tells you how the pros are reading the tea leaves with respect to the Republican presidential nomination.

Housing affordability is the lowest since 2008, as the median house price to median income ratio becomes stretched again. Affordability peaked between 2011 and 2013, however professional investors were the ones in a position to take advantage of it. Credit conditions continue to improve, but are still a fraction of what they were pre-crisis.

The big banks are backing away from the FHA market, citing regulation and worries about giving loans to 520 FICO borrowers who only put 3.5% down. Separately, Ginnie Mae is worried about the fact that small independent mortgage bankers are filling the void left by the big banks. The industry is concerned that the big bank withdrawal is hurting the housing recovery.

22 Responses

  1. Frist you! Frist you all!

    Like

    • McWing (from the article):

      We’ve found that with each accusation, the brain releases dopamine which diminishes any racist thoughts the accuser may have.

      They buried the lead. Apparently these “scientists” have discovered a method of reading minds.

      Like

  2. Simply could not resist posting this for McWing:

    The Associated Press took a stance on climate change on Tuesday and announced a policy that mandates stronger descriptions of people who doubt global warming is real: “those who reject mainstream climate science.”

    Because the AP’s writing style is commonly used by newspapers and other news outlets nationwide, the decision could have a significant impact on the way climate change is discussed. The organization published a memo from three editors about the decision.

    “We are adding a brief description of those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces,” the memo said. “Our guidance is to use, ‘climate change doubters’ or ‘those who reject mainstream climate science’ and to avoid the use of, ‘skeptics’ or ‘deniers.'”

    Like

    • “those who reject mainstream climate science.”

      Pure, unadulterated political propaganda. As McWing pointed out, virtually no one doubts “climate change” since the climate has always been changing. Besides which, the likelihood that even a single person at the AP has the slightest clue as to which positions represent “mainstream” climate science is close to nil.

      BTW, can anyone think of any other “science” subject which has been the subject of so much “news” coverage that a news organization has been compelled to make it a part of their stylebook?

      Like

      • “Creationism”

        I assume there have been choice words – it probably is the one issue that is above all others, including “abortion” and SSM, in defining for non-fundamentalists who is on the “other” side.

        That is because there are certainly non-fundamentalists who oppose easy abortion and who oppose SSM on other grounds.

        But there are no non-fundamentalists who push “creationism” as a preferred legit biology hypothesis.

        Like

        • Mark:

          “Creationism”

          I wouldn’t call creationism a subject of science, nor, I suspect, would even those who profess it.

          Perhaps Intelligent Design? I wonder, though, if it really is an AP (or NYT) stylebook policy to characterize promoters of ID in a specific manner. Maybe, I have no idea, but I would imagine that they characterize such people as simply proponents of Intelligent Design, not “those who reject mainstream evolutionary theory”.

          Like

  3. If there’s one thing science tells us it’s to trust the reporters writing about their religion, er, climate science.

    I bet the reproducibility of climate studies is something approaching double digits.

    Like

  4. Plus, it had to be changed, no rational person thinks the climate isn’t changing, when’s it ever been stagnant? It was dumb and they got prison raped for it.

    But it’s journalists so I don’t expect accuracy, ya know?

    Like

  5. I have 2 VW diesels. I’m not inclined to get them fixed.

    Like

  6. No one need ever take Democrats complaints about unfair or dishonest personal attacks seriously ever again.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/23/oh-no-rich-collector-of-historical-items-has-items-by-and-about-bad-people/

    Like

  7. The victimhood fetish really has jumped the shark.

    “Jews in America struggled for decades to become white. Now we must give up whiteness to fight racism.

    Let’s teach our children that we are, in fact, not white, but simply Jewish.
    By Gil Steinlauf September 22”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/09/22/jews-in-america-struggled-for-generations-to-become-white-now-we-must-give-up-that-privilege-to-fight-racism/

    Like

  8. Speculation on what occurred before the Big Bang is creationism, no?

    Speculation on if the universe is infinite is creationism?

    Speculation on how life began is…

    Like

    • McWing:

      Speculation on what occurred before the Big Bang is creationism, no?

      I think only certain kinds of speculation, ie that involving a divine creator, is creationism. Although I suspect that many people use the term to mean simply “any idea about the history of the earth that I want to ridicule”.

      Like

  9. “No one need ever take Democrats complaints about unfair or dishonest personal attacks seriously ever again.”

    Wow, that is Olbermann-esque…

    Like

  10. ““We are adding a brief description of those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces,” the memo said. “Our guidance is to use, ‘climate change doubters’ or ‘those who reject mainstream climate science’ and to avoid the use of, ‘skeptics’ or ‘deniers.’””

    What if you agree the climate is changing, but reject the doomsday scenarios put out by the left?

    I swear, environmentalism is becoming a religion.

    Like

    • Brent:

      I swear, environmentalism is becoming a religion.

      I think it has always been that. The real trouble is that 1) it is a growing religion that has increasingly captured both the government and the media and 2) it is being used by political movements with other motives to achieve ends that they could never achieve on the merits.

      It’s not for nothing that the environmentalists have been labelled watermelons…green on the outside, red on the inside.

      Like

  11. “those who reject mainstream climate science” is not entirely inaccurate, as “those who reject mainstream eugenics” would have also been accurate back when eugenics was all the rage. A lack of distinction between was “consensus” science is vs. hard science that can, you know, be tested is more of the issue there. Climate change doubters seems far too ambiguous. Few of the people who disagree with “mainstream climate doomsday scenarios” actually believe in a steady state theory where the climate never changes.

    But . . . most of those folks, in truth, do not reject mainstream client science as a whole so much as the conclusion of “mainstream client scientists” in terms of causation and apocalyptic predictions. Requiring, of course, immediate government remediation with concomitant taxation and regulation.

    Like

  12. “I swear, environmentalism is becoming a religion.”

    Specifically, the AGW branch. I’ve referred to it as The First Church of Climate Change. It’s a narcissistic viewpoint the puts man in the center of the universe, and requires moral transformation of its members. It includes the obligation to witness and proselytize, tithing (of course), condemn and pillory the heretics, and interprets every occurrence (hurricane, a very hot day) through the lens of an angry Climate God that is punishing us for our SUVs, so that the bad behavior of infidels becomes the reason the Climate God decided to send a hurricane or a flood or a drought. Only by sacrificing virgins elements of contemporary lifestyle (and our money) can we placate the vengeful Climate God.

    Like

  13. Put another way, the cult of climate change fills a certain psychological need for quasi-religious/mystical need for spiritualism, moral-superiority, a sense of significant place in the universe, and prediction of armageddon that religions once filled.

    Like

  14. “Put another way, the cult of climate change fills a certain psychological need for quasi-religious/mystical need for spiritualism, moral-superiority, a sense of significant place in the universe, and prediction of armageddon that religions once filled.”

    Which explains why Progressivism is a religion, with the State as God.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: