May122014
Is home ownership still the American Dream?
The housing bust tarnished the American Dream dream of home ownership, and a new generation chooses to rent instead. Is this a permanent change?
The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unincumbered by their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life.
California borrowers have created a culture of maximizing and servicing debt that makes them tenants for life. Thomas Jefferson would not recognize the concept we routinely accept as “ownership,” but he would have recognized the corruption of our lending gamblers sweeping away the fortunes and morals of our citizens.
Lenders and borrowers perverted the American Dream during the housing bubble as Americans began to define themselves by the size of their house. Wealth became confused with debt; appreciation became confused with income; credit became confused with savings. Rather than viewing the road to prosperity as one that required hard work and delayed gratification, Americans came to believe they could acheive success by simply purchasing the right house and living off the increase in its value. The new American dream required no work, no sacrifice, no experience, no expertise, and no risk, yet yielded unlimited rewards.
These perverted views of what it means to be American are so ingrained in the collective consciousness of Californians, that few remember the real American Dream.
Work hard, save money, pay off a mortgage, and live in your debt-free house on the investment income from your savings in your golden years.
In a sad way, I understand why people bought the fantasy. If offered to chose between working hard and sacrificing to obtain a goal or doing nothing and instantly gratifying all desires, most people will chose the latter. Unfortunately, reality has a way of exposing myths that are too good to be true, and the housing bust destroyed the illusions and perversions of the American Dream created by the housing bubble; unfortunately, no new mythos has yet emerged to take its place.
Why millennials rent: What do you think?
Diana Olick | @diana_olick, Wednesday, 7 May 2014 | 1:50 PM ET
The nation’s homeownership rate may be falling, but the dream of homeownership isn’t exactly dead. It is just being postponed, especially among the younger millennial generation. A far stricter credit environment is keeping them outside of homeownership for now, and as investors move out of the market, that is actually stalling the housing recovery. …
The American Dream of home ownership isn’t dead. It’s certainly more difficult to get on title these days, but the desire will always be there.
More renters now say they rent because it is a more affordable option …
Lenders today are requiring larger down payments, and mortgage insurance premiums have gone up.
“Younger renters have told us by a vast majority that they eventually want to own a home, but the road to get the mortgage financing is going to be pretty difficult,” added Fannie Mae’s Deggendorf.
I’ve documented in many posts the issues holding back demand (See: Most Millennials won’t qualify for a mortgage until 2019, Imprudent student debt debilitates Millennial home shoppers, and Typical sources of housing demand largely absent)
The days of fog-a-mirror and get-a-loan are gone for good. The bigger question is whether or not the structural problems and adjustments are merely delaying the inevitable, or if there is a grass-roots shift in attitudes toward home ownership. I do believe the current generation won’t have the unbridled enthusiasm of the previous generation — thankfully — and they will be more cautious about buying, which is a natural reaction to the carnage they witnessed, but ownership is primal, and no matter how bad lenders and government officials screw everything up, people will still want to own if it’s advantageous for them to do so. With high prices and little prospect for the above-average appreciation the Baby Boomers experienced, owning a home isn’t a “must” like it was 30 years ago, so Millennials don’t feel much urgency. Also, with realtor credibility at less than zero, Millennials aren’t as easily duped by fantasies of boundless appreciation as previous generations either.
Attitudes have also shifted along with credit availability. There is no longer a stigma to renting versus owning, among millennials at least. While previous generations preferred gated communities, young people today want to live closer to each other in urban cores. They also want amenities and work to be nearby or at least easily accessible by public transit. That is why rental development is surging now and rental demand continues to climb.
20 million U.S. families could buy homes, but don’t
May 5, 2014, 6:49 a.m. EDT, By Daniel Goldstein
Only 13% view home ownership as their “ultimate financial goal”
For Rebecca Diamond, a marketing manager in Randallstown, Md. who’s getting married this month, buying a home with her new husband would seem like the logical next step.
But she’s not even considering it.
“No interest whatsoever. I don’t want the cost and responsibility of one right now,” she says. “Let [the landlord] have all the headaches,” adds Diamond, who rents a three-bedroom condo outside of Baltimore. …
Kudos to her for being rational about home ownership. At some point, their life circumstances may change, and they may buy a house, but for now, she isn’t gripped by the irrational need to own the place her family calls home.
the National Endowment for Financial Education released a poll this week that showed only 13% of Americans considered home ownership as their “top long term financial goal,” down from 17% in 2011.
“The American dream has long been associated with the gratification and security of a comfortable home within the picturesque borders of a white-picket fence,” said Ted Beck, president and CEO of the NEFE, which is based in Denver. “However, today the perceived importance of home ownership appears to be waning.”
Instead, according to the poll, a whopping 50% said that their sole long term financial goal was to save enough for retirement, up from 43% three years earlier …
If Americans accept that buying a home is not the sole means for providing for their retirement, that is a huge step forward. Owning a house without a mortgage is a fantastic way to reduce expenses in retirement, making it a worthy part of any retirement plan. Some people during the housing bubble came to believe they could simply buy a home and live off the appreciation in their retirement. That is not a retirement plan; it’s a Ponzi scheme, and executing that plan will lead to financial anxiety in what should be your golden years.
McBride says he sees the smaller number of Americans making a home their ultimate financial goal as a good thing. “People compromise their financial goals in pursuit of home ownership and they aren’t putting enough into their retirement or their 401(k) and they end up house rich but cash poor,” he said.
Once more Americans feel financially secure about their retirement, they’ll return to the housing market, he said. “They’ve rightly felt burned by the housing bust, but five to fifteen years from now, they’ll be back.”
They will be back. Since home ownership is currently not in vogue, is fashion about to change?
Hating Homeownership
87 May 6, 2014 8:21 AM EDT, By Barry Ritholtz
U.S. homeownership falls to the lowest levels in almost 20 years, blared the headlines. Lots of articles explained “Why Your Home is Not a Good Investment” and why Americans think owning a home is better for them than it is. It seems that America’s former love affair with real estate is over.
Blame the recency effect. People have a disconcerting tendency to give more weight to what just happened than long-term trends. This is why the monthly jobs report, a very rough estimate, has such an outsize impact on the markets. This same effect is what is driving people toward renting over buying.
The public’s bad attitude toward owning right now is a contrarian sign that the home ownership rate is probably going to bottom out very soon. When every article is about the perils of home ownership, it’s probably a sign people will start buying again.
There are several issues with the current group of housing bears. Some of the assumptions in the investment aspect of this are questionable (more on this shortly). But the main issue is that too many people are looking at housing as if it is purely mathematical, which it isn’t.
I have written many posts about renting versus owning, and I put most of that writing into my rent-versus-own guide. The decision is not purely mechanical, but one of the main purposes of my work on this blog is to make sure people understand the math and know what they are getting into. I believe that is still important information for making a good homebuying decision.
There are many conclusions we can reach about homeownership: It represents control, accomplishment, a homestead. Maybe it even means Americans really love leverage. But the focus on the mathematics of homeownership misses the bigger picture.
Eventually, the memory of the recent crisis will fade. The economy will one day improve, and the millenials will move out of their parents’ basements. When that happens, expect to see homeownership rates move back higher.
The American Dream is not dead. The idea of owning a home will rise from the ashes, and the American Dream will once again include owning the roof over your head and the floor beneath your feet. Personally, I would like to see a return to the traditional view of the American Dream: truly owning a home free of any debt. That’s where peace-of-mind reunites with the American Dream.
[dfads params=’groups=3&limit=1&orderby=random’]
[listing mls=”OC14097123″]
The Great Wall of … Irvine?? 80% Of Irvine Home Sales Were To Chinese Investors.
http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/the-great-wall-of-irvine-80-of-home-sales-were-to-chinese-investors/
80% … wow that’s shockingly a high figure. If it’s real, this is going to be worse than even I thought when the reset happens.
Thats what I’m seeing with the buyers that are going through my townhome. All Chinese investors. In fact, some of the agents are so green, I’m having communication problems. Sometimes they come in packs of sixes. It’s pretty amazing.
Foreigners spent 60 Bil in US housing in 2012-2013 and continue to invest. Thats a lot of money. There are several factors for that, one US housing market took a huge hit from 2007 which lasted till 2013 and its now just coming back, then the other factor is that construction of new properties almost completely halted after the market crash and has not yet gone back in motion so the lack of inventory will haunt us for several more years and therefore the expectation for housing market to move up. The report indicates that as a positive sign for the U.S. economy and housing conditions, Americans are reportedly more optimistic about buying a home: http://www.marinhomelistings.com/blog?post=AMERICANS-READY-TO-SPEND-MONEY…ESPECIALLY-ON-HOUSING&xid=040600-02
“…80% Of Irvine Home Sales Were To Chinese Investors…”
What exactly does this statement mean? Are we talking about FCB’s from China? Are we talking about Chinese who are USA citizens? Are we talking about someone from Hong Kong who was born in China?… Are we talking about someone who married into a Chinese family? OR ??
I didn’t see one iota of information about the methodology used to collect this “data”.
I have no idea how someone would actually collect such data. I think it would be very difficult.
I think the “80%” was pulled out of thin air.
Last week, I posted a link to this article: Morgan Stanley: gold price won’t see $1,300 again
, to see who would bite.
The key data in the article is, “Signs of a drop-off in the world’s top importer of gold are already visible:
Mainland China’s net imports totaled 80.6 tonnes in March, a 27% drop compared to the 111.4 tonnes imported in February.
Compared to the same time last year the drop-off was even more stark – down 38% from the record 130 tonnes in March 2013.”
The data point I would consider to be more relevant to 2014 Chinese gold demand would be the year to date which is 694 tonnes. Yes, that is more than last year, year to date. Year over year is way higher that year over year last year at this time, but I don’t consider that figure as important. Even so, it is more important than one month compared to another or compared to a couple other.
Even if the 80% was not pulled out of thin air, how relevant is it? It is dramatic, but …
Oh yeah, Morgan Stanley is short gold, and the pog closed above $1300 3 days after MS made it’s prognostication.
“…Even if the 80% was not pulled out of thin air, how relevant is it? …”
That’s the key question. Does it matter to future price changes and volatility that a high percentage of buyers in Irvine are currently represented by foreign money?
For what it’s worth, it seems like the Great Park ads include about 80% Asians.
Yeah, I saw that and was quite surprised. When I reread it, I realized the 80% number is reported by Jeff Meyers of Meyers Research. Who is he? And what are his numbers worth?
Meyers Research
Jeff Meyers
eff MeyersPresident
Mr. Meyers brings over 20 years experience in which time he founded, built, and sold the largest market research company serving the US Homebuilding Industry, The Meyers Group. At its height, The Meyers Group grew to 21 offices and over 200 employees nationwide. After selling The Meyers Group to Hanley Wood in June 2004, he founded Meyers LLC focusing specifically on consulting.
Jeff specializes in on-going advisory services and manages all consulting assignments for several top ten public home builders through his direct involvement with land acquisition strategies, product development, segmentation, and positioning. Highly regarded as an industry expert for real estate trends and issues, Mr. Meyers is quoted frequently in several national publications including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times. His recent speaking engagements include the National Association of Home Builders Council, the Pacific Coast Builders Conference, the Southern California Building Industry Association, and the Urban Land Institute. Mr. Meyers is highly accomplished and regarded as the leading expert on residential trends in the real estate market.
Phone: (949) 640-0050 x200
Cell: (714) 319-3888
[email protected]
Yeah, I read that when I was looking up anything associated with the 80% figure. I don’t put much stock in sales presentations that people write about themselves.
US embassy cable – 10BEIJING327
MEDIA REACTION: DALAI LAMA, U.S.-CHINA TRADE RELATIONS
Identifier: 10BEIJING327
Wikileaks: View 10BEIJING327 at Wikileaks.org
Origin: Embassy Beijing
Created: 2010-02-08 08:13:00
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Tags: PREL ECON SENV KGHG KMDR OPRC CH
Redacted: This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks.
VZCZCXRO8664
RR RUEHCN RUEHGH
DE RUEHBJ #0327/01 0390813
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 080813Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY BEIJING
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8004
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RHMFIUU/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HIUNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BEIJING 000327
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/CM, EAP/PA, EAP/PD, C
HQ PACOM FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR (J007)
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL, ECON, SENV, KGHG, KMDR, OPRC, CH
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: DALAI LAMA, U.S.-CHINA TRADE RELATIONS
There are a lot of aspects to the New Deal that I think where foolish, but as far as financial and banking regulation, they got it right on. The Banking Act of 1933 (aka Glass Steagall) was right on. The Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 where right on. It was a time when politicians came together and made smart legislation to protect investors and savers, and restore confidence in the system. IT WORKED! You see, I’m in favor of smart regulation that protects society and doesn’t pick winners and losers.
But today we have a whole new system where politicians are more concerned with cronyism and filling gaps between the achievers and takers.
Meanwhile we’re getting closer to the inevitable collapse in the world economy, and NO ONE of stature is blowing the alarm. I saw Tim Geithner on CNBC this morning discussing how the economy has improved. All I hear on CNBC is an improving economy. They are ignoring the problem.
When I read stories like this, it confirms that the camel is in tent. The elephant is in the tent. The gorilla is in the tent. The world is going to hell in a hand-basket, and the powerful and connected ignoring it!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/early-tap-of-401-k-replaces-homes-as-american-piggy-bank.html
I couldn’t agree more.
I used to be anti-regulation, convinced by the success of the early deregulation efforts under Ronald Reagan, but after seeing what developed during the housing bubble, I became convinced that some good regulation is better than no regulation. Unfortunately, regulators often put bad regulation in place, which is worse than no regulation. So far, I believe Dodd-Frank will prove to be good regulation. The qualified mortgage rules and the ability to repay rules are helping stabilize the market, and they should prevent some of the wild swings we’ve seen in the past.
Your mistake was to think that Ronald Reagan had success. All banking legislation passed after 1913 is good intentional wrongs trying to modify a bigger wrong, creation of the Federal Reserve.
+1
The MOST astute observation.
GlassSteagall stopping the rot of centrally planned interest rates is akin to waving a palm frond to stop a hurricane.
This highlights how counter-educated we are as a society.
-1
Between the crash of 1929, and the financial reforms of the New Deal, there was no confidence in the system. Over 5,000 banks diapered taking uninsured deposits with them. There was no FDIC.
Also, America became the strongest nation on earth after WW2. This wasn’t a result of over-regulation.
the FDIC is the epitome of moral hazard.
FDIC has less than 1% reserves. It is an optical backstop, one that dupes depositors into banking with insolvent banks. I have an account at B of A and there is no way in hell I would put $5 on deposit there without an FDIC.
Confidence must be legitimately earned with sane lending practices and conservative leverage. Thanks in part to the FDIC we have neither.
Confidence must be legitimately earned with sane lending practices and conservative leverage. Thanks in part to the FDIC we have neither.
We had legitimate confidence for 5-6 decades after the Banking Act of 1933 was enacted. Things didn’t go bad until the bankers decided that the 3-6-3 model wasn’t sexy enough for their profits. Now our banking system is perverted and unstable. But the people who created this mess and lobbied to remove Glass Steagall will never admit to this. That’s why they should be tared and feathered when the next collapse happens.
No regulation only works if you allow complete failure. Our politicians found complete failure to be no longer politically tenable. Once failure is no longer an option heavy handed regulation becomes necessary.
Sellers Are Becoming More Aggressive in Pricing
More home sellers want to get aggressive with the pricing of their home. Forty percent of sellers say they plan to price their homes above market value, according to the latest Redfin Real-Time Seller Survey of 1,128 active home sellers across 25 U.S. cities.
That can be a risky strategy and backfire, says Paul Reid, a Redfin Riverside area real estate professional. “Buyers this year are far less tolerant of overpricing, and homes that aren’t priced appropriately are likely to sit on the market until the seller is forced to reduce the price,” says Reid about the survey results. “Buyers often interpret a price drop as a sign there is something wrong with the home, leading some to negotiate even more aggressively or lose interest altogether.” In Riverside, 30.4 percent of homes for sale had seen a price drop as of March, compared to nearly 21 percent last spring.
Fifty-one percent of home sellers say they plan to price their home in the middle range based on local comparable sales. About 8 percent say they plan to price their home low.
Thirty percent of sellers surveyed say that rising prices over the past year has made them feel more confident about the security of a home investment. Sixty percent said that the rising prices have not changed the way they feel about their home as an investment.
While more sellers say it’s a good time to sell, they do have some concerns when finding their next house. Sellers’ top concerns are affordability, competition, and low inventory in finding their next home, according to the survey.
Lenders’ credit score requirements prudently restrictive
Are lenders’ credit score requirements for home buyers this spring too high — out of sync with the actual risks of default presented by today’s borrowers? The fools say yes.
What fools? The developers of the credit scores used by virtually all mortgage lenders. Executives at both FICO, creator of the dominant credit score used in the mortgage industry, and up-and-coming competitor VantageScore Solutions confirmed that mortgage lenders could reduce today’s historically high score requirements without raising their risks of loss. In the process, many prospective buyers who currently can’t qualify might get a shot at a loan approval.
Consider this: Consumer behavior in handling credit is subject to change over time, often keyed to regional or national economic conditions. Credit scores that were acceptable risks in the early 2000s — say FICOs in the 640-to-680 range — turned into larger-than-anticipated losers when the recession hit. Now that the housing rebound is well underway and federal regulators have imposed tighter standards on income verification and debt ratios, the high credit score “cutoffs” that virtually all mortgage lenders imposed in the scary aftermath of the crash are stricter than necessary.
A study last year by the Urban Institute and Moody’s Analytics estimated that every 10-point reduction in mandatory credit scores on mortgages increases the pool of potential borrowers 2.5%. A 50-point cut in score requirements, researchers found, would increase potential home purchases 12.5% — more than 12.5 million households.
At least one major bank has concluded that lowering scores is the way to go. Wells Fargo recently announced reductions in minimum acceptable scores for conventional loans to 620 from 660. The bank earlier lowered the acceptable score threshold for FHA loans to 600.
Could this signal the start of some fresh thinking on credit scores, a trend that other large lenders will pick up on? Let’s see. If they do so, it should be a huge taxpayer bailout for you to pay for.
At least one major bank has concluded that lowering scores is the way to go. Wells Fargo recently announced reductions in minimum acceptable scores for conventional loans to 620 from 660. The bank earlier lowered the acceptable score threshold for FHA loans to 600.
There seems to be a disconnent between this fact and the MBA survey that says credit isn’t loosening at all or has even tightened lately. Wells is the largest lender by volume so this one change alone should mean the credit market is looser by about a third. Something in the survey methodology is masking the real trends.
It does not sound like Wells Fargo is holding those loans on their books and so they cannot be credited with “lowering” credit score requirements. The FHA and GSE are allowing them to underwrite lower credit score loans which they will insure.
Keith Jurow lives in Connecticut. His bearish outlook will prove correct in the Northeast. The “expert” quoted in this article will be wrong.
Connecticut Home Sales Rise, Prices Drop in March
Single-family home sales in Connecticut increased year-over-year in March, marking the 11th consecutive annual increase, according to the Warren Group. Meanwhile, the state’s median home price experienced its first downward slide since June 2012.
Prices slipped 8.2 percent year-over-year in March, sliding down from $245,000 to $225,000. March’s decline made for a 2.1 percent price decline for the first quarter in Connecticut.
However, Timothy M. Warren Jr., CEO of the Warren Group, called March’s price drop “an aberration of data and not the start of a new trend.”
“The continued increase in the number of single-family homes is evidence that the market continues to recover,” he said.
Sales of single-family homes increased 3.2 percent over the year in March and 2.9 percent over the first quarter.
March single-family home sales totaled 1,583, and single-family home sales over the first quarter totaled 4,198.
Condominiums followed a similar trend as single-family homes in Connecticut in March – with prices falling and sales rising.
Connecticut’s condo sales increased 8.1 percent over the year in March and 4.9 percent in the first quarter compared to the same quarter a year ago.
Condo sales totaled 442 in March, and the median price for those condos was $154,000, down from $160,000 in March of last year, according to the Warren Group.
“Keith Jurow lives in Connecticut. His bearish outlook will prove correct in the Northeast.”
Really? His outlook caused him to say things like:
“How would you feel if you bought the property and then discovered it was worth half what you paid two years from now? Pretty terrible, I suppose. That’s where New York City’s markets are headed. I have little doubt of that.”
Do you really think this will “prove correct”???
I’m not here to defend Kieth’s more dire predictions.
The Northeast didn’t experience the deflation of the housing bubble because so few foreclosures were processed. Can-kicking at the banks have removed this distressed inventory from the market, but eventually these bad loans will have to be resolved. Will that cut prices in half? I doubt it, but I didn’t make any such prediction. Keith sees the distressed loan problem most housing analysts ignore, and if the banks were to process these bad loans through foreclosure, prices would almost certainly drop considerably. Personally, I think they will can-kick endlessly to keep prices up, but Keith has a different view.
“Will that cut prices in half? I doubt it, but I didn’t make any such prediction.”
I understand its not your prediction. Still, when you make an open ended statement vis a vis “his bearish outlook will prove correct” you can understand why I asked.
“Keith sees the distressed loan problem most housing analysts ignore, and if the banks were to process these bad loans through foreclosure, prices would almost certainly drop considerably.”
Do you really think other analysts “ignore” the problem? Or do they just fall into the “can-kick endlessly” camp the way you do?
The bad ones ignore the problem, and there are many of those. The good ones, including Bill McBride, Chris Whalen, and others fall into the “can-kick endlessly” camp. The good ones at least acknowledge reality and recognize the potential problem. The bad ones blithely assume everything will work itself out by magic. It’s astonishing how many bad ones make a name for themselves and get quoted by a media hungry for positive spin.
Why?
And especially why, if the Fed took them off the bank’s hands and books?
If the pain is not felt by the creditor, it will be socialized to the saver.
The pain was created when the loan was made; and it will be felt.
“I would like to see a return to the traditional view of the American Dream: truly owning a home free of any debt”. That will never happen again, because it doesn’t benefit the banks.
When people stop believing that what’s good for the banks is good for America, then we really will be back to Jefferson’s vision of the American dream.
I think the Jefferson quote is taken out of context. He inherited a lot of debt and also co-signed on some debt for friends. None of this debt was dischargable because bankruptcy laws did not yet exist.
I don’t think Jefferson’s quote is out of context at all; in fact, I would argue his personal experience with debt and bankers shaped his opinion that comes through in his prescient quote.
“It’s just being postponed…”
Tally up about $80K in undergrad student debt on your own. Go out and land an entry level job. Now meet that special girl and get married. Add on her $50-100K of student debt onto yours. Add in the credit card debt which was used by both of you to “live off of” during school and the transition. Now tack on two auto loans and…wait a minute, how much do we need to put down for a SFH in OC again?
Yep, the downpayment is the biggest hurdle, but the 43% back-end DTI is the next huge hurdle.
FHA effectively negates those two hurdles.
The younger generation is postponing marriage more than prior generations. I think this is another factor behind the decision to postpone buying. Yes, there are singles who want to buy and some do, but in general I think marrieds are more likely to buy. Cohabiting couples don’t want to buy because that’s like getting married…it speaks of permanence. I also think younger people are not as willing to sacrifice big time to own a home. They want their lifestyle NOW…not after they’ve paid down the mortgage or build up equity. It used to be when people bought their first home they really had to cut back on the consumption of other things for a while because the mortgage was such a big commitment.
The younger generation has it right. Live now because there will be nothing to look foward to when they get older; no pension, no social security, no healthcare ( look at Great Britain cocoa liked health care, that will be the us in 10 years), and no younger generation to pay for senior services…oh and much higher taxes.
this sheds light on the insidious nature of inflation, ZIRP, and socialization of services AND how it manifests in average citizens’ mindsets.
saving bears no fruit, retirement seems an impossibility, gov cannibalizes economy, and the younger people create phrases such as Y.O.L.O. (you only live once). spend it now, live it up, are going to be poor anyway so F it.
Damn iPad: I meant socialized healthcare…not cocoa..wtf?
I know Apple is the darling of liberals… Perhaps a subtle bit of censorship? 🙂
I was wondering where cocoa fit in to your comment…
Macneil Curry advises “It is time to sell Gold”
“It is time to sell Gold. The range trade / consolidation of the past month is drawing to a conclusion. Further gains should not exceed 1315.70 (May-05 high) AND CAN’T EXCEED the Mar-14 high at 1331.”
No gains above $1315 and
Can’t exceed $1331
When a high percentage of market pundits start saying it’s time to sell, that’s a huge buy signal.
[…] Is homeownership still the American Dream? […]
[…] For the last several years, the housing recovery meme included the widespread belief that everyone still wanted to own a home and the recession was holding back the inevitable flood of buyers. But is that true? Is home ownership still the American Dream? […]