Feb182014
Most Millennials won’t qualify for a mortgage until 2019
The next generation of homebuyers, Millennials, have too much debt to buy their first homes. As a result, first-time homebuyer participation is at near-record lows, and the situation isn’t likely to change any time soon.
The typical sources of housing demand are largely absent; in particular, first-time homebuyer participation is at near-record low levels. First-time bomebuyers only make up 29% of the market today, compared to 40% in normal times, and without first-time homebuyers, long-term homeowners are unable to execute move-up trades. This causes sales volumes to flag across all market segments, which is what we’re seeing now.
Some point to the lack of first-time homebuyers as a significant source of pent-up demand; for example, more Millennials are living at home than any generation in recent history. Perhaps that generation will step forward and begin buying houses, but they face some significant headwinds which may keep them out of the market for many years: high unemployment, stagnant wages, large student loan debts, excessive consumer debts (credit cards and car loans).
Assuming Millennials find jobs, to become prospective homebuyers, they must save enough money to provide a down payment. I wrote the Renter’s guide to preparing for home ownership to address this issue. A disciplined saver willing to sacrifice current consumption can save for a 3.5% down payment in just under two years — two years at a minimum, and that’s only for the most disciplined and least indebted. Unfortunately, most people upon getting a new job go lease a new car and max out their credit cards. That behavior takes them out of the housing market for many more years.
Another difficult and time consuming task for the younger generation is to pay down debts to fit within the 43% back-end DTI cap. Even if they have the qualifying income and the down payment, if they have too much debt, they won’t get a house. As I mentioned above, many take on car leases and consumer debt, but the larger problem is with student loans.
Most potential homebuyers with the income to afford a house went to college to get a high-paying job; in the process, the likely acquired a huge student loan debt. It may take five, ten or twenty years to pay down this debt enough to qualify for a house. In what can only be described as another appalling example of bail-out mentality ruining America, some are suggesting we forgive these student loan debts so this generation can take on mortgage debts. Since student loan debts are all taxpayer backed, that money would come out of your pocket. Of course, short of massive debt forgiveness, this student loan debt will be a long-term drag on housing. And right now, the housing market needs more demand.
First-time home buyers already burdened by debt often need help to qualify for mortgages
By Kenneth R. Harney, Published: February 12
Parents, grandparents and young adults know the problem only too well: Heavy student-debt loads, persistent employment troubles stemming from the recession and newly toughened mortgage underwriting standards are all standing in the way of potential first-time home buyers in their 20s and 30s. …
First, some sobering numbers:
- Citing Census Bureau data on homeownership by age, demographer Chris Porter of John Burns Real Estate Consulting calculates that Americans who were 30 to 34 years old in 2012 — those born between 1978 and 1982 — had the lowest homeownership rate of any similarly aged group in recent decades, 47.9 percent. By contrast, Americans born between 1948 and 1957 had a 57.1 percent ownership rate by the time they hit the 30-to-34 age bracket. The figure for 2012 comes despite record low mortgage rates and bumper crops of bargain-priced foreclosures and short sales.
(See: Long-term weakness in housing: a generation of missing homebuyers)
- Debt-to-income ratios increasingly are mortgage-application killers for would-be first-timers. The new federal 43 percent maximum debt-to-income ratio for “qualified mortgages,” a standard that was adopted nationwide last month, is particularly poorly timed for young purchasers. Because of large student debts, which average $21,402 but sometimes balloon into six figures, they may not be able to meet the standard for years.
Typically they’re already paying out large amounts on credit cards, auto loans or leases and student debt — about 30 percent of current monthly income for those age 21 to 30 as of 2012, according to a new report from research economist Gay Cororaton of the National Association of Realtors. Factoring in the cost of a typical mortgage for an entry-level purchase, the debt-to-income ratio as of 2012 for these individuals exceeded 60 percent, Cororaton estimates. Even with a 5 percent increase in income per year, they would not be able to qualify under the 43 percent debt-to-income test until 2019.
Lenders brought this problem onto themselves. When lenders embraced Ponzis during the credit bubble of the 00s, lenders competed with each other to see who could load borrowers up with more debts first. Since it was a giant Ponzi scheme, there we no regulatory or self-imposed limits on the amount of debt provided to eager Ponzis. It wasn’t until the Ponzi scheme collapsed that lenders faced the facts: not just weren’t Ponzis capable of paying back the debt, they weren’t even capable of servicing the debt they were given unless some other lender gave them more debt to make debt-service payments — the essence of a Ponzi scheme. Without the free money flowing into the hands of Ponzis, consumer spending dried up, and the economy experienced the worst drought in 80 years.
The solution to the problem was obvious: debt had to be limited to what borrowers could afford to repay without more Ponzi debt, but whose ox was to be gored? Credit cards? Nope. Student loans? Nope. Car Loans? Nope. The only limit put on lending of any kind was an overall cap on debt-to-income ratios imposed on home loans. So while other forms of debt continued largely unabated, each of these loans took away from the limit imposed on mortgage debt; consequently, purchase mortgage applications continue in the doldrums, first-time homebuyer participation is near record lows, and nobody has a good solution to the problem.
realtors have a solution: loosen mortgage standards. Some politicians even agree with this foolishness, but so far cooler heads prevail. Loosening mortgage standards, particularly the 43% DTI limit merely allows lenders to inflate another unstable Ponzi Scheme. Loading borrowers up with more debts than they can handle merely leads to another painful credit crunch. Others have propose widespread debt forgiveness, to help borrowers get DTIs back under control. This is tantamount to giving irresponsible borrowers a free pass; moral hazard dictates this will lead to even more irresponsible borrowing.
Millennial borrowers must reduce their debt loads. They could declare bankruptcy and start over; however, that solution that does not solve their student debt problems, nor does it increase the speed at which they qualify for a mortgage. Millennials could solicit gifts from relatives (as the full article above suggests), but how realistic is that? Not everyone comes from a wealthy family, and even some that have wealthy relatives either would not ask or might not be given such a gift. Free money from family is not the solution. Realistically, Millennials will need to work, sacrifice, and pay off their debts without incurring new ones if they are ever to qualify for a mortgage. Any shortcuts to this end will be disastrous — not that realtors won’t lobby for disastrous shortcuts. We can only hope politicians are wise enough not to give in to the bad alternatives that may hasten a new and painful housing bubble.
[dfads params=’groups=164&limit=1′]
6964 East OVERLOOK Anaheim Hills, CA 92807
$2,400,000 …….. Asking Price
$600,000 ………. Purchase Price
4/10/1991 ………. Purchase Date
$1,800,000 ………. Gross Gain (Loss)
($192,000) ………… Commissions and Costs at 8%
============================================
$1,608,000 ………. Net Gain (Loss)
============================================
300.0% ………. Gross Percent Change
268.0% ………. Net Percent Change
6.2% ………… Annual Appreciation
Cost of Home Ownership
——————————————————————————
$2,400,000 …….. Asking Price
$480,000 ………… 20% Down Conventional
4.77% …………. Mortgage Interest Rate
30 ……………… Number of Years
$1,920,000 …….. Mortgage
$494,469 ………. Income Requirement
$10,039 ………… Monthly Mortgage Payment
$2,080 ………… Property Tax at 1.04%
$0 ………… Mello Roos & Special Taxes
$500 ………… Homeowners Insurance at 0.25%
$0 ………… Private Mortgage Insurance
$155 ………… Homeowners Association Fees
============================================
$12,774 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays
($2,267) ………. Tax Savings
($2,407) ………. Principal Amortization
$872 ………….. Opportunity Cost of Down Payment
$320 ………….. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves
============================================
$9,292 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership
Cash Acquisition Demands
——————————————————————————
$25,500 ………… Furnishing and Move-In Costs at 1% + $1,500
$25,500 ………… Closing Costs at 1% + $1,500
$19,200 ………… Interest Points at 1%
$480,000 ………… Down Payment
============================================
$550,200 ………. Total Cash Costs
$142,400 ………. Emergency Cash Reserves
============================================
$692,600 ………. Total Savings Needed
[raw_html_snippet id=”property”]
4 signs the real estate market is in trouble
The strength of the real estate market should not be measured by price appreciation, or the number of new and existing home sales. It should be measured by the support of underlying fundamentals and whether they can help to withstand economic cycles without policy makers having to go hog wild just to avoid a total collapse.
How healthy is the real estate market today?
1. The Subprime Majority
Recently, I came across a report by the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) titled Assets and Opportunity Scorecard. Some of their findings are quite interesting. According to the CFED Scorecard, 56% of all consumers have sub-prime credit. Sub-prime is “earned”. A consumer has to miss a few payments, or default on a loan or two to earn that status. These 56% cannot, or should not, be taking on more debt, especially a large debt like a mortgage. They may also be struggling with a mortgage that they should not have taken out in the first place.
And with so few companies willing to loosen credit standards, even the worthy subprime don’t have many options.
2. Liquid Asset Poor
CFED found that 44% of households in America are Liquid Asset Poor, defined as having saved less than three months of expenses. As one would expect, 78% of the lowest income households are asset poor, but 25% of middle class ($56k to $91k) households also have less than three months of expenses saved.
How much of a down payment can you expect them to have on hand?
3. The Federal Reserve is Spent
QE1, 2 and 3 all involved the purchase of agency MBS. In January 2014, the FOMC announced that it will decrease debt purchases by another $10 billion, from the original $85 billion to $65 billion per month, $30 billion of which is supposed to be for agency MBS. That appears to be all talk. For the first six weeks of 2014, the Fed has already purchased $74.7 billion, or $54 billion per month. They are not only continuing the QE3 purchases, they are still replenishing the prepaid holdings from QE1 and QE2. Mortgage rates are not responding anymore. Though somewhat stabilized, the current rate (30yr) is still a full percent above the low recorded before QE3.
Furthermore, Fed members are only kidding themselves if they think they can ever tighten monetary policy. The national debt is at $17.3 trillion and growing at about $700 billion this year. The cost of financing this debt, per the Treasury, was $415.7 billion in 2013, crudely estimated at an average rate of about 2.5%. At the moment, the 3 months bill is at less than 0.2% interest, while the 10 year note is only at 2.75%. If the cost of financing this debt were to increase by just 1%, it would cost the Treasury $173 billion more a year. There is no way that the dovish Fed chair Yellen would even dream of doing that.
Therefore, the risk of monetary policy is not whether the Fed will tighten, but rather what it can do to repeat a 2008 style bailout. In other words, the Fed as a safety net is full of holes that are big enough for an elephant to pass through.
Finally, the government itself is tapped out.
4. Exhausted Government Intervention
The FHFA just announced that HARP has reached the 3 million mark. We are no closer to reforming Freddie and Fannie than when they were put under conservatorship over five years ago. Numerous state and local governments have deployed their own foreclosure prevention laws and ordinances. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has created a mountain of bureaucratic red tape, adding compliance costs to the mortgage industry while providing questionable benefits to the consumer. The FHA is now pushing for lending to borrowers with credit scores as low as 580 only one year after major financial catastrophes such as foreclosure.
In conclusion, the reason I remain bearish on real estate is that when the noise is filtered out, the market has only survived by means of an unprecedented amount of intervention. This dependency is not only unhealthy, its stimulating effect is now fading. If real estate prices cease to appreciate, the market will suffer, same as it did when the sub-prime bubble burst in 2006/2007. The Fed has already gone all in and there is little left it can do. Washington can always create a new set of laws to further erode private property rights as we knew them. Ironically, price appreciation is also not the answer, as it will just widen the income equality gap, turning would-be home owners into rent slaves of Wall Street’s fat cats. It may be best for the market to freeze for an extended period and let consumers catch their breath.
The question becomes – do Yellen and the rest of Washington have the stones to allow the short-term pain needed to bring back a little balance to the Force here, or will they charge once more at the windmills?
Wells Fargo May Loosen Credit Requirements
According to a report by Reuters, Wells Fargo is looking to re-enter the subprime mortgage market by lowering its standards of acceptable credit scores for borrowers. Wells Fargo is the largest U.S. mortgage lender, and a move back into subprime mortgages may signal a sizable shift in the mortgage lending environment.
Wells Fargo is interested in customers with credit scores as low as 600, notes the report. Its prior limit was 640, often regarded as the limit between mortgages that are considered prime and subprime. Credit scores range from 300 to 850.
Other large banks, however, seem reticent to follow Wells Fargo’s lead, remaining cautious about any return to the subprime market. Lenders are wary of subprime mortgages, due in large part to the passage of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Law. If mortgage borrowers don’t meet the law’s eight criteria to qualify for a mortgage and later default on a loan, a borrower can sue the lender and argue the loan should have never been made.
Lenders venturing back into the high-risk loans market are even using a subtle marketing trick to assuage fear and spur demand—subprime loans become “another chance mortgages” or “alternative mortgages,” shedding the stigmatized “subprime” label.
Incentivized by rising mortgage rates, lenders have plenty of reasons to target borrowers with lower credit scores. Rising rates are expected to reduce U.S. lending by 36 percent in 2014, according to the Mortgage Bankers Associations (MBA) forecast, due to a large drop in refinancings.
Wells Fargo is looking to lend to borrowers with weaker credit, but only under the condition the mortgages can be guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Since the loans would be backed by the government, Wells Fargo can package them to sell to investors as bonds.
Subprime mortgages were at the center of the financial crisis, but many lenders believe that with proper controls the risky business ventures can be properly contained and generate profit.
I don’t understand how “Wells is loosening standards” when it really just sounds like they’re reaching deep into the FHA “talent pool” to originate more FHA loans.
I agree with Perspective they are loosening nothing. They are just writing the highest credit risk loans they are able too as long as they can hand off the risk to somebody else. It’s completely sickening.
Loosening credit standards should mean they are writing subprime loans and keeping the entire note on their own books.
Bank of America to Cut More Mortgage Jobs
Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. lender, is cutting 450 mortgage jobs from its West Coast offices. The lending giant is reducing staff after new loan production fell short of internal forecasts.
In a report by Bloomberg, affected employees were told Wednesday that workers involved in processing home loans would be let go. California locations that will lose workers include an office in Concord; an office in Pasadena will be shutdown entirely.
Terminations are effective immediately, and employees will receive salaries for 2 months and be eligible for severance pay, said sources familiar with the proceedings.
“These notifications have been ongoing and reflect our previously announced efforts to reduce our size, resolve legacy issues and simplify our company,” said Dan Frahm, a spokesman for Bank of America. The lender is still hiring in non-mortgage areas, and some employees will find jobs in other parts of the firm, he said.
This is the fourth time in a year that Bank of America has reduced personnel amid reduced demand for home loans. The firm cut 3,000 employees involved in making home loans in the last quarter of 2013. Other offices closed this year include Las Vegas, Nevada and St. Charles, Missouri.
Retail originations sank 49 percent to $11.6 billion in the fourth quarter, said CFO Bruce Thompson on January, 15.
Bank of America employed about 242,000 people as of December 31, 2013.
California is experiencing a drought. I doubt if too many folks will argue that, even if they argue the effects, consequences, and solutions.
If drought conditions are a given, they why are cities and counties still issuing water permits for new housing?
Drought
Agriculture uses by far the largest amount of water. The water consumed by cities is not really a problem.
It is at the margin. Any water use above what is readily accessible is a problem. It does not matter where it is used. Therefore, if water supply is a problem, stop the issuing of more water usage.
There are portions of California in which accessibility to water is not an issue. It is a huge issue in Southern Cal. Almost all of the water her is transported by aquaduct and that water is limited. Again, part of the solution is to stop issuing permits which exacerbates the existing problem.
Why don’t we stop all immigration to California? That would stop any increase in water demand. Perhaps we should stop Californian’s from having babies? That would also stop any increase in water demand.
Your argument sounds like one of the silly rants made by anti-growth activists.
First, droughts, like floods, are cyclical events. If we manage our resources properly, and conserve during brief periods of drought, we don’t need to consider foolish ideas like stopping all water usage. If we are not prepared for a drought, then we need to revisit our management techniques.
Water use on new builds is drastically lower per capita than existing builds. We need to levy higher rates on larger parcels or get highly progressive on rates, just as we do with electricity. Today, larger parcels get higher baselines. This makes no sense.
Part of the solution is also to stop subsidizing water purchase for agriculture. Let ag pay market price. There is no reason why Californians need to subsidize the rest of the country’s food prices.
This will never happen and would quickly reveal the emperors lack of clothing.
Homebuilder Confidence Crashes By Most On Record
Surprise! For the 3rd time in the last 20 years, homebuilder sentiment got way ahead of reality… and as the February NAHB data shows, reality is starting to catch up to them. The NAHB sentiment index crashed by its most on record in Feb and missed expectations by its most on record as it starts to play cyclical catch-down to home sales and mortgage apps. Think it’s the weather? nope…It’s across every region (with The West dropping the most – hot dry weather?) And this after Trulia (that entirely independent provider of perspective) said ” Severe winter weather may cause housing activity to wobble, but cold, rain, and snow won’t hobble the housing recovery.” It appears it has…
Next month they will be touting the biggest increase on record.
It’s not a question of ‘if’ the ponzi will collapse, but ‘when’; ie., outsourcing labor used to go to Mex, then India, then China. Now, it’s going to robots.
I went to a restaurant last week where you could either wait in line to order (as at fast food restaurants) or you could slide your credit card through an attachment on an iPad and order your food that way. After you ordered on the iPad you reached for a pager in a stack and entered the number of the pager into the iPad. When your food was ready your pager beeped. If you worked close enough to the restaurant (it is in the Downtown LA Financial District) you could order your food over the internet and when your food is ready you will get an e-mail.
There used to be a Taco Bell on PCH, north of the pier in Huntington Beach. I remember back in the 90’s they experimented with touchscreen ordering at the drive thru. It didn’t work. Maybe things are different now that touchscreens are much more prevalent, but I think people still dislike being asked to do the work that a live human being used to do for them.
Millennial here. My husband and I just opened escrow on our first house last week. We are the first of our friends to do so, and we’re both 27 years old. We have 20% down and both have jobs ( although mine is contract which caused some problems when trying to get a loan). I did think about asking my grandparents trust for a private loan, but I decided against it.
We hope we are making good decision, my parents seem to be worried about the equity potential of the house,it’s a small craftsman bungalow in a good neighborhood in Santa Ana. Unfortunately, we just missed affordability in Costa Mesa which is where we want to be, but SFR are out of our reach now.
I think debt is less of an issue for our friends, but jobs and wages are the prevailing worry. We’re both college educated, I have a masters, but we still feel like we’re struggling to make any wage gains. It’s kind of a miracle and luck that were in the position to buy at all.
I don’t know what my point is, maybe just to relieve some anxiety of making such a large purchase. it’s a little terrifying not knowing if you’re making a good decision, especially when it’s something that should be a “no brainer” like buying real estate.
Congratulations First timer! Yes, there is much anxiety for anyone with such a large purchase, especially your first one.
Congratulations. Anxiety and fear is normal. It should wear off a little in time, particularly as you adjust to your new abode and dealing with that crazy new landlord. Oh wait a minute, that new landlord is you! LOL.
I don’t know that the anxiety ever subsides completely though, unless you pay it alll off.
I bought my first home over a decade later than you did. Homedebtor at 27 is impressive. Most of my friends at 27 were idiots, blowing their savings dough on motorcycles, loud exhaust systems, deep dish wheels for their SUVs and fishing boats. Priorities, man, priorities.
As long as you don’t treat your house like an ATM (a favorite SoCal past-time and vice, talked about considerably on this blog), then you’ll probably do alright.
I share your assessment of “jobs and earnings” prevailing well over any concerns about debt. The economic climate remains very uncertain and fluid for the majority of people, including the middle class and upper middle class.
Again congratulations.
Awesome. I wish you all the best. Just don’t be like the generations before you and drunk equity. Pay that loan down.
“Americans who were 30 to 34 years old in 2012 — those born between 1978 and 1982 — had the lowest homeownership rate of any similarly aged group in recent decades, 47.9 percent.”
Well these were the people that were first time buyers in 2004-2007 and many of them got burned, turning them back into renters. The current 30 to 34 year old cohort has had to start over, and many have all of the same problems as Millenials — high debt and poor job prospects — plus they have a short sale or foreclosure on their record, and the emotional baggage of having gotten burned once already. Unlike the Millenials, they don’t have access to down payment help from their parents, at least not to the same extent.. Therefore, I would expect Millenial ownership rates will exceed that of the late Gen X’ers for many years to come.
You nailed my situtation.
We might be in a position to buy again in a couple of years, but hopefully we have gained some wisdom, i.e., loss of mobility, real cost of upkeep, taxes, insurance, assets less diversified, etc. The cost of renting is still 20% less than buying an equivalent home in my hood.
We have been keeping tabs on the inventory in South Bay LA and its absolutely crap. Everything is a tear down and getting worse each year. I don’t mind putting 100k into a house, but not after spending 600k for that POS.
This almost reminds of The Firm.
JPMorgan banker jumps to his death
A prominent investment banker for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) jumped to his death from the roof of Chater House in downtown Hong Kong, the headquarters of JPMorgan’s Asian operations.
Witnesses told the South China Morning Post that said the banker, Li Junjie went to the roof of the 30-story Chater House in the city’s central business district and jumped.
The incident happened between 2 and 3 p.m. Tuesday in Hong Kong, or between midnight and 1 a.m. ET Tuesday.
Witnesses and emergency personnel saw the man leap to his death, the South China Morning Post reports.
Calls to JPMorgan’s North American headquarters were not returned.
Li’s death is the third unnatural or unusual death for a JPMorgan employee in three weeks, and the fifth odd death for a banker working in international finance in the past three weeks.
Former Federal Reserve economist Mike Dueker, 50, was found dead in an apparent suicide near Tacoma, Washington on Jan. 31. Dueker was chief economist at Russell Investments.
On Jan. 26, William Broeksmit, 58, a former senior manager for Deutsche Bank, was found hanging in his home, also an apparent suicide.
On Jan. 28, Gabriel Magee, 39, vice president at JPMorgan Chase’s London headquarters, apparently jumped to his death from a building in the Canary Wharf area.
Ryan Henry Crane, 37, executive director in JPMorgan’sglobal program trading, died Feb. 10. Details of the Stamford, Conn., native’s death have not been disclosed. He is survived by his wife, son and parents.
Crane’s death comes after a rash of suicides among three prominent bankers over the course of a week at the end of January and start of February, as well as the questionable suicide of a real estate finance executive said to have killed himself by shooting himself with a nail gun “seven or eight times.”
When the stimulus ends, life isn’t worth living.
You owe me a new screen. I laughed so hard.
Glad I could brighten your day
“When the stimulus ends, life isn’t worth living.”
LOL! That is a good one!
Millenials with large student loan debts are just Ponzi’s-In-Training (PITs). It’s the same behavior that zero-down home buyers exhibited during the housing boom. They want their education, but they don’t want to pay for it.
If you don’t have the money, can’t get a scholarship, or can’t get your parents to pay, then you can either get a job and work your way through school, or take on massive debts. The loss of high-paying low skill jobs in the US has caused many to seek college educations that, frankly, have little chance of netting more than they would sans diplomata. Until we wake up to the fact that a 4 year degree is unnecessary for many jobs, we will continue to see this trend of over indebtedness continue.
I imagine that in 1957, diploma mills were much less common than today. An 18 year old could have a house and two kids by 21. Scary, I know. But that was the reality back then. Now, a 28 year old has a hard time making that happen in California.
With 25 years of steadily declining interest rates, all Americans were Ponzis-in-training (love that BTW). Debt that gets ever-cheaper is an open invitation for everyone to create personal Ponzi schemes, particularly when wages are rising.
It seems to me that the crisis in housing is more or less past. Why keep the nozzle on full when the flames are gone? Keeping a low level of liquidity flowing on the smoldering ashes seems better than flooding the streets with ash-soaked rivers. Right? Yellen should continue to ease up on purchases as conditions warrant. The pause in housing is also known as a wealth accumulation period. Debts are paid off, and savings are restored. Asset prices will remain stable during this period. Sounds fine to me.
our problems are bigger now. the real crash is coming. all is well only in LaLa Land.
[…] Millenials won’t save the Baby Boomers; most Millennials won’t qualify for a mortgage until 2019. […]
[…] been widely reported that Millennials aren’t buying homes (See: Most Millennials won’t qualify for a mortgage until 2019, Imprudent student debt debilitates Millennial home shoppers, and Typical sources of housing demand […]
[…] of first-time homebuyers is only 30%, and with the poor economy and excessive student loan debts, the Millennial generation won’t be major housing market participants until 2019. Owner-occupant demand will be weak; this is a feature of the new […]
[…] Most Millennials won’t qualify for a mortgage until 2019, so it shouldn’t be surprising that most don’t plan to buy any time soon. Also, most Millennials are wise enough to recognize they won’t be a qualified buyer in the next two years because they have too much debt, too little savings, and they don’t make enough money. […]