tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post2272110241010974604..comments2024-03-28T04:16:11.729-07:00Comments on Idiosyncratic Whisk: Housing Tax Policy, A Series: Part 48 - Accommodative Appraisers are not evidence of a bubbleKevin Erdmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-12076559947879796872015-07-31T05:31:53.740-07:002015-07-31T05:31:53.740-07:00thx!thx!billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13479694656531252175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-38382357689271048442015-07-30T16:18:17.943-07:002015-07-30T16:18:17.943-07:00For this figure, I am using imputed rent for owner...For this figure, I am using imputed rent for owner-occupiers. I am using aggregate income after expenses and depreciation from the BEA and aggregate market values from the Federal Reserve, so it would include lost income from vacancies, etc., although this is less of an issue with owner-occupiers.<br /><br />I would use landlords and cash rent, but it's a little harder to get at all the numbers because of the different types of owners.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-23369165042991302102015-07-30T15:54:16.242-07:002015-07-30T15:54:16.242-07:00When you say that the return to housing since 2006...When you say that the return to housing since 2006 has been 1.8%, is that inclusive or exclusive of a value for occupancy (for owner users) and/or net rental income (for landlords)?<br />Thank you.<br />Billbillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13479694656531252175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-76477562027248271062015-07-30T11:54:30.023-07:002015-07-30T11:54:30.023-07:00check your email for part 1check your email for part 1Baconbaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511082564082971086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-61684491974323128452015-07-30T11:46:09.844-07:002015-07-30T11:46:09.844-07:00....gulp. Do I dare ask?....gulp. Do I dare ask?Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-52246924273014517192015-07-30T09:39:05.168-07:002015-07-30T09:39:05.168-07:00I think I have the final piece of the puzzle for &...I think I have the final piece of the puzzle for "Baconbacon's Grand Unified Theory of why it all went to hell".Baconbaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511082564082971086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-29679459527029304492015-07-30T08:58:07.226-07:002015-07-30T08:58:07.226-07:00Great point about increasing demand for credit by ...Great point about increasing demand for credit by existing home owners.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-52326870825932390462015-07-30T07:58:39.126-07:002015-07-30T07:58:39.126-07:00There is a third model (and probably a 4th, 5th ec...There is a third model (and probably a 4th, 5th ect) for a speculative boom which combines the two in some ways- the regulation/choke-point model. Imagine a river that you want to dam, that has 10 potential outlets. You build a damn at the lowest point and the water level rises so that the 2nd lowest point now has to be dammed, and that causes the water level to rise again so that the 3rd lowest point has to be dammed, ect ect ect. Each successive damming means not only that a new dam must be built, but that (eventually) the old dams must be rebuilt (heightened or strengthened). Obviously in this analogy the dams are regulations and the water is liquidity/money supply/savings (whatever you want to call it) This is basically what All the Devils are Here and House of Debt are arguing (in different ways)- The dams were fine for X period of time and then the market conned the government into not building/repairing dams and there was a flood. <br /><br />If you view the Fed as having unlimited liquidity though then no dam will permanently stop the flood, and any flood that happens will appear to have been caused by a bad dam (or two) as the weakest/lowest break first. Baconbaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511082564082971086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-71940645251058301522015-07-30T07:10:18.738-07:002015-07-30T07:10:18.738-07:00I haven't read the rest yet, but the opening o...I haven't read the rest yet, but the opening on appraisers is either wrong or misleading. Appraisal set a cap on what a bank will lend against the collateral. Your position would be correct if banks never used appraisers, and then brought appraisers in to set caps in this way. The first caps would automatically be less than no cap- and so they would not be able to influence prices upward. In a system that has used them for years a change in behaviour of appraisers can lead to higher prices in two ways. First simply by raising the max that a bank will lend against a house, and secondly a larger appraisal gives a homeowner the option to take a out a larger HELOC type loan which is basically an option value on the house. Making the house more attractive to the homeowner means a higher bid is needed to convince them to sell.Baconbaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511082564082971086noreply@blogger.com