No shit, that there is a woman.
Printable View
LOL, not trying to be a dick, just stating the obvious
NO PEASANT, NO CAR FOR YOU. RIDE THAT BUS that stops a whopping 6ft from your front door threshold every 20 mintues at your 3% appreciation capped "house" that you "own" with an 8% mortgage tied to your continued employment within a specific boundary (like a peasant on a lord's manor) with no yard and a window that looks into your neighbor's bathroom 2ft away because 12inch setbacks support padding developer pockets! At least the bus line gets you to your office manager job within your lord's manor, paid for by a tax on the peasants, which also funds your... AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL!
Sigh, and this is why I intend to leave as much as possible to the kids and grand daughter. Life has become to fucking expensive.
Apartments that were $1500-$2000 just 18 months ago are $944 in Austin, TX.
There’s the conundrum. So much legacy wealth tied up in inflated assets. The average boomer has $200k in savings but has 1.5 houses worth *x what they paid. It’s an illusion. A significant decline in asset prices will have boomers curled up in a ball throwing up.
3 different boomers brought up their Tesla stock to me. Too many have concentrated wealth in a narrow asset band.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/baby-boom...201602997.html
Emoji hell delete
4matic, if you own something that you have no intent in selling, it's price doesn't matter. I would welcome a substantial decrease in property values, but I don't see a catalyst yet.
Now having your speculative stock portfolio crater would be a different situation as you do plan to sell at some point.
Justice Department sues 6 corporate megalandlords rental corps for collusion to fix prices
https://apnews.com/article/algorithm...dab5c84088ff53
One of the 6 has already rolled over on the other 5! Corporate prisoner's dilemma!
That's the thing - there are a LOT of people that have their retirement "savings" invested in the stock market. In fact, I'd wager a whole *SHITLOAD* of those people don't even view it as speculative, even though it is.
Those asset prices crater, and I GUARANTEE there are going to be a boatload of Boomers curled up in a ball throwing up.
The $SPX at 4500 would still be a 10% annualized gain from pre pandemic 2020
Don't worry, the huge crash that takes 10+ years to recover from will happen right after the boomers are dead/cashed out and just cause pain for us GenX'ers.
I would imagine that there will be more than a few tire-kickers here from the swanky parts of burned-out L.A. in the next few months.
Aren't you supposed to shift your allocation towards bonds in retirement for exactly that reason?
Tell them you can run but you can't hide. It's just trading Santa Ana winds for late summer dry thunderstorms. New fact of life: the more mountain home you own, the more some insurance company owns you. This is going to turn into a price appreciation gobbling machine in ski towns when fire insurance premiums shoot up to 3% of home value for houses in the wildland interface. I mean, shit, the Rockies gets high winds so frequently we don't even bother to come up with pet names for them.
^^^yeah, I would say just about any town in the west with trees/significant vegetation is at equal risk or will be soon. A lot of fuel load in lands surrounding towns, that could easily spread into neighborhoods if wind is blow the wrong way.
Will be interesting if the few remaining home insurance companies in CA pull out. Home prices might really drop when we can't get home insurance or are all on the state version.
West, East, South, North.
https://apps.npr.org/us-wildfires-im...limate-change/
You mean when I bought Berkshire on margin and went 150% long equity? Changed my life for sure.
And just for the record. I own zero equities now. I’m 100% bonds with a blended yield of 8%. Duration less than 5y:
BINC 35%
HYS 30%
PDI 30%
PAXS 5%.
I would probably buy some equity with SPX in the 4K range. But with yields where they are compared to stock valuations I prefer bonds.
A buddy is building a concrete block home with metal framing and roof for a retirement home no plans to insure it
probably not the worst idea, outside of an earthquake, good luck destroying that home.
The place where I built my tiny home / will hopefully build a real home burned in 2018 - figure I'm good for a solid 20-30 years.
Hopefully the odds are on your side???
I'm a pretty big believer in insurance having benefited immensely on a personal level from health insurance, but homeowners insurance is getting ridiculous and does not have literal life or death implications.
Like I've paid over the cost of a new roof just in the past four years alone. Hard to think of a more expensive individual repair than that. For those like me who live in an area with very little natural disaster risk it starts to make little financial sense to keep paying it.
At a certain point, it makes homeownership untenable so you will see regulatory reform in the very near future IMO. If I was an insurance salesman I would be very nervous about my future earning as their gravy train commission structure is going to get adjusted pretty quickly as well.
I hope the regulatory reform comes in the means of less price control. Let capitalism do its thing.
It should be crazy expensive to insure a structure where it burns/floods/shakes… force people to make smart design and development decisions… property prices will adjust, density will change…
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I’m with Nick. You want to own property and gain wealth in desirable places, there should be a cost including protecting the investment. When a society can’t fix homelessness, I’m less concerned about the FAIR plan only covering up to $3m of assets.
Id guess 100million folks in the US live in an area prone to natural disaster making their home a total loss (forest fire, earthquake, flood, hurricane, tornado). You're OK with letting insurance companies jack up premiums on all those folks all of a sudden, while banks force people with mortgages to pay those inflated premiums or be foreclosed on?
the daily this am touched on rebuilding. They'll have to figure out what codes/rules they can lax to speed up rebuilding. In an ideal world some land wouldn't be rebuilt but that's not how america works. Hopefully whatever codes they lax to speed things up does not result in cutting corners in fire resistant building design, otherwise the whole cycle repeats itself (which is the most american thing that could happen)
The premiums are up because risk and construction costs are up. Do you want to pay more in taxes to subsidize insurance rates?
My first house was on a ridge surrounded by vegetation in an a specific location prone to very high chinook winds right up against a large mountain. Before buying it I read the city’s report that had been commissioned on wildland urban interface and for some reason that neighborhood was not considered to be a wildfire risk. It’s insane to me that it could be insured as if it was in a major city away from wildfire risk. I’d guess that insurers have perhaps woken up following the marshal fire. I actually think the neighborhood where my house was located (up against the mountains in Golden CO) is more at risk to wildfire than anything that burned in the marshal fire.
When I bought the house I live in currently I made sure it wasn’t in a 100 or 1000 year flood plane per the county GIS map. I looked at some houses that are in those flood planes and chose against them. I believe that the risk of rain on snow events in the Tetons is higher than the insurance actuaries have calculated. The 100 year flood plane may actually be more like a 20 or 30 year flood plane, etc.
I think that risk is going to have to be recalculated on a massive scale going forward.
I don’t like the idea of subsidizing people who live in areas more prone to disaster through higher rates or taxes for those who don’t live in areas more prone to disaster, but I suspect that is exactly what is going to continue happening all over the country.
I also expect that more exclusions (wind/ fire/ hail/ seismic) will be written into policies making homeowners insurance essentially worthless.
IMO, they should relax environmental code/review. Current environmental code is extremely restrictive (for good reason) and expensive to build to. In fact, many/most homes built pre 2000 on hillsides, or near "critical areas" would not be buildable sites today. Crazy long review times for stormwater and critical area reviews should be waived.
When rebuilding from these fires, it will be important to force people to rebuild to current building codes, but allow environmental code to be bent when it presents significant financial or feasibility hardship. These fires shouldnt be looked at as an opportunity to enforce current environmental codes and/or undo development. These are not voluntary remodels, or new builds, this is people who lost everything in a tragedy... as long as they arent building something that is more harmful than their previous home, it should be allowed (within reason).
Building code is a lifesafety issue, and homes should be built to current code. Period. Stormwater and environmental review and code is "nice to have" and folks rebuilding should not be forced into meeting all aspects of current code, IMO.
Portland has not been a model of farsighted municipal governance recently, but we did do one thing that seems pretty smart. The city published some pre-approved plans for infill housing. I believe the way it works is you can work with any developer as long as you're building one of those plans and approval and permitting is fast tracked.
Something like that seems like it could help for reconstruction. I understand the reasons why you might want to relax environmental regulations, but I'm hard-pressed to agree that people should build the same kind of construction in the same location as before.