“At moments during our house hunt, I felt in my gut that something wasn’t right. We’d go to open houses for $400,000 homes and see lines of couples in their late 20s waiting to get inside. I kept wondering where all the money was coming from. How did all these people make so much?”

“I felt we could afford around $350,000. We called a real estate agent named Mitch, and suddenly we were looking at houses that listed at $500,000 or more.
It felt a little crazy to be shopping for houses that cost half a million dollars, but my income was growing rapidly. Everywhere I looked, people were being rewarded for buying as much house as they could possibly afford, and then some. There was this excitement in the air, almost like static. I started to think that if I didn’t buy a house right then, I would never be able to afford one.
At moments during our house hunt, I felt in my gut that something wasn’t right. We’d go to open houses for $400,000 homes and see lines of couples in their late 20s — younger than we were — waiting to get inside. I kept wondering where all the money was coming from. How did all these people make so much?
But prices just kept rising, and when people kept buying, that made it seem safer. I knew from my work as a financial adviser that following the crowd could be costly. But like everyone else, I felt safer in a crowd.”

- from ‘How a financial professional lost his house’, Carl Richards, NYTimes 9 Nov 2011
Remarkable story, be sure to read the whole piece. Hat-tip to Ray for the link (and to many other readers for alerting us via e-mails: clearly this story resonates for many of us.) -ed.

62 Responses to “At moments during our house hunt, I felt in my gut that something wasn’t right. We’d go to open houses for $400,000 homes and see lines of couples in their late 20s waiting to get inside. I kept wondering where all the money was coming from. How did all these people make so much?”

  1. 4SlicesofCheese

    I couldn’t stop reading. Great article.

    But of course, its different here.

  2. So this guy is a financial advisor and he ran a negative balance every month? I am not saying it’s different here but I know about at 50 to 100 homeowners here in Vancouver and non of them spent like this. But my circle is more affluent professionals so maybe it’s a bit different.

    • And maybe you don’t actually know what their balance sheets look like.
      When the tide goes out….

      • I don’t know all of them you are right, but I can be sure of about at least 20 to 30 of them. Most of them only have a mortgage if that at all.

        They are two types, either they are rich as hell, as in they have their house all paid out, own a couple of nice cars, etc. Or they have a mortgage, are smart about not spending more than their means (some who don’t make as much are frugal spenders, thank you groupon).

        I know none of them are like this guy. I have a ton of cheap credit available to me that I don’t use because I know it’s dumb to leverage up. I do take vacations, but I use my Amex SPG card to give me free hotel along with an alaska airlines card to give me free flight. I just don’t see how this dude can leverage another 200K on a good salary. What do you spend it all on?

    • It’s important to enlarge your sample size to get an accurate sense of what is going on.

      Analyze the debt of Canadians, percentage wise, and compare it to the debt of Americans at the height of the housing bubble.

      /Personal Note on the American housing crash: We were always very conservative with credit. Bought with 20% down, etc. We assumed most of our friends and neighbors were acting in similar ways.

      We were wrong.

  3. when’d that be?
    this guy was in the worng field of career.

  4. http://www.news1130.com/
    Today’s poll:

    51% of respondents to poll say renting is smarter than buying in metro vancouver.

    Lots of housing talk on the radio today and yesterday, on CBC and News 1130.

  5. Tis true that like Julian most of my acquaintances and friends have little debt beyond mortgage. Most bought when prices were lower and that helped reduce debtloads when they moved up the ladder.

    Let’s just say I shall reserve judgment for a few years

    • Agreed. I am actually observing a couple of friends of mine and their leverage. One guy who is in the financial services industry bought a condo in downtown recently for 390K with a mortgage of 1400. He makes about 80K a year. He has no other debt.

      Another friend and his wife make about 150K combined in engineering positions, they bought a house for about 630K in coquitlam with about 120K down.

      Neither of them have much debt besides their mortgage. I’ll see in a few years how they come out.

  6. Basement Suite PhD

    Boo hoo. So many of these people get off easy with “short sales”. It’s a no lose for them, they got free private schools and lobster dinners for a few years, for free. It just costs the world a huge housing bubble. No moral obligation to pay their debts? That’s our society today, so few feel morally obligated to pay their debts, but I am one, you borrow, you repay as agreed. Wish I had a free put like that in my mutual funds which are worth a modest condo, next time the stock market tanks I should ask my bank about a short sale.

    • In a contract like this there are two parties (the borrower and the lender) – I’m pretty sure that the lender views this contract in the same ‘company way’ as the borrower in this case is advising. At the time, their thought process was probably something like ‘No risk and huge profit!’. They took a gamble and lost on it. Is the borrower also responsible for the gambling of the lender?

      • Basement Suite PhD

        Interesting question. I agree the lenders gambled. But in my opinion, the borrower is responsible for the gambling of the borrower, independently. You borrow, you send your kids to private schools and eat lobster dinners, you live within biking distance of the forest outside some fancy neighborhood in whatever town he lived in, you owe that money. I’m not saying the lender is without blame here, but if the government doesn’t bail them out (and many didn’t get bailed out and shouldn’t) then they lose money and some even go under due to the fallout from all those who do default. So they do get punished. But living the rich life at the expense of the bubble (which hurts so many) then just walking away from the debt is just wrong.

  7. Basement Phd.

    You are wrong. all they do is to carry out the terms of a contract. The bank charges properly on the risk. Risk materializes, then the bank pays. I don’t see anything wrong.

    When the bank passes the loss to taxpayers. That is the problem.

    PhDs are not smart on all matters.

    • Basement Suite PhD

      Chris.

      “PhDs are not smart on all matters.”

      Why does my name entice people to be such assholes? Get a life, some education, and some grammar. No one said PhDs are smart on all matters, but having one does not preclude me from having an opinion either. You borrow money, you are morally obligated to pay. Short sales are a free put invented after the fact, and free puts are not available to investors in the stock market. You sound like the protesters shooting heroin in their tents while expecting a free handout.

      • Why is this not true for businesses? No one bats an eye when a business backs out of a deal that is no longer lucrative.

      • Basement Suite PhD

        That’s a good question. True that one doesn’t expect a corporation to have any morals or sense of right and wrong. I would more want to expect that from a person. It doesn’t change my feeling that short sales are wrong in many situations, but that was a good counterexample.

      • having a moral obligation to the bank is a cute notion

      • Basement Suite

        Actually it’s the moral obligation to society, who suffers when greedy people live the high life on a bubble then walk away, and that bubble hurts us all.

  8. Speaking of being an asshole. Your statement is very telling. Don’t you think?
    Do you understand concept of INSURANCE?

    • Basement Suite PhD

      You are an unintelligent troll.
      /conversation

      • Your perceived intelligent is not being rewarded financially as you think you should have. And this makes you feel bitter against others. Am I correct?

        So your intelligent for everything under the Sun is not to be questioned.
        Anyone doing so is an asshole, and should get a life.

      • Basement Suite PhD

        I make decent money, but that is irrelevant. All I did was state an opinion, to which you could not help but reply (with your bad grammar) that PhDs are not smart in everything. That is what is offensive and indicative of your simple mentality, not the fact that you disagreed. You are a simple troll who feels inadequate with your high school diploma. Put down the joint and go back to school, and you might not be such an ignoramus.

  9. You found “PhDs are not smart on everything.” offensive.
    Would “PhDs are very smart on a few things.” makes you feel better?

    You are a bit too harsh for people with high school diplomas. That is indicative of your presumptuousness.

    Do you know the concept of INSURANCE?
    Or risk management on lending money?

    • Basement Suite PhD

      I have nothing against high school diplomas in general, only high school diplomas who choose to attack PhDs whose opinions differ from theirs, as if you are so offended at the PhD in my name. It is possible to disagree without making it an attack, but the name PhD makes small minded people like you see red. So I suggested you go back to school so you won’t feel so angry when you see letters after someone’s name. It’s not a question of insurance. You borrow money, you are obligated to pay it back, morally. I pointed out that many don’t agree with that anymore, and you are a prime example. People like you borrow money and don’t think twice about reneging on the debt. Eventually it costs everyone else. Extracting money to live the high life from your house until the bubble pops, then walking away from the debt, is WRONG, but why would you grasp that concept, you just want your handout. In future, don’t start out a debate with a personal attack (flame), and debates do not need to become flame wars. In other words, learn some manners. Not that I expect you ever will.

      • If you have a shiny red button on your chest don’t be surprised if people push it.

      • Basement Suite PhD

        I don’t know what you mean by that. But
        /flame war

      • Basement Suite PhD

        P.s. If it’s my name, I had a disclaimer that explained that. It describes my situation, not an attempt to appear superior to anyone. So if people (trolls) want to push the button, go right ahead, I’ll answer you.

      • Basement Suite PhD

        Not that it’s any of your business, blammo.

  10. Seriously. If I say Einstein is not smart on everything, I don’t think he would be offended. My statement is true. I am pretty sure he is not smart on doing laundry.

    And please, people who “only” HS diplomas are people too. They have feelings.

  11. It is a question of insurance.

    Say if a smoker buys life insurance, and he pays the premium as a smoker. When he dies of lung cancer, should the Life Insurance company not pay his family because he is immoral?

    Why as a society we have bankruptcy law? Do you think morality is the reasons behind it?

  12. Just questions. No name calling or other BS. I am very interested on how you think.

  13. “PhDs are not smart in everything” is not offensive.
    “You are a disgrace” is offensive.

    When you post yourself as an intelligent person, and that is your way to response to a discussion. You are a disgrace. No offense.

  14. The whole thing is kind of like:

    Blaming dead people for causing life insurance premium goes up.

    It is that comical. Sorry I just can’t help myself. I will stop now
    /of abuse.

  15. Lots of PhDs I know don’t like to hang it out there (see blammo above). I think it is safe to say that both the lenders and the borrowers in the US got their heads handed to them after annoyingly enjoying many perks on the way up. Capitalism is built on the ability to fail and get up and try it again. This is much more constructive in enterprise than in blatant consumption. The reason we have private (at risk) lenders is the help figure out whom to lend to, when and how much, and under what terms. The private lenders do a better job when there are consequences, which there were not enough of. See the Occupy movement. BSP you are in agreement with the heroin takers: you want more consequences for the bad lenders and bad borrowers.

    On morality and the creditor/debtor relationship please read Atwood’s Payback. Makes a great Christmas gift for people of all levels of education.

    http://www.amazon.com/Payback-Debt-Shadow-Side-Wealth/dp/0887848001

    [If you must know I quit a Math PhD in order to lend other people's money to corporate Canada]

  16. It is plain and simple. It is a contempt to those who spend less time in formal education.

    See, just because Zerodown reads Margaret Atwood. He is better treated even if our messages are pretty much the same on lending money.

    Zerodown: could you tell Basement to apology to me as well? I would read all Atwood’s books if you do that.

    • My response to you is above.
      /flame war ………

    • all you have to do is mention a book title the other competitor in the great minds’ pissing contest hasn’t heard of but MAY be relevant and its over – they’ll run away.

      BsP is just a bitter, classist renter

      • Basement Suite

        Another uneducated, bitter fool. My response to you “derp” is above, it’s my response to Chris, fits you both.
        /flame war (sometime this year?)

      • you misunderstand, I actually want people to read that book, skipping as needed the boring bits, because it gets better near the end, and is completely relevant to this topic.

  17. Zero down: where are you?

  18. shut, it is 5. I need to punch out. I will come back and check the discussions.

  19. What a horrible thread, why did I read all that? I’m almost sorry I posted the link.

  20. @basement,

    in an ideal world, debtor and creditor have a contract and the ‘blast radius’ of a default is limited mostly to them. there is no moral obligation. the provisions for default are a feature of every such contract. in our present situation banks can make credit available unbacked by real savings. this is legalized fraud. they’re issuing claims on stuff that doesn’t exist. prior to the advent of ‘modern central banking’ (mcb), the offending institution gets into trouble issuing too much credit to the wrong debtors, the fraud gets discovered, there is a run on the deposits, the institution fails. bigger blast radius. but at least the offending element was eliminated and life went on. with mcb (federal reserve act) + legal tender laws forcing citizens to accept the crony currency, banks got themselves into a network, set up a lender of last resort plus issuance of currency to backstop the failures, put up some club rules to keep the cowboy members from making too much trouble for everyone else. now, they could leverage more of citizen’s capital with little risk to themselves. it’s really quite a remarkable accomplishment. all the keynesian/monetarist mumbo jumbo is just an intellectual cover for this operation, imo. in 1971, nixon formally takes usd off gold – and of course all important currencies are effectively chained to usd. that removed that last check on growth of the cancer. what follows is a steady escalation of moral hazard, ever increasing bailouts / budget for colonial wars / blast radius. you are being stolen from. we all are. c’est la vie. what concerns me, mostly for kids, is the blast fallout from the doomsday sized credit device. it’s how things like nazism and khmer rouge take root. what’s a bit of overpriced van RE?

    • Thank you chubster for such an informative read, it was a story I didn’t want to put down. Yours and some other posts here have clarified for me that the moral hazard is on both sides, not just the borrower. I sort of knew that before only intellectually, but see it more clearly now. It doesn’t absolve the borrower IMO, but you and others are right that the lenders and in fact the whole financial fabric are also at fault. Do we blame the thief, the fence who made it profitable to be a thief, or the buyer of the stolen goods from the fence? I guess maybe all of the above.

Leave a Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s