From Bloomberg:
Gain in Existing U.S. Home Sales Lifts Spring Prospects
Previously owned U.S. home purchases increased in April as a bigger supply of properties lured buyers and raised prospects for a stronger spring buying season.
The 1.3 percent gain, the first this year, pushed sales to a 4.65 million annualized rate, National Association of Realtors data showed today. The number of available properties climbed to an almost two-year high, helping slow the pace of price appreciation.
A pickup in real-estate listings that improves affordability will help bring homeownership within reach of more Americans, increasing the odds the industry will recover from a yearlong slowdown. A gain in home construction last month showed builders are responding to limited inventory at the same time mortgage rates retreat and lure prospective buyers.
“The improvement in availability suggests stronger sales activity in the months ahead,” said Russell Price, senior economist at Ameriprise Financial Inc. in Detroit. Price is the second-best forecaster of existing home sales in the last two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Still, “we need to see more building activity.”
…
“There’s not that many first-time buyers who are getting into the market,” said Stephanie Karol, a U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. “We see a turnaround happening slowly.”
…
The report from the Realtors group showed the number of previously owned homes on the market rose 16.8 percent to 2.29 million, the highest since August 2012. At the current sales pace, it would take 5.9 months to sell those houses. Less than a five months’ supply is considered a tight market, the NAR has said.The sales increase in April “is welcoming,” Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, told reporters as the figures were released. “I feel optimistic you would trend higher generally. Now with more inventory, I think there will be more buyers entering the market.”
…
Investors accounted for 18 percent of the home purchases last month, up from 17 percent a month earlier. Seven of 10 investors paid cash. All-cash transactions accounted for about 32 percent, about the same share as the last year, the report showed. First-time buyers represented 29 percent of all transactions.Sales of single-family homes increased 0.5 percent to an annual rate of 4.06 million. Purchases of multifamily properties — including condominiums and townhouses — jumped 7.3 percent to a 590,000 pace.
Good Morning New Jersey
RISE AND GRIND – Lets get busy!!
NAR statistics fabricated and unreliable.
Congratulations to Class of 2014, Most Indebted Ever
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/congatulations-to-class-of-2014-the-most-indebted-ever-1368/?mod=e2tw
Contains some nice graphics including what students can expect to earn vs what they owe in student debt over time.
Every class is the most indebted ever … Inflation says it should be so.
“captain justice”? I leave for awhile and everyone starts getting illusions of grandeur.
NAR statistics fabricated and unreliable.
Nothing funnier than seeing Zero Hedge say the same thing, while simultaneously citing a NAR statistic, taken as unquestionable truth. Spin just the same.
FU pay me….
I can see why the fat man wants to exit stage left to the big show in DC.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/nj_democrats_push_millionaires_tax_christie_has_vetoed.html#incart_river_default
Inflation is baked into the cake but only after the next correction. 2015 folks it’s coming.
Why don’t you just shut up, you hairy chested, pierogi eating, kielbasa brained, submarine with screen windowed, Commodore 64 using, whole house Generac, Polish geek!
Grim says:
May 23, 2014 at 7:24 am
Every class is the most indebted ever … Inflation says it should be so.
From HousingWire:
4 housing bills that could make mortgage lending much easier
H.R. 2673, Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., would treat mortgage loans held in portfolio as qualified mortgages. It passed committee 34-25.
H.R. 4466, Financial Regulatory Clarity Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., and Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., would require financial regulators to determine whether new regulations are duplicative or inconsistent with existing Federal regulations. It passed committee 34-25.
H.R. 4521, Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Blain Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., would exempt credit unions and other lenders under $10 billion from certain RESPA escrow requirements and exempt mortgage servicers servicing fewer than 20,000 loans from certain RESPA servicing requirements. It passed committee 43-16.
H.R. 3211, Mortgage Choice Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., passed by voice vote on May 7, 2014. This bill would exclude from the definition of “points and fees” under the CFPB’s ability to repay rule compensation which is retained by a creditor or its affiliate as a result of its participation in an affiliated business arrangement as defined under RESPA.
10 – I don’t have a whole house generator
10,
You missed ice recipe forgetting..
“Now with more inventory, I think there will be more buyers entering the market.”
If you relax the lending standards and start dishing out loans to everyone that has a pulse, of course you’ll have more buyers! Then again, if you pour a 100 lbs. of dog chow on the floor, the mutt will eat until it explodes. Moral of the story? Mutts and muppets have much in common.
Fast,
I think it is too late for this year. There are a glut of homes sitting unsold for entire spring. NAR acts like a bunch of cave dwelling hermits have not found the outside yet but now are ready to pounce. Lack of first time buyers was going to kill market at some point. Now we seeing it. I will bear the fruits of the fall harvest. Another 20 homes on the market this week alone. Inventory was up 15% in March YOY but sales were down 12%. April was dead flat. May, June, July will not pic-up that slack.
Bystander,
I can’t figure out if I’m seeing more inventory here or not. I know I see the same dead, over-priced houses trolling for a score. I still think anything that’s really desirable goes in a day or two and we’re left with the estate sales and those houses with a backyard on a major highway. And those that are kept well and in nice locations that are sitting are asking 2006 prices. This market never had a chance to correct and will continue to be propped up.
When I can see three houses in one day and actually like them enough to make a bid on one of them, then I’ll know things are normal. I’m not buying Mom and Dad’s 1965 style bi-level at 600K plus because the kids want to go on a cruise. I’m not doing it.
Every class is the most indebted ever … Inflation says it should be so.
While technically true, the above comment misses the point that if earnings don’t inflate at the same rate, the spread increases, and the shackles of debt weigh more heavily.
And as evidenced by one of the graphs, even adjusting for inflation, today’s grads are facing a heavier burden than those of the past (particularly pre-2000).
Open wide, here comes original sin.
“A year ago it was the US which first “boosted” America’s GDP by $500 billion – literally out of thin air – when it arbitrarily decided to include “intangibles” to the components that ‘make up’ GDP (in the process cutting over 5% from the US Debt/GDP ratio). Then Spain joined the fray. Then Greece. Then the UK. Then Nigeria, which showed those developed Keynesian basket cases how it is really done, when it doubled the size of its GDP overnight when it decided to change the base year of its GDP calculations. Now it is Italy’s turn, and like everything else Italy does, this latest “revision” of the definition of GDP easily wins in the style points category. As Bloomberg reports, “Italy will include pr0stitution and illegal dr^g sales in the gross domestic product calculation this year.” Yup: blow and ho0kers. And that, ladies and gents, is how it’s done.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-22/hookers-and-blow-how-changing-definition-gdp-officially-jumped-shark
I’m still hoping for life in the spring market. Same model house as mine up for sale around the corner: Smaller lot, side hill lie rather than downhill; otherwise nearly identical. They’re listing for 16% more than my 2012 price. I’m hoping they close at +10%. Honestly, 5% per year is about my sense of real inflation (govt-massaged CPI inflation ##s being strictly bedtime fiction reading), and inflation hedge was a big reason why I converted my downpayment into land. Too many homeowners voting for the gov’t to stop the printing press, so I’m taking a page from JJ and not fighting the tide.
[10]
Grim uses his screen-windowed submarine to get to his “underwater” home.
Inflation must say it so, but so does the trend itself. My sister graduated RU 8 years after I did. Her debt burden far exceeded mine. If someone goes today, it’s over twice as bad.
Why do women need college in Jersey? Reality TV shows, tannings booths and cocktail waitress are the only three main jobs for ladies in NJ
22.Ben says:
May 23, 2014 at 10:54 am
Inflation must say it so, but so does the trend itself. My sister graduated RU 8 years after I did. Her debt burden far exceeded mine. If someone goes today, it’s over twice as bad.
HuffPost Media @HuffPostMedia 1m
!! RT @peterlattman: Get a load of the new sign being posted outside the @NYTimes newsroom pic.twitter.com/HME2p2KSvG
They can move the goal posts but there are alternative data sets as well.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
Nom, can you explain this one for me- Guy goes to bar, has accident. Claims they served him after visible intoxication. How could he not be charged with drunk driving, yet sue the bar for making him too drunk to drive?
He claimed that the sports bar continued to serve him alcohol after he was visibly intoxicated at the end of a St. Patrick’s Day bar crawl on March 10, 2012.
He was initially charged with driving under the influence, but those charges were later dismissed. Fynes lawyer said he was “not at liberty” to discuss why the charges were dismissed and the New Jersey State Police did not return a request for comment.
http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2014/05/gloucester_township_man_wins_15_million_settlement_from_woodbury_heights_bar.html#incart_m-rpt-1
He most likely got off on drunk driving as no other party was involved in accident and I dont see how you can give a breathlizer to a guy missing a leg and when he got to hospital it was trauma first. By time they pulled blood sample or checked for alcohol it was most likely a lot later and after he wad pumped with drugs or even a blood transfussion. Meaning sure he was drunk but in a court of law flimsy evidence. Also I doubt rights were read or even if Cops were first on scene as Paramedics would have been involved
Years ago when the car I was in did a massive roll-over the with no other party involved called paramedics and ambulence were were taking to hospital and stablized and then the cop with jelly still on lips from eating donuts strolled in around two hours later to get some statements.
26.Phoenix says:
May 23, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Nom, can you explain this one for me- Guy goes to bar, has accident. Claims they served him after visible intoxication. How could he not be charged with drunk driving, yet sue the bar for making him too drunk to drive?
#25,
In college, my fraternity finished our hell week and we held a party early in morning for new brothers. We were all wasted by 9 am. One of the newbies decided to drive home to his parents home an hour away. He passed out behind wheel and flipped into a ditch. He had injuries but survived. His parents sued the frat for intoxicating him and personally went after the president, vp, treasurer of our frat. Their parents had to hire lawyers and they shutdown frat for several years. Lesson learned – don’t let your kids become execs of any college frat.
Lawyers suck. If they didn’t exist, stuff like this would never happen. You joined a frat, got drunk, crashed, and now want to sue someone? Are you kidding me? F lawyers for creating this mess. If they didn’t go sue crazy in the late 70s and 80s, our country would be a lot better off. They help create mounds of useless paperwork, because people must protect themselves from lawyers looking to make a quick buck. Half of these lawsuits are a joke. I spilled hot coffee on myself, and the lawyer told me I could get a lot of money for that. People should realize that the lawyer really means that he can get a lot of money for himself. The richest lawyers are the biggest con artists. What benefit do they bring to society?
Bystander says:
May 23, 2014 at 1:53 pm
#25,
In college, my fraternity finished our hell week and we held a party early in morning for new brothers. We were all wasted by 9 am. One of the newbies decided to drive home to his parents home an hour away. He passed out behind wheel and flipped into a ditch. He had injuries but survived. His parents sued the frat for intoxicating him and personally went after the president, vp, treasurer of our frat. Their parents had to hire lawyers and they shutdown frat for several years. Lesson learned – don’t let your kids become execs of any college frat.
Requesting Michael volunteer read important website.
http://thepeoplescube.com/
Volunteer is mandatory.
For people who see nothing wrong with the extremely rich, please explain to me why his reasons for saying a super rich class is a mistake is wrong. Rags, please explain why the following is wrong. I think it’s amazing that you can’t see the dangers of super wealth class. It’s mind blowing, given that I think you are intelligent.
“The rich, if they do not plant prosperity’s seeds, at least tend to its branches — but the super-rich appear to be merely picking off the choicest fruit.
When societies allow the rich to grow into the super-rich, they are making a series of mistakes. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich are fundamentally undemocratic because they hold the polity ransom. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich is fundamentally uneconomic because the super-rich hoard vast amounts of capital, starving the economy of investment and opportunity. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich is fundamentally inequitable because it is essentially impossible that any human being has single-handedly truly created enough value to be worth tens of billions. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich is fundamentally unreasonable because there is no good reason for anyone to want such extreme riches. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich is fundamentally antisocial, for the super-rich will never have to rely on public goods in the same way that the merely rich still need parks, subways, roads and bridges.
All those are small mistakes. Here is the big one.
When societies allow the rich to grow into the super-rich, they are limiting what those societies can achieve.
Imagine a bountiful forest. And then — no one can say quite why — a small handful of the trees suddenly grow tall. Much taller. They became so tall and strong and broad that they block the sunlight from all the other trees. The other trees begin to wilt and wither and disappear. Their roots crack and split and turn to dust. And one day, not long after, even the roots of the tallest trees can find no water, can grip no soil. They begin to fall. Soon the whole forest becomes a desert.
A dry academic term like “income inequality” doesn’t really begin to cover it, does it?
When super-riches grow unchecked, no one wins — not even the super-rich themselves, in the long run. Everyone’s possibility is stifled when the invisible line from rich to super-rich is crossed. And that is precisely why no society should desire a class of super-rich; for it assures us that a society’s human potential will be eroded. And that is precisely why the moral sentiments of most reasonable people are instinctively, naturally opposed to the idea of super-riches.
At this juncture, I’m sure that defenders of free markets will complain: Who are you to say that anyone shouldn’t be super-rich? But it is precisely defenders of free markets who should object most vehemently to the super-rich. I defy you to find me a fully-fledged member of the super-rich today who isn’t a monopolist, a scion, an oligarch … or all three.
Is there such a thing as too rich? Here is my answer: No forest should become a desert.”
For the Grads the “Now What” generation.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/98052ee0bcfe01315570005056a9545d
Woops:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/05/23/wait-did-the-poor-actually-get-richer/
Wait, did the poor actually get richer?
May 23, 2014, 1:58 PM ET
.
BLS
There’s some breaking news on the income inequality front: the poor appear to have gotten richer, and the rich have gotten poorer.
That contradicts pretty much everything you’ve heard over the past year, and yet it’s what is suggested by the Labor Department’s midyear update on consumer expenditures. But it’s not really the right conclusion, despite the headline numbers.
The data show that the lowest 20% of earners saw their incomes before taxes jump 7.6%, to $10,174, in the 12 months ending June 2013. The highest 20% earners meanwhile saw their incomes slip 1.4%, to $164,647.
The middle class — literally defined, the 40th-to-60th percentile earners — stood still, with their pretax income up 0.4% to $47,017.
This is for the somewhat unusually defined “consumer unit,” which consist of families; single people living alone; single people with roommates but who are financially independent; and two or more people that share expenses.
A closer look at the data hints at what’s happening. Self-employment income for those making less than $5,000 went from negative $8,078 to negative $3,426. This group could consist of people who own their own businesses seeing fewer losses, which stands to reason in a slowly-improving economy after a tough recession. A Labor Department official points out that self-employment data often are volatile.
It’s also important to realize that these people are poor in an income sense, but that doesn’t mean they’re impoverished. Entrepreneurs may have previously earned income to rely on, and college students would also be captured in the bottom 20%. As a group, the bottom 20% also include those relying on Social Security with little to no wages, meaning they have retired and are spending previously earned income.
What’s also notable is just how little the bottom 20% have invested in personal insurance and pensions — just 2% of their expenditure, vs. roughly 15% for the highest 20% of earners. Not surprisingly, food and housing make up about 56% of their spending vs. about 41% for the top fifth. The middle class is devoting 48% of their spending to food and housing, and 8.5% to personal insurance and pensions.
The information in the survey is quite detailed — for instance, managers and professionals spend about $50 more a year on pork than service workers, and those aged 25-to-34 spend 63% more on alcohol than those aged 65-and-over.
Some findings aren’t too surprising, such as that spending on transportation has gone up markedly, by about 6%, due to vehicle purchases. Cash contributions — a category that includes giving to everything from alimony to charitable donations — rose 7%, with notable increases to churches and educational institutions. Mortgage interest and charges fell 2.5% as interest rates have dropped and fewer people took out mortgages.
– Steve Goldstein
Mike,
There was a documentary called Hot Coffee which delved into the entire case and its impact on tort reform. You will love it. Those evil corps are behind it all once again.
I love the smell of a good lawsuit in the morning. Honestly, the guy lost a leg he would be a fool not to attempt to sue given lawyers work on contingency and he has nothing to lose but some time.
Kinda like when I grieve property tax, you create a system where it costs nothing to do it most folk will give it a try even if odds are long as they have nothing to lose.
I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.
— Pat Sajak (@patsajak) May 20, 2014
Michael [30];
I’m so saddened by what a public school indoctrination has done to you.
Moose, I just want to be at piece with this issue. I seriously think you guys are only looking at it from one angle. I try to understand what you and rags are saying, but I keep coming to the same conclusion as that author of the article.
For example, would Bill gates exist as we know it, if we didn’t put an end to the carnegies, rockefellers, and Morgans that came before him. If govt didn’t step in to put an end to the guilded age, everything right now would be owned in one way or another, by the Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie families. How would Bill gates fare in that landscape? He would never ever have the chance to do what he did. Why? Because all investment would be controlled by these families. They would have bought out or crushed bill gates like a bug. This is where we are heading again, rule by a few oligarchs, doing everything possible to maintain their monopolistic positions. They are not innovators anymore, that was only true at the beginning. They have now become the wall blocking innovation, to protect their network of income producing assets. Any innovation that proves a threat is either bought out or crushed through business practices. F these people, they are not doing anything for anyone, but themselves. They are not here to make a life better for everyone. They are only concerned with themselves.
37- so understand, that in protecting billionaires, you are against innovation. Name one innovation developed after someone became a billionaire. Or better yet, how do you become a billionaire? Through a business innovation or being a ruthless business man? Name me one billionaire that became a billionaire off of one innovative new product? Since, you guys claim that these people are such important innovators, please tell me who became a billionaire off of one innovation? A lot of billionaires got their start with innovation, but they didn’t become a billionaire from that. They became a billionaire when they started creating monopolies in their industry, a long time after they could be considered an innovator anymore. Let’s not forget that bill gates employed monopolistic practices when creating his empire. So I should thank a monopoly for word, windows, and explorer? How do you know if something better was in the works for a browser or operating system during the 90’s, but was destroyed by Microsoft? You don’t think about that part, you only have praise for the almighty Microsoft. When something becomes a giant, it is no longer an innovator, it is now what prevents innovation, in the name of self-preservation.
38- btw, I didn’t read this somewhere else. I thought about it on my own, and create my own conclusions. If more people used logic, instead of reading talking points from their party, or fav economist, maybe they could have an easier time understanding why it is not good to have a class of billionaires. The word billionaire should not exist, never mind having a thousand of them to compete with.
39- you guys claim competition is necessary for innovation. You claim competition is everything. Then why do you not realize that billionaires eliminate competition. You guys make no sense at all.
Yes, you just got destroyed.
Thanks for the share dude!!! Holy sh!t!! This is exactly what I stated in my rant about lawyers. I swear to you, I never heard of this before. I was just using logic in drawing my conclusion that lawyers suck!!! They ruin everything. Lawyers can be blamed for ruining our govt and our country. Thanks dirtbags!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bBKRjxeQnT4
Bystander says:
May 23, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Mike,
There was a documentary called Hot Coffee which delved into the entire case and its impact on tort reform. You will love it. Those evil corps are behind it all once again.
41- sorry, I shouldn’t stereotype. There are really good lawyers out there, I’m just mad at the lawyers that are doing the messed up things. Like the accident lawyers, who teach their clients how to perform insurance fraud. Those are the lawyers that need to go.
I’m taking bets on Michael’s education level:
A. GED
B. HS Dropout
C. I can’t think of another choice.
D. None of the above
LOL. They’re actually starting to write the story:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579302951214561682
In 1970, when 11% of adult Americans had bachelor’s degrees or more, degree holders were viewed as the nation’s best and brightest. Today, with over 30% with degrees, a significant portion of college graduates are similar to the average American—not demonstrably smarter or more disciplined. Declining academic standards and grade inflation add to employers’ perceptions that college degrees say little about job readiness.
^^^^ Just Google search the title of the article and they’ll let you in to tread the article.
I don’t think Michael could have become this mentally disintegrated without the help of a really bad college miseducation.
He’s a fukin troll, for God’s sake. Ignore him.
Phew!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101697578
[6] morpheus,
Someone posted this here months ago. I went with it.
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/10/this-is-how-you-shame-prosecutors-for-their-stupid-motion/
And I’m also using Guardian of the Realm. But Defender of the Innocent is available.
“Morpheus, Defender of the Innocent.”
Has a rather nice ring to it, I think.