Probably because they learned their lesson … duh

From HousingWire:

Why aren’t more people tapping into their home equity?

As the housing market has continued its recovery, home prices have been climbing at a steady clip across the nation. And that means homeowners now have a nice stockpile of pent-up wealth in their homes.

In fact, as of the fourth quarter of last year, U.S. homeowners had a collective $5.7 trillion in tappable equity, according to Black Knight.

To break it down further, at the end of last year, homeowners amassed nearly $10,000 in equity in one year’s time, according to CoreLogic data.

But it seems fewer people are choosing to access this source of wealth.

Black Knight reported that just 1% of available equity tapped in the last quarter of 2018 –the lowest share since 2012.

That said, it is worth noting that cash-out refinances have seen some action in the last two years.

Freddie Mac data showed that the share of refinances that involved cash extraction climbed to 77% in the second quarter of 2018. But the amount of equity cashed out totaled $15.8 billion – well below the $75-$85 billion we saw in the years leading up to the crisis. 

This entry was posted in Demographics, Economics, National Real Estate, Risky Lending. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Probably because they learned their lesson … duh

  1. dentss says:


  2. The Great Pumpkin says:

    People smarter this time around? Sure seems like it.

  3. The Great Pumpkin says:

    In a rare call­ing-out of this bo­gos-ity, JP­Mor­gan CEO Jamie Di­mon warned share­hold­ers this month that “so­cial­!sm in­evitably pro-duces stag­na­tion, cor­rup­tion and of­ten worse.” He was echo­ing Win­ston Churchill’s ob­ser­va­tion that so­cial­ism al­lows for “the equal shar­ing of mis­ery.” Why is it only ca­pa­ble of gen­er­at­ing mis­ery?

    Be­cause un­der so­cial­!sm, pol­i­tics rather than pro­duc­tiv­ity dri­ves em­ploy­ment. Tech­no­log­i­cal in­no­va­tion is sup­pressed. Long ago, an Is­raeli ex­plained to me that un­der so­c!al­ism—Is­rael’s eco­nomic sys­tem un­til 1985—you would al­ways hire two work­ers to do the job of one.

  4. Fast Eddie says:

    Now the Dems are injecting identity politics with the environmental mantra! LMAO!! They’re amazing.. simply a lost entity. Now that the fake collusion sh1t is done, Trump will run to daylight in 2020.

  5. 1987 Condo says:

    When I read the conditions that Carlos Ghosn is being held in, I now understand why similarly situated Japanese business executives commit suicide when they are involved in some scandal.

  6. Libturd, can't say I didn't warn you. says:

    Not exactly daylight considering Biden hasn’t even declared he is running yet. I think the Obama hatred paled in comparison to the potential of HRC running things. The question to ask yourself is who is more motivated to go to the poles. The party that thinks it’s sunlight ahead who have had to deal with an awful lot of Trump foibles and lies. Or the party that is seething over the last two years of spite the Dems leadership.

  7. Yo! says:

    Live-at-Home-with-parents Millennial political operative lectures NJ residents they are selfish to retire out of state because their high SALTs support so many great programs.

  8. JCer says:

    On healthcare from all the prior threads, I agree the system is very messed up but Medicare for all/single payer won’t fix it. It is the same stupid argument we saw with Obamacare, the issue isn’t the payer. Changing who pays doesn’t resolve costs spiraling out of control and lets just face it our federal government is more dysfunctional than our state government and nearly every other government in the world, I have little confidence that it wouldn’t turn into an unmitigated disaster.

    Free markets in Healthcare are nearly impossible but some of the principles can be applied provided there is strong oversight. I’m with Grim that no one has accounted for the cost of defensive medicine nor the desire of Doctors to juice billing by being overly cautious and ordering excessive tests. In countries with good socialized medicine there are other factors in play, as leftwing alludes they ration care, the extreme old and those unwilling to help themselves are generally left for dead. Additionally they control costs by rationing expensive tests and having facilities that are bare bones, also consider they produce a greater number of doctors, subsidize their education costs therefore making it possible to pay doctors 100k per year. How much does a new US doctor need to be paid to pay off 600k in debt accumulated over 8+ years of schooling and then a residency? You have to figure that considering the interest cost, 500k in education costs and then 10-12 years of lost wages your average doctor has 750k+ wrapped up into being a doctor before they even start seeing patients.

    Supply outstrips demand, we aren’t addressing having adequate numbers of healthcare providers, there is no concern by anyone with cost efficacy. If we want to fix healthcare, yes get rid of state lines, open up medicare and allow people to buy medicare coverage(increased competition), standardize medical billing(too much administrative overhead on practitioners), and force price transparency no secret discounts for different insurers(everyone should know what other people are actually paying for procedures.

    On top of this i’d like to see data collected on procedure cost analyzed and published, big data would allow for analysis so the prevailing costs could be determined and providers charging far in excess of prevailing costs could be identified. This data could also be coupled with efficacy if treatment as well. This data should be provided as a dashboard to all. Insurance needs to go back to being insurance, the current model is untenable.

  9. Phoenix says:

    Pay doctors 100k per year? So less than teachers, police, firemen, school administrators, nurse practitioners, lawyers and politicians? I’m not a doctor but that number seems downright insulting.

  10. 3b says:

    Yo: and apparently almost half of 18 to 34 year olds still live with their parents!!

  11. Yo! says:

    3b that Millennial pays 1/2 his parents’ $20,000 property taxes. If I was mom and dad, I’d say, “congrats on getting your piece published, now can pay all $20k.”

    He went to college and has a job. He can afford to move into, say, an apartment in Trenton.

  12. Fast Eddie says:

    Warren proposed a tax on the ultra wealthy to pay for the plan.

    The cost would be covered by her “Ultra-Millionaire Tax,” she explained, which is an annual 2% tax on American households’ net worth that’s more than $50 million in wealth and an additional 1% tax those who have on $1 billion.

    I’m speechless.

  13. 3b says:

    Yo I was commenting on a link in one of the comments that lead to an article on how many millennials still live at home. A better analysis would have been 22 to 34 year olds.

  14. ExEssex says:

    Many ultra rich got that way through corporate welfare. Most figure out ways to avoid taxation. Many pay their employees so poorly that the gubmint picks up the tab for food subsidies. What the right thing to do?

  15. Fast Eddie says:

    Many ultra rich got that way through corporate welfare.

    You mean people like Tom Steyer, Donald Sussman, Reid Hoffman, James Simmons and George Soros?

  16. joyce says:

    This piece attempted to estimate the cost of defensive medicine.

    joyce says:
    April 19, 2019 at 1:27 pm
    Overall annual medical liability system costs, including defensive medicine, are estimated to be $55.6 billion in 2008 dollars, or 2.4 percent of total health care spending.

  17. Bystander says:


    I think Ray Dalio went on 60 minutes and asked to be taxed more. Not really shocking that Warren is advocating ultra wealth tax.

  18. Bystander says:

    Damn, gas over $3.20 here in CT. Starting to worry what it will be in a few weeks when summer pricing hits. $3.50 by July?

  19. JCer says:

    Joyce, I get it but you cannot easily determine medically necessary treatments/tests vs. things requested for CYA/defensive medicine? The abstract for the paper indicates as much. It also indicates previous exercises estimating the costs to be approximately 10% of healthcare costs. My thought is it is really somewhere between 8-15% which is a huge overhead, add the inefficiency of medical billing and you are inflating healthcare costs 15-20%.

  20. JCer says:

    Also democrats are fervently against tort reform so it would figure during the push for Obamacare they would be discounting the cost of malpractice…..In general I don’t trust the eggheads from harvard when it comes to public policy.

  21. Fast Eddie says:


    Great! I want a refund, with interest, for all the school loan money I paid back.

  22. joyce says:

    I agree with everything you say. Calculating the cost of insurance premiums and legal expenses/judgments is much easier than estimating the cost of defensive medicine. I would still say that, whether the estimate we use is 2% or 10%+, the inherent problem is that everything in healthcare costs too much. The cost of the actual services provided are so inflated (not just the billed amounts, the amounts paid)… so the additional costs of ‘defensive medicine’ stings that much more.

  23. ExEssex says:

    12:54 careful or you ‘ll look biased dum dum.

  24. Bystander says:

    Sure Ed. Right after we get the trillion or so back for failed F35.

  25. Fast Eddie says:

    Sure Ed. Right after we get the trillion or so back for failed F35.

    Right after we get the money back from the bankrupt green-energy companies that were nothing more than handouts to Oblammy lackies. I have no problem spending another trillion on the F35s. Nothing will compete with it.

  26. Fast Eddie says:

    Don’t forget that other winning strategy – the $877,000,000,000 for those shovel-ready jobs!

  27. ExEssex says:

    3:09 buuuuuut her emmmmaaaaiiilllls.

  28. Bystander says:

    At some point Ed, the problem will need to be dealt with. Truly I don’t care how, nor politics of it. Student loans are hurting economic growth as it has spiraled out of control. Don’t you want to sell your pile for three times more to some unsuspecting Gen Y fool?

  29. JCer says:

    The moral hazard of a bailout IS an issue. If you borrowed 200k to take basketweaving you’ll have that debt forever.

  30. 3b says:

    If the boomers and gen x s want big bucks for their houses and their property taxes and they want to lure the younger people out of their apartments in the urban areas or their parents basements student loans will have to be addressed. Paying back debt does not stimulate an economy. You can’t have it both ways. Of course those of us who paid for our kids education will get nothing. But doing the right thing does not count any more.

  31. Bystander says:

    Good one JCer…moral issues indeed. No bailout at all. We just need the Millienial and Youthful Glass Touchers Investment Treaty..or MYTIT for short. They pass us back as future wages rise.

  32. Comrade Nom Deplume, Round-Up for Ivy says:

    “In general I don’t trust the eggheads from harvard when it comes to public policy.”

    IMHO, every person I know who went to Harvard is (with one exception) a moron. Not that they are unintelligent but they are stupid. Must be the hubris.

    I’ve schooled them regularly and they now come to me for advice.

  33. Comrade Nom Deplume, the usher at the exit says:

    JCer says:
    April 22, 2019 at 5:03 pm
    The moral hazard of a bailout IS an issue.

    Just wait until the Dems have Congress and the WH. Public sector and union pension bailouts on top of student loans and medicare for all.

    I’ll be shorting Treasuries.

  34. Comrade Nom Deplume, Security Guard says:

    I came across this gem. It’s the sort of argument we used to hear in tax policy class. Not easy to keep a straight face.

  35. ExEssex says:

    Most people are starting to question the usefulness of a handful of people holding all of the assets. Just hoarding these dollars does little for the greater good. Time for these assets to see daylight again. Time for the ultra rich to f$ck Off.

  36. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    I would agree to some sort of partial lone forgiveness (25%) on one condition. They work over 50 hours a week for 5 years. But by then…they would probably be making enough money that they would be against the bailout.

    I had an option at age 17….Stevens or Rutgers. Rutgers was going to be 20k cheaper. So I went that route…and paid off all my debt in about a year…working multiple jobs…days/nights/weekends.

    Moving forward….make all new student loans able to be discharged in bankruptcy. Lenders need to properly assess the risk is loaning someone money for the education.

  37. Joe says:

    I agree.

    You can thank the Clintons for signing that corrupted no discharge during bankruptcy into law. She deserved to lose the 2016 election.

    “Moving forward….make all new student loans able to be discharged in bankruptcy. Lenders need to properly assess the risk is loaning someone money for the education.”

  38. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    This might just be more ridiculous than anything that Pumps has ever posted.

    ExEssex says:
    April 22, 2019 at 2:36 pm

    12:54 careful or you ‘ll look biased dum dum.

  39. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    Like we used to say in the old character based internet: +1

    Comrade Nom Deplume, Round-Up for Ivy says:
    April 22, 2019 at 7:02 pm

    “In general I don’t trust the eggheads from harvard when it comes to public policy.”

    IMHO, every person I know who went to Harvard is (with one exception) a moron. Not that they are unintelligent but they are stupid. Must be the hubris.

    I’ve schooled them regularly and they now come to me for advice.

Comments are closed.