If you're a regular Wonk reader (and thanks very much if you are), you know that the regular feature here is the How-to Monday post. It covers various aspects of living in the area -- how to find apartments, how to improve your credit so you'll pay less for a mortgage, how to handle problem neighbors.
The posts get a lot of hits, but just because you're clicking doesn't mean you find it worthwhile in the end. I'd like to know if you do because -- with fewer reporters on staff here now -- I can't afford to waste my time on not-so-worthwhile things.
So weigh in: Very useful, somewhat useful or not useful?
If you think it would be more useful if only I would cover [your topic here], suggest it -- either in the comments below or by email. Next Monday's How-to grew out of a Wonk reader's question.
UPDATE on 8/28: Ninety percent of you (well, the 20 of you who cared enough to vote) said to keep on reporting the How-to posts. So I will.
At least until I go on maternity leave. Then I do plan to take a break.
There's been a lot of debate -- in news stories and more recently on this blog -- about the accuracy of Zillow.com's Zestimates of home values. I'd like to conduct an unscientific experiment, if you'll indulge me: Check out the Zestimate of your home (or a few homes in your neighborhood, if you're living in an apartment complex and would like to play along) and see whether it matches up with your sense of the value.
Yes, yes, I realize your sense of the value might not be entirely unbiased, but do your best. You'll get your Zestimate if you type your address into the "find homes" box on the Zillow front page.
So what do you think?
UPDATE at 8:30 p.m. on 8/10: So far, almost half of you think your Zestimate is about right. Twelve percent say it's way too high, 14 percent say it's a bit too high, 19 percent say it's a bit too low and 2 percent say way too low.
Commenter January 1954 suggests a poll to find out how many Wonk readers need a primer on foreclosure -- in other words, whether folks are having mortgage troubles. OK, Jan (can I call you Jan?), but only because you contributed the 800th comment to this blog.
I'm joking, of course. All suggestions for polls are gladly considered.
Without further ado, weigh in (and note that the first two categories are phrased to allow renters to participate, too):
UPDATE as of 9 a.m. on 8/9: The good news is that most of you say you're not having trouble AND don't know anyone who is: 58 percent of you have picked that option so far. Twenty-five percent say you're not having trouble but do know someone who is. Five percent are having trouble but aren't behind, and another 5 percent are behind.
What costs more: Living in the city or the 'burbs?
If there's one thing current and former Baltimore residents have strong opinions about, it's property taxes. That's because the city's rate is twice as high as Baltimore County's and more than twice the rate of the rest of the counties.
I posted a "yes, but" argument yesterday from Bob Aydukovic of the Downtown Partnership, who says you could save $8,000 or so a year by moving downtown and getting rid of one car. Readers responded with examples of needing cars even if you live downtown, with complaints about city services, with the "yes, but" of higher insurance costs.
As I mentioned yesterday, I'd love to see a calculation of total living costs in the city vs. the suburbs. Failing that, though, I'm interested to know how you think it all comes out. Weigh in:
EDIT at 8:45 p.m.: The results so far are 39 percent for "somewhat higher," 34 percent for "much higher," 14 percent for "about the same" and 13 percent for "somewhat lower." That's about three-quarters who say costs in the city are higher than the 'burbs.
There's a comment-duel on a recent How-to post about ways to pay off your mortgage faster. Readers are debating whether you should want to pay it faster, whether it's better to save on mortgage interest or put the extra money you have now into other investments rather than locking it up in your house.
Yesterday's post about home prices set off a firestorm of comments, but I know many more of you have opinions than the inclination to write about them. So here's an opportunity to weigh in with the click of a button.
What's your opinion of asking prices? Too hot, too cold or just right?
As a follow-up, help me get to know you better: Which category most closely describes you? (In the interest of simplicity, choose one of the "renter" categories if you're staying with family or friends, even if no actual money is changing hands.)
EDIT on Thursday at 8 p.m.: Well, this has certainly been a popular topic. More than 100 votes so far on each poll. The results as they stand now:
Fifty-seven percent think asking prices in the Baltimore metro area are "much too high" and 27 percent think they're "a bit too high" (together, more than eight out of 10). Thirteen percent say prices are "about right," while a lone voter picked one of the "too low" categories.
Judging by the results of the other poll, many of the people who think prices are too high are renters -- but not all. Forty-six percent say they're renting with an interest in buying in the near future, while 5 percent are renters who don't plan to buy soon (together, just over half). Thirty-one percent say they're homeowners who aren't in the market to sell. Most of the rest are homeowners trying to sell now or in the near future.
Have a hot topic you'd like to see me poll readers about? Let me know.
Most people seem to agree that the housing downturn is not a blameless phenomenon. Whom to blame, though -- that's the question.
Homeowners for getting mortgages or lines of credit they couldn't afford? Lenders for making loans no sane professional would touch? Wall Street for happily distributing those loans throughout the financial stratosphere as mortgage-backed securities? The feds for keeping interest rates rock-bottom low and hyping homeownership? Real estate agents and others in the industry for assuring Americans that, no matter what, "now is a great time to buy"?
Everyone?
I pose this question because two journalists have weighed in with a book called Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis. So, without further ado, I'd like to hear which group you most blame. (Just to be absolutely clear: Choosing one group does not necessarily mean you're saying the rest were innocent.)
UPDATE at 5:15 p.m. on Sunday: Most of you think either homeowners or the mortgage industry is most to blame -- the two categories each have 31 percent of the vote at the moment. Next after that: the "Everyone's equally to blame" category, with 22 percent.
What happens when your home is your biggest investment: Homeowners near retirement age are suffering markedly from dropping prices, says the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
In a new study, the Washington think tank projected wealth -- or, rather, lack of wealth -- among people who will be ages 45 to 54 next year:
The first scenario assumes that real house prices fall no further than their level as of March 2008. The second scenario assumes that real house prices fall an additional 10 percent as a 2009 average. The third scenario assumes that real house prices fall an additional 20 percent for a 2009 average. The projections show that the vast majority of families in these age cohorts will have little or no wealth by 2009 in any of these scenarios and that the cohorts just approaching retirement will have very little to support themselves in retirement other than their Social Security. The projections also show that a large number of families in these age cohorts will have little or no equity in their homes in 2009.
The picture is brighter for renters, as the press release notes:
In fact, the renters within each wealth quintile in 2004 will have more wealth in 2009 under all three scenarios, than will the homeowners from the same quintile. These projections underscore the dramatic impact of policies that promoted homeownership during the housing bubble.
Martin Feldstein has a proposal: Let the federal government take on a piece of people's mortgages to stop a self-reinforcing downward spiral on home values.
In an opinion article published in The Washington Post (and picked up elsewhere), the Harvard professor and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research writes:
Such a program might be structured this way: The federal government would offer all homeowners with mortgages the opportunity to replace one-fifth of their existing mortgage (up to some dollar limit) with a government loan. This loan would carry a substantially lower interest rate than the individual's mortgage (reflecting the government's cost of funds). It would be a full-recourse loan that would have to be repaid regardless of what happens to the borrower's mortgage or home. By law, it would take priority over all non-mortgage debt.
... Because this program would, in effect, swap government bonds for individual IOUs, it would not involve any increase in government spending or in the deficit. Because the loans would appeal primarily to those who now have positive equity in their homes, it would not reward people who made high-risk purchases and now have high negative equity.
Most plans to help homeowners -- those facing foreclosure or hurt by the slump in other ways -- have proved controversial. So -- weigh in:
A U.K. charity said today that nearly one in four households is stressed or depressed thanks to housing costs, while one in nine has sold possessions to make their mortgage or rent. See Shelter's press release about the survey HERE.
How are things in your neck of the woods? Weigh in on our own poll:
Have you taken any creative -- or desperate -- measures to better afford housing? Are you finding better deals now on rent or mortgages? Comment away.
EDIT at 8:30 p.m.: And the winner at the moment is ... very affordable, with 35 percent of the (admittedly limited) vote. Always nice to hear good news! Still, "somewhat high" and "very difficult to cover" together add up to 41 percent. Here's hoping you voters find something that works with your budget.
EDIT on Friday at 8:30 p.m.: There's a number of extra votes now, 24 hours later, which changes things. Top category: "Somewhat high for my budget," with 39 percent of the vote. Together, the "too high" categories add up to 55 percent. "Very affordable" has about a quarter of the vote. Feel free to keep voting -- the polls never close here.
Doesn't matter what the market change is: Some will benefit and some won't. With that in mind, weigh in -- has the housing slowdown (or its ripples) affected you at all? If so, how?
Irwin Kellner, chief economist for MarketWatch, in an opinion piece on the housing market today, predicts that the buyer's market could turn in favor of sellers "before you know it":
I would agree with those who say that it will take many months before balance is restored between supply and demand. There are simply too many homes for sale at asking prices that are still too high for housing to do a 180.
Nor am I expecting another housing bubble to form, not in this decade anyway.
All I would like to point out is that, in broad macro terms, the average house is no longer as overpriced as it once was. That being the case, it is no longer prudent to assume that home prices have to fall a lot more before they stabilize.
All right -- your turn to opine:
UPDATE: Of the 47 who voted as of 7 p.m. today, 26 percent of you think 2010, 23 percent of you say 2009 and an equal percentage say 2011. Nineteen percent chose the "years from now" option, and 9 percent picked this year.
Mortgage giant Fannie Mae, which in December began requiring higher down payments in markets it deemed to be declining, said today that it's scrapping that policy. Buyers of single-family homes will be able to put down as little as 3 percent nationwide.
That's for loans made to people who will occupy the homes they're buying and handled through Fannie's automated underwriting system. Loans underwritten in other ways will require 5 percent down.
"As another part of our 'Keys to RecoveryTM' initiative, we are today announcing that we will be equalizing the down payment requirements for borrowers in all parts of the country, regardless of local market conditions," Marianne Sullivan, Senior Vice President, Single-Family Credit Policy and Risk Management, said. "This new down payment policy reinforces our goal to support successful home-owning, not just home-buying, as we seek to bring liquidity to all communities and help the housing market recover."
Fannie, a major player in the market because it buys and securitizes mortgages made by other lenders, said it can afford to make this change because its new model for automated underwriting "will limit risk layering and assess each loan more precisely."
So, folks -- now seems as good a time as any to try out our snazzy new ability to do blog polls:
Jamie Smith Hopkins, a Baltimore Sun reporter since 1999, writes about the regional economy. Her reporting on the housing market has won national and local awards. Hopkins is a Columbia native and has lived in Maryland all her life, save for 10 months spent covering schools in Ames, Iowa.
She trained to become a wonk by spending large chunks of time as a geek and an insufferable know-it-all.
• Baltimore Sun articles by Jamie
