FHLMC estimates 3.7 million shortage including reduced formation.

https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/housing-supply-still-undersupplied

My housing market informant has been infirmed as of late, but even the article I quoted said their estimate was conservative and too low.

Deportation will help some, boomers will help some, but if there is supply, lower prices and such the private equity will begin sliding back in to supply their BTR programs.

Folks wanting immediate solutions as in within the next decade, need to be thinking about how great their kid will look in Hearne Eagles maroon vs A&M Consol maroon.

The reason they said it was conservative was because it doesn't include estimates of delays in new household formation. The FHLMC estimate includes that. I was providing it as an example of how large that problem is.

With few exceptions banks aren't interested in collecting interest. They want to originate and sell loans for a profit and then do it again.

The sale value is derived from the calculation of expected future cash flows. FNMA/FHLMC want the mortgage servicer collecting payments not properties. Point was they don't want to buy your home.

Roger that.

This may have been what I remembered. This was reported in June and may no longer be accurate 7 months later.

Quote:

---

The U.S. housing market had nearly a half million more sellers than buyers in April, the biggest such gap on record in seasonally adjusted data going back to 2013, according to an analysis by real-estate brokerage Redfin.

---

The article I linked addresses the phenomenon of more sellers than buyers not resulting in lower prices.

I was in the business 45 years. Banks don't want to own homes or to hold long term real estate loans.

YouBet said:

---

In addition, I think this 50-year mortgage idea is getting ahead of reality and is unnecessary simply because we are about to have a major housing glut in the next few years. We already do but it's going to get worse, and prices will HAVE to fall.

But I get why Trump is doing this. He doesn't have time to wait for that because R's are going to get murdered in the mid-terms if something doesn't give...right or wrong; fair or not...so this is him throwing a hail mary to try and get some relief out there.

---

If you are talking about us boomers dying, it's going to take longer than you think. Good for us, bad for housing affordability.

Any "housing bonanza" would come from more houses going on the market than historical average. For the boomer's, our peak dying years are ~20 years out. 2044: about 4.3 M kick the proverbial bucket.

To see sizable increases "newly vacant houses" your are looking many years out. Assuming current mortality rates by age. So I guess you can look for a plague? Otherwise, will be gradual and accelerating for the next 20 years.

Not sure this is a good answer for our current affordability crisis. But it will help some.

Most people don't understand the back end of mortgage. I've worked in it a long time as well. "Bank" is a understandable stand in for the holder of the note. You're being unnecessarily specific to a general audience. Average person has no idea that their servicer is not the one making the interest off their loan.

jja79 said:

---

I was in the business 45 years. Banks don't want to own homes or to hold long term real estate loans.

---

True in general, but Chase loves holding my jumbo. He'll, couple years into and they offered me a lower rate adjustment in order to keep the loan vs me shopping it. Costs me about $1,200 and lowered my payment by $400/month.

Yes, most all banks do not want to own real estate. But if you are going to offer 50 year mortgages, some note holder is going to own that home.

I was with a portfolio lender as well but in general originators don't hold paper.

Not disagreeing, but it does happen.

Perhaps banks should be required to hold more of the paper. Disconnecting the homeowner to the ultimate note holder has led to all sorts of opportunities and issues.

Not to head down too much a tangent, but mortgage backed securities and derivatives of such should be curtailed.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keep in mind we are STILL recovering from 2008 hit to the market. And that was a very deep hole that we are just nearing the top of the hole after nearly 20 years.

Shortage of supply persists.

https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/nam/en/insights/markets-and-investing/tmt/a-shortage-of-supply-the-housing-market-explained

Quote:

---

So, with demand so subdued, why aren't prices correcting? The answer lies in a persistent supply squeeze. About half of current U.S. mortgage borrowers are still enjoying sub-4% rates, and about 80% are paying under 6%, creating a "locked-in" effectthere's little incentive to sell and take on a higher payment, keeping existing home inventory at historic lows. We estimate the current housing shortage at approximately 2.8 million units, and we believe it could take around 10 years to resolve. This figure is likely conservative, as it only reflects the physical shortfall and doesn't account for the fact that many households haven't been formed due to discouragementsuch as individuals remaining in their parents' homes longer. It's important to note that the shortage isn't uniform across the country; it's most acute in coastal cities, and much less severe in the middle of America.

---

---

Joe Biden, or whoever was pulling the strings on his corpse, let in 10-20M people in the last 4 years.

Are there 10-20M more homeless people now? No.

Where are they living?

If you thanos-snap those people back to their origins, we have a glut of houses, and prices come down.

If you cut off their funding and subsidies at minimum, a small percentage would be able to live here on their own and would self-deport.

But the windowlicking tards fighting ICE turn to socialism now, instead of common sense solutions.

I saw two interesting ideas on X.com today:

1. Make all (even existing) Fannie and Freddie loans assumable.

2. Offer 50-year mortgages only on new construction.

Idea #1 feels impractical. Lenders will not give up origination fees or accept zero attrition of below-market interest rate loans.

But it raises a good question…

Why did the government rationalize that FHA and VA loans should be assumable and how did they get lenders to play along? Any mortgage lenders on here have insight?

Idea #2 seems really smart.

It still leads to more leverage in the system, but at least we get more new housing supply.

And if you offer a 50-year note, it makes sense to pair with new homes rather than aging properties with less remaining useful life.

jja79 said:

---

College is a scam and unnecessary for 95% of current college students. I've got a 22 year old son who spent a minute in college and said no way. He closed on his first house 2 weeks ago and made 6 figures each of the last two years.

Two weeks ago I was with him and his buddies that went to college and they all said they wish they'd skipped college and the debt.

---

Good decision for him. Well done.

But then those that it is not a scam for should be the ones going. But that should be an individual cost benefit analysis and if you chose poorly, you should suffer the repercussions. You know, individual responsibility and all.

I went back to college to change fields. Did a cost benefit analysis and less than 10 years post graduation I am making 7 figures when I made low 6 figures prior to the change. It cost me almost $300k to make that change, but it was well worth it.

Keep in mind a huge portion of those illegals are domiciled in MF rentals at about 5x to 10x intended occupancy.

You could deport every last one of them and it would barely move the needle on housing shortage.

Do I support deportation, absolutely. Does doing it help, should. Just maybe not the impact you suspect.

Knowledge gap between lenders and borrowers is massive and risk absorption between lenders and borrowers is massive. It's not a real market. Lenders bear little risk, borrowers bear most of the risk. Lenders do zero underwriting, borrowers lack the capacity at 18 to risk assess.

Shift the balance. End federal student loans outside of STEM/math heavy degrees, make loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, continue income based repayment plan discharges as government/societal punishment for building a stupid credential barrier to employment that did not create functional knowledge and ballooned costs.

Make it a real market. Tuition costs will fall, fewer people will seek degrees, employers will adjust expectations for newly minted workers.

Over_ed said:

---

YouBet said:

---

In addition, I think this 50-year mortgage idea is getting ahead of reality and is unnecessary simply because we are about to have a major housing glut in the next few years. We already do but it's going to get worse, and prices will HAVE to fall.

But I get why Trump is doing this. He doesn't have time to wait for that because R's are going to get murdered in the mid-terms if something doesn't give...right or wrong; fair or not...so this is him throwing a hail mary to try and get some relief out there.

---

If you are talking about us boomers dying, it's going to take longer than you think. Good for us, bad for housing affordability.

Any "housing bonanza" would come from more houses going on the market than historical average. For the boomer's, our peak dying years are ~20 years out. 2044: about 4.3 M kick the proverbial bucket.

To see sizable increases "newly vacant houses" your are looking many years out. Assuming current mortality rates by age. So I guess you can look for a plague? Otherwise, will be gradual and accelerating for the next 20 years.

Not sure this is a good answer for our current affordability crisis. But it will help some.

---

Dammit!! Y'all need to die faster so we can get past this crap.


Just kidding.

hph6203 said:

---

Knowledge gap between lenders and borrowers is massive and risk absorption between lenders and borrowers is massive. It's not a real market. Lenders bear little risk, borrowers bear most of the risk. Lenders do zero underwriting, borrowers lack the capacity at 18 to risk assess.

Shift the balance. End federal student loans outside of STEM/math heavy degrees, make loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, continue income based repayment plan discharges as government/societal punishment for building a stupid credential barrier to employment that did not create functional knowledge and ballooned costs.

Make it a real market. Tuition costs will fall, fewer people will seek degrees, employers will adjust expectations for newly minted workers.

---

You could have just posted people are stupid and are bad at estimating risk. Successful people are not. We should just remove government, end entitlements and let people fend for themselves.

And yet you criticize them for not. Smart people understand they can't and that creating a system that subsidizes the exploitation of that is a bad system.

Saying people should do an individual risk assessment, that you admit they can't, and the **** em when it ****s them is a shallow commentary.

hph6203 said:

---

And yet you criticize them for not. Smart people understand they can't and that creating a system that subsidizes the exploitation of that is a bad system.

Saying people should do an individual risk assessment, that you admit they can't, and the **** em when it ****s them is a shallow commentary.

---

You should make rules that provide the maximum opportunity for everyone, not for protecting the lowest common denominator from themselves. Then let the chips fall where they may.

We are always focused on setting the floor rather than raising the potential ceiling. I am for individualism and letting nature take its course. People should have agency but the weak get slaughtered. It is the way of the world since time immemorial.

TresPuertas said:

---

the solution is not more mortgages. it's less options available for illegals and unqualified buyers

this helps solve the housing problem pretty quickly.

---

If you can't afford to buy a home, you can't afford to maintain one

No one gets out alive, were collectively screwed with the whole Credit scheme.

Dan Scott said:

---

Can somebody check on Dave Ramsey? I believe this is an admission that housing is unaffordable and we can't do anything about it.

We now live in a society where more debt is the “solution” to everything:

Can’t afford basic necessities? Take on more debt.

Can’t pay your tuition? Take on more debt.

Can’t afford to buy a home? Take on more debt.

Can’t keep inflation under control? Take on more debt.

Can’t… https://t.co/In6APj2Cpi

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) November 9, 2025

---

That's why I paid off all debt in 2018. Debt sucks as you get older.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Not disagreeing, but it does happen.

Perhaps banks should be required to hold more of the paper. Disconnecting the homeowner to the ultimate note holder has led to all sorts of opportunities and issues.

Not to head down too much a tangent, but mortgage backed securities and derivatives of such should be curtailed.

---

MBS and the availability of lender credit is what created the greatest and only real middle class in the world. Home ownership is the biggest factor to wealth creation for the vast majority of people.

You optimize for efficiency and freedom, not opportunity. they are not the same. A 100 IQ person inherently lacks the opportunity of a 150 IQ person. The student loan program optimizes for opportunity and it's a disaster.

Your understanding of the world is flawed and misunderstands how efficiency works. There are only so many slots an 80 IQ person can fill. There are only so many economically productive roles for those people. An idle 80 IQ person may not be additive to productivity, but they damn sure can be anti-productive. So you pacify them. Soon there will be no roles for 80 IQ people, then 90, then 100, then 150 IQ people and beyond. Your world view would have the you of tomorrow cede their life to a robot and allow silicon based brains to inherent the Earth. I'm not that anti-human.

There are unique personal reasons I got and said for me anyway, I wanted to pay off my home in 15 years. I agree with the exceptions. At age 78, for example, I might like to take out a 60-year home mortgage. And getting my doctorate, and I may be remembering the number wrong but I think I was paying 1.875% interest. My goal was to pay off my loan in three years, but then I realize that I could Make a lot more money in the stock market and so I spent on purpose 20 years to pay off the loan.
I think there are a lot of metrics to consider and one of them is psychological reasons.
I have also never bought a brand new vehicle even though my family owns lots of new dealerships. Don't want that instant huge depreciation once I drive it off the lot. To each his own. If I was say 75 years old and had the money, I think that it might make sense to buy a brand new car with a warranty, so I wouldn't have to be working on older cars, even though my undergraduate at A&M was in mechanical engineering. I like to do my own work on cars.

hph6203 said:

---

You optimize for efficiency and freedom, not opportunity. they are not the same. A 100 IQ person inherently lacks the opportunity of a 150 IQ person. The student loan program optimizes for opportunity and it's a disaster.

Your understanding of the world is flawed and misunderstands how efficiency works. There are only so many slots an 80 IQ person can fill. There are only so many economically productive roles for those people. An idle 80 IQ person may not be additive to productivity, but they damn sure can be anti-productive. So you pacify them. Soon there will be no roles for 80 IQ people, then 90, then 100, then 150 IQ people and beyond. Your world view would have the you of tomorrow cede their life to a robot and allow silicon based brains to inherent the Earth. I'm not that anti-human.

---

You let the people that cannot compete die. You don't pacify them by doling out earnings from producers and allowing them to continue to reproduce other low IQ people. Humans were all meant to have farms in small communities and have agency over their survival, not government dependency in section 8 housing waiting to eat their government provided cricket.

And I understand that if they revolt that it may bring down society but that is preferable to supporting ever growing groups on non producers. Both for them and us.

They don't die quietly. They take you with them.

You're not grasping that a future equivalence of yourself is a person you're saying should starve. Computers and robots are going to improve to the point that your labor is anti-productive in every possible way. That equivalent you will be slower and dumber than a robot to the point that your mere existence or effort would be anti-productive.

hph6203 said:

---

They don't die quietly. They take you with them.

---

I spent the first 16 years of my adulthood either training to or employing violence or the threat of it against other humans, so I am aware.

Better to just have the reset than pay people off to behave. Then you don't have to worry about those nasty robots.

The natural order will be reestablished and solve so many issues like dating, marriage and reproduction. All of this social degeneracy will fall away too when people are focused on surviving.

hph6203 said:

---

They don't die quietly. They take you with them.

You're not grasping that a future equivalence of yourself is a person you're saying should starve. Computers and robots are going to improve to the point that your labor is anti-productive in every possible way. That equivalent you will be slower and dumber than a robot to the point that your mere existence or effort would be anti-productive.

---

It will violently reset before that if we stop paying people just to exist.

It's not a reset. In your lifetime, provided you're under the age of 60 and don't die young, computers and robots will be smarter and more capable than you in all aspects. It is a trick of timing that you're saying those dumber than the productive should die. You are advocating for the future equivalent to you in competence and effort to starve.