CNBC's Cramer: "Don't you dare buy a home now."

Good morning. We'll say this about Jim Cramer: a few weeks ago he freaked out on live TV and begged the Fed to wake up and cut rates, and people made fun of him. Then the Fed woke up and cut rates. We consider him one of the most influential financial commentators in America.

So we think it's newsworthy that he went on the "Today" show this week and said, "Don't you dare buy a home now, you will lose money."

Naturally, the National Association of Realtors went batty, calling Cramer's remarks “misleading, inaccurate, and inappropriate.”

If you're reading this Friday morning, you can see a live rematch/grudge match/smackdown between Cramer and the NAR on the "Today" show at 7:30 a.m.

Help us out: Who are the most influential financial commentators in America? More important: Can anyone explain to us how to watch CNBC videos on a Mac? We're lost.
Photo Credit: AP
 

Comments

[Rich]

Without a doubt the most influential financial commentators in America are the regular talking heads at CNBC. Whether it be Cramer or the Fast Money traders or the regular anchors and guests on their daytime programming, CNBC is the only game in town. Once upon a time other networks might have had a William Rukeyser, but that era is over. And Fox is unlikely to make a dent unless they give up their yellow journalism practices and hire some straight shooters, because financial news watchers aren't the passive dummies their news audience is.

Cramer is wrong to paint this thing with such a broad brush; as with everyone else he's buying into the hysteria and believing that all markets are "bubble" markets. If your house is priced around 3.5x the median income for your region, you will not lose any significant value in the long term, or may even do better than you expect if you sell right now. The people who should be concerned are the people looking to buy houses 5x or greater than their regional median income; even if this is a price range they can presently afford they should ask themselves, as everyone should have always been asking themselves, whether the pool of potential buyers who could take it off their hands later is dangerously small and might leave them stuck or force them to take a loss. I live in the state with the highest median income, Connecticut with 62,000 for a single wage earner, so I feel entitled to make some worst-case generalizations since they can only be more true for everyone else: if you're thinking of buying a house over $500,000 today you are almost certain to see your equity drop in the next 5 years, and houses in the $700+ range are only for people for whom money is no object...

[JohnG.]

Cramer is right,
Why purchase a house now, when it will be worth A LOT LESS in the near furure.
TheRealtors are only concern about their own jobs and income and possibly
lawsuits from prior clients that have paid way too much for cardboard boxes. (condo?)
I was able to talk my children into not purchasing new homes this past spring,saving them untold amount of $$$.
The fat lady as yet to sing !!

[mike]

why can't the general public GET THE PICTURE AND RENT FOR THE TIME BEING?????the prices are obviously dropping and later will be the time to buy. you will hemmorhage twice the money in a tanking market like this as you would renting for even the next 5 years!!!!!!!!!!! only a fool buys on the way down!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CD]

CNBC, my guys, I love them, watch them everyday, all day if I could.

[Jeremy (jemarqu)]

I watched the video of Cramer duking it out with Charles "McVillan" NAR President Elect on the Today Show.

Here is a quote from Charles McMillan "not to mention the tangible benefit of sheltering the ones that are most precious to them in this life". This guy sort of reminds me of a mortician not a realtor. He missed his calling, he should be selling coffins. I guess the real estate market is dead so there is no difference.

[Michael Snyder]

Has anybody else noticed how much CNBC sounds/looks/cuts like ESPN? Granted if financial news was presented like we got it in school nobody would stay awake long enough to get the news. Frankly I watch the BBC World news and PBS as well in order to gain a prospective not owned by Rupert Murdock. Every news outlet in America puts its' own spin on the news, Fox swings to the far right, PBS to the left and CNBC is all about short term gain. Still nobody's had the guts to call the Fed on their doctored inflation figures that have been at the heart of our economic woes. The day Greenspan removed food and fuel from the Fed's inflation reporting the markets' been working with bad information. Who ever heard of an accountant who didn't want to include information because it was "too volatile"? Since then fuel has gone up 100% and food 20%+ and we all stand around and wonder why folks can't pay their mortgages. Here's a news flash; when the plankton are gone, we'll be right behind them. Just as the hard working folks who handed you your Starbucks this morning can't pay their bills, the investors foreclose on their home and everybody looses; and so the cycle goes until extinction. It really doesn't matter who's shouting in television; until we take care of the people who actually make something we will continue to skid into a new feudalism. I really don't care what someone told Ronald Regan to say; food chains build from the bottom up. The same holds true for economic chains. Without folks "gettin' it done", none of the investments folks on CNBC shout about are worth the hot air the commentators expend.

[TedB]

NBC informed me about a year ago that their sites do not support video feeds for Macs. Perhaps that is still the case. Thanks for the great blog!

[investorguy]

Mike and John: Do the math. This thing is regional. Rich is right. If you're in a market where market homes (the standard 3/2) can be had for $100K to $200K, you're fine.

Other areas still show appreciation, however slight. Even Cramer this morning said that Seattle and Montgomery County MD are good buying areas. SoCal's gonna be rough for a few years for consumers trying to get into the market -- although investors have opportunities.

Take off your "I have to rent and I'm mad" blinders -- It's all simple math. And it's not all bad... outside of SoCal.

[MyLessThanPrimeBeef]

Whether it was from Cramer or with a little dose of common sense, today's potential homebuyers can't, unlike the passagers on the Titanic or the Hindenburg,t whine that they weren't forewarned.

[Dean Zatkowsky]

Many people on television are "influential," but that only makes them more dangerous when they are wrong. The Times should set up a "Talking Heads Accountability Task Force" to track the pronouncements and predictions of broadcast pundits over time. Now that would be influential...

[Theo]

Always wondered what the net worth of pundits like Cramer is. To me the easiest measure of the accuracy of their message, then again it’s not the quality but the ratings that count

[Bill]

Keep your seat belts fastened and leave home WITHOUT the credit cards. First things come first, food, car payments and ga$, so you can get to work. If your house payment doubles with a 2/28 you might have to move closer to work.

[MyLessThanPrimeBeef]

Yeah, I thought about commuting from Montgomery couty MD to downtown LA.

Can't be that bad.

As for investing, real investors go to Moscow, Russia. It is still a boomtown with all that oil money.

Sure, it takes a while for you to get around to fix your tenant's leaking roof or overflowing toilet in person, but real estate is appreciating there.

Fortunately, as someone posted yesterday or a few days ago, they build homes like fortresses about to be attacked by the Teutons again there, so you won't have to worry about flying Aeroflot too often.

[Jeremy(jemarqu)]

TedB wrote: "NBC informed me about a year ago that their sites do not support video feeds for Macs. Perhaps that is still the case. Thanks for the great blog!"

Ted, you can go to MSNBC.COM to view the videos. They now use streaming flash instead of WMP. You shouldn't have any problems viewing the videos on your MAC.

[Jeremy(jemarqu)]

investorguy wrote: "Take off your "I have to rent and I'm mad" blinders -- It's all simple math. And it's not all bad... outside of SoCal."

Not all of use have to rent. I can afford a home in the neighborhood I want to live in. The problem is that I think better deals will be found in the next 1 to 2 years.

[CD]

Peter, go to housebubble.com, Cramer's video is playing and it works on the mac.

[markl]

Saying Cramer is the most influential financial pro out there is like saying britney spears is the most influential musician{?}..
Cramer might be influential among neophyte investors but he is the most laughed at by finance proffessionals.And with good reason.
Assuming the fed cut rates because of cramer is beyond laughable.
As for cnbc ,it is a non stop advertising vehicle for various firms to promote their company's services,products.CNBC is a lot of filler and static interspersed with some occasionally educational info.

[Bob]

It's like the blind men and the elephant, you believe what you are exposed to. If you make 40-50K/year in LA, you're toast. If you make 40-50K in Kansas City, you've got a house. If you were in a 3-5 bidder contest on a house in the last 2 years and you won, you probably overpaid and will get burnt if you have to sell over the next 3 years. If you got a house within a mile of the beach, you won't even see a decline. If you bought in the desert, no money down, you're serious toast.

Hey, you can get a 2 bed, 1 bath house for 40K(or less) on the ocean, in Newfoundland. Iceberg/whale views. Crab pots and boat extra.

I think it is a good time to buy if you can get reasonable financing and you are purchasing in an area that has long term desirability. Few want to move from Minnesota to Victorville for the rest of their life. Buy the best view, location, neighborhood, school, environment (not next to the freeway) and you won't go wrong.

Pricing looks soft because all the junk goes on the market when things get soft and floods the market. The really nice houses don't go down much, they just stay on the market longer waiting for the price. I've seen houses locally go off market and then raise the asking 10% so they can discount.

[Rob]

I don’t want to miss any of the Senate hearings. I think I will get a TIVO.

Just a sample of the some articles I saved from the past couple years.

Sept. 2006 AP
"With sales stabilizing, we should go back to positive price growth early next year." ,said David Lereah, the Realtors' chief economist

Oct. 2006 AP
"The worst is behind us as far as a market correction — this is likely the trough for sales," said David Lereah, the Realtors' chief economist. "When consumers recognize that home sales are stabilizing, we'll see the buyers who've been on the sidelines get back into the market."

[150 multiple choice questions]

Cramer, you PUSSED OUT!!!!! Did better than most, but just call the guy a lying shill!

[johng]

Inverstorguy, you have made your point, there are still good values in America but not in SoCal.
I saw the sign a few years ago, sold our house and moved out of Southern California.
Retired early, happily living in a small village in Scandinavia.

[Pete Viles]

markl wrote, "Assuming the fed cut rates because of cramer is beyond laughable."

Thanks for the comment; I didn't assume that at all, I don't believe it, and I hope I didn't suggest it. Here is exactly what I think: That Cramer, knowing the Fed pretty well, recognized the mortgage crisis as exactly the kind of financial problem that would cause the Fed to cut rates, and he recognized it BEFORE Bernanke did. By that I mean Cramer had better sources, better information, better insight, and a better gut than the Fed. The only other way to explain the sequence of events is that the Fed knew everything Cramer knew, agreed with him that it was a crisis and the Fed should cut rates, but decided that cutting rates too soon would send a message of crisis and cause a panic, and so decided to wait a while. I think it is more likely that the Fed was simply not sure what it was looking at, and wanted to see more data. Cramer, on the other hand, knew exactly what he was looking at.

What Cramer said is, "Oh my God this is a train wreck in slow motion, do something now!" What the Fed was saying at that moment was, "There could possibly be a problem with one of the trains. We're watching the entire railroad very closely." Weeks later the Fed said, "We now believe a slow-motion train wreck has been in progress for some time."

[Charles Wilson]

Mike and John: Do the math. This thing is regional. Rich is right. If you're in a market where market homes (the standard 3/2) can be had for $100K to $200K, you're fine.

Other areas still show appreciation, however slight. Even Cramer this morning said that Seattle and Montgomery County MD are good buying areas. SoCal's gonna be rough for a few years for consumers trying to get into the market -- although investors have opportunities.

Take off your "I have to rent and I'm mad" blinders -- It's all simple math. And it's not all bad... outside of SoCal.

===============

I live in Seattle. My neighborhood is Magnolia, population 14,000 or so. Parts of Magnolia are rich, and other parts are middle class. When everything's combined, I'd say it's at right on the line between the top one-third and the middle one-third of the economic pile here.

A local real estate broker publishes a data sheet showing the listings and sales in Magnolia for the past three years. Sales volume has remained constant, but listings took a sudden upward spike in July. In my immediate neighborhood, houses that should have sold -- not "overpriced" in relation to comparable recent sales -- are sitting there, not moving.

As for the underlying economics, my house is "worth" about $800,000 in relation to recent sales. But, given what things rent for in Magnolia, I doubt I could get more than $2,500 a month, and wouldn't be terribly surprised if it was closer to $2,000. I used to rent the place out, so I keep an eye on rents in the neighborhood.

At $2,500 in rent, a rational buyer would pay $400,000 for my place. At $2,000 in rent, the rational price is $320,000. Yet, if I'd sold in May or June, I could've gotten $800,000 -- at least double the rational price. Today, I'm not so sure what it would fetch, as I believe the market here is cooling off. Of course, this is all theory because I love my house and the only seller is going to be my estate.

The bottom line is that if Cramer said Seattle is okay, he's a bit dated. I think Seattle has peaked. This city has historically been an economic follower. The "simple math" says that you're just as nuts (maybe even more so) to buy in Seattle as you are if you buy just about anywhere else.

[Semphris]

Treating your home like a commodity is risky business. Stocks go up and down. People win and/or loose. However, they still get to go home when it’s all over. It is fool hardy to expect (or even insist) that anyone will be making long term investment gains on their homes. The biggest benefit is that they don’t have to pay a mortgage if they eventually own the property. Cashing out on your home is still debt because either you have to pay that loan back or you have to buy another home.

Maybe I’m biased. I’ve lived in 3 states over the last 7 years and have taken it in the pants in two of them (WI and TX). Now that I’m in SoCal I’m not so quick to jump on board. I make roughly 2x the average household income in my area (Palmdale) and yet I still cannot afford the homes here. Just by making an affordability comparison I expect homes to continue to drop in value by as much as 40%

Just my 2 cents

PS. Interesting inside scoop. I have a friend who just got a city contract for mosquito abatement for 2000 vacant homes with pools the Palmdale and Lancaster. I want to know why these homes are not on the market?

[RossA]

I actually have new found respect for Cramer considering how he conducted himself when put on the spot. If nothing else, at least he actually believes what he's saying.

Watching Windows format videos on the Mac requires a free plug-in called Flip4mac. I recommend it.