undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalexeisadeski311y ago0 comments

The wealthier folks were simply less leveraged:

1. If you own 10% equity in a home which declines in value 20%, you now have negative wealth. A 200% decline.

2. If you own 50% equity in a home which declines in value 20%, you have suffered a mere 40% decline.

0 comments

Not sure why someone voted you down, that quite believably would play into it and certainly doesn't seem to contradict the numbers in the paper in any obvious way.

(The wealthiest folks did see an increase in wealth over the 10-year time considered by the paper while everyone else saw a loss, but that's possibly because the wealthiest 10% also had a comparatively smaller amount of their assets tied up in their homes to begin with.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsalexeisadeski311y ago0 comments

The wealthier folks were simply less leveraged:

1. If you own 10% equity in a home which declines in value 20%, you now have negative wealth. A 200% decline.

2. If you own 50% equity in a home which declines in value 20%, you have suffered a mere 40% decline.

0 comments

bunderbunder11y ago

Not sure why someone voted you down, that quite believably would play into it and certainly doesn't seem to contradict the numbers in the paper in any obvious way.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse