July 19, 2006

‘This Time, Things Will Be Different’

Some housing bubble reports from the northeastern US. “Rising federal interest rates combined with growing concern among the nation’s lenders over how much supply Jersey City’s Downtown can handle has some experts and local officials predicting a significant slowdown in the city’s bullish residential market.”

“The apparent shift in momentum comes at a time when Jersey City planning officials are bracing for upwards of 20,000 new units in the Downtown region alone over the next decade, and it’s now unclear whether the city will hit that target as the market emerges from its borrower-friendly epoch.”

“The perception of a flooded market has already slowed down one major Downtown project, mega mogul Donald Trump recently told The Jersey Journal the second phase of his Trump Jersey City project ‘may or may not get built, depending on market conditions.’”

“The attorney for Metro Homes, James McCann, defended a postponement of a payment to the city saying that the lenders for the project have become jittery about the prospects of selling out the second of two towers.”

“‘The banks are a little more skeptical of condo developments, because of the supply,’ said Dave Barry, of Applied Development. ‘Developers are now being asked to put more money up front because of the rate increase, and they are asking whether it’s worth it,’ Barry said.”

“In the first solid sign the housing market has turned south, home sales in Philadelphia, South Jersey and Delaware fell in the first six months of 2006 compared to a year ago for the first time in about a decade.”

“‘The market feels very slow right now,’ said Steve Storti, senior VP of marketing for Prudential. ‘I have every expectation that this will continue at least until the end of this year.’ He said the housing market started to falter last winter and the downturn accelerated beginning in April.”

“‘People will now sell their house before they buy another one,’ he said. ‘Previously, people were buying a house before selling their house because they thought it would sell right away.’”

“South Jersey took the hardest hit, down nearly 8 percent in sales. The number of days on market for Pennsylvania homes rose by 59 percent.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer. “Seem like old times? It might if you remember the late 1980s, says regional economist Jim Diffley. According to Diffley, the real estate run-up since 2000 has been dramatically more pronounced in the Northeast, Florida and California than in the Midwest or southern American heartland.”

“If that rings an ominous bell, it should. The boom of the mid- to late 1980s was followed by a bust that took its biggest toll on the same bicoastal set of states and metro regions, Diffley said.”

“As a reminder, he dug out some regional house-price statistics from that era that most real estate salespeople would prefer to forget: In Boston, average home prices fell 11 percent between 1989 and 1991. Northern New Jersey fell even more, 14 percent, in the same period.”

“The trend took a little longer to reach the West Coast, but it lasted longer when it did. San Francisco home prices dropped 11 percent between 1990 and 1994. Los Angeles’ average house plummeted 21 percent from ‘91 to ‘95.”

“Philadelphia’s price drop back then wasn’t as pronounced, mainly because our gains in the mid-1980s weren’t as large either. Houses stayed roughly flat here through about 1996. But this time around, we’re in the thick of it. Average home prices were less than $150,000 in 2000; today they’re closer to $300,000.”

“And like the bicoastal bubble two decades ago, this one is likely to end, fizzing if it doesn’t bust. Already, the data indicate that both new construction and home sales are coming off their previous breakneck pace. It’s not hard at all to imagine the squeeze on those who stretched to buy their dream homes using ultra-low teaser-rate mortgages, once rates adjust back to market levels.”

“As we saw in 1989, moreover, borrowers’ troubles eventually spread to the lenders. Hundreds of savings and loans failed back then, putting the entire economy at risk. But Diffley isn’t saying it’s 1989 all over again. ‘It’s not going to happen again,’ he told me. ‘What was happening in ‘89 and ‘90 was a lot different than what we see today.’”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

59 Comments »

Comment by txchick57
2006-07-19 05:48:57

Yes, 1989-1990 was different.

THIS TIME IS WORSE!

Comment by Dupontguy39
2006-07-19 06:00:54

Just off by 60 years… They meant to say that it was a lot like 1929-1930…:)

 
Comment by flatffplan
2006-07-19 06:22:27

yes the entire oil patch was down in 86 so 20% of the us was not in the 90’s downturn
and the mid west was flat before the 90’s dump
it is different- the slope is much steeper on the upside which usually means steeper on the downside

Comment by novasold
2006-07-19 07:09:33

Remember, this time we got 800k townhomes in Boise, Idaho. I’d say it’s MUCH worse this time….

Comment by txchick57
2006-07-19 07:42:36

Don’t forget a high rise in McAllen Texas. That’s the one that will always stand out for me.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by flatffplan
2006-07-19 09:01:48

downtown lubbock and the stackable trailers in asheville NC
downtown , that is

 
 
 
 
Comment by Marc Authier
2006-07-19 15:59:39

This time is ……. ?

 
 
Comment by Tim
2006-07-19 05:51:40

This is from the southwestern U.S. - new charts from yesterday’s DataQuick release:

San Diego, You Loser!

Comment by Getstucco
2006-07-19 07:41:25

It looks as though the rest of the SoCal pack is soon to follow SD into negative appreciation territory.

Comment by Polo bear
2006-07-19 09:09:52

I sure hope so!

 
 
 
Comment by Bill In Phoenix
2006-07-19 05:59:32

This time I THINK it will be worse!

 
Comment by Larry Littlefield
2006-07-19 06:05:14

Big question in New York. Lots of people want to live here, want the condos. I see more college-educated young people swarming in every day, packing four at a time into apartments.

But it has to be at a price they can afford. Not at the prices being charged.

The question is, could builders make money at a reasonable sales price/rent level for buyers/tenants, and a reasonable interest rate for investors? In other words, will we shift from mega profits to modest profits and still get development? Or from modest profits to no development at all?

Comment by Robert Cote
2006-07-19 06:14:40

New York. Lots of people want to live here

Ummmm… no. NYC is only at its 1950 population while the rest of the nation has grown tremendously.

Comment by Lex
2006-07-19 07:24:59

The population in the five boroughs reached a peak in the last (2000) census, beating the previous record set in 1970. Manhattan’s population has been dropping for a long time (although up very slightly from 1990 to 2000); I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s peak wasn’t sometime before WWII, when the last great waves of european immigration ended.
Yes, lots of people want to live here — it doesn’t mean they can.
In response to Mr. Littlefield–RE prices in NY are falling. As a result, I believe you will see less new development, not more.

 
Comment by buddhaman
2006-07-19 08:58:42

NY’s population is grossly undercounted - an old (bad) joke is to count the basement windows in immigrant neighborhoods and multiply by six…

 
Comment by Joe
2006-07-19 11:06:43

Rental vacancies in NYC is running at .1 to .2 %

Rental market is extremely tight.

 
Comment by Inspired
2006-07-19 19:21:57

NYC theme, I heard today htat investor Jim Rogers is moving to Chnia. It was said that he bought his townhouse / condo / apartment? in the 1970;s for appprox $150,000, he just SOLD it for 15 million plus.
Who said NYC isn’t the place to live?

 
 
 
Comment by Eastofwest
2006-07-19 06:07:00

..blurb on CNBC, Rylands’ California orders are down 40%.

 
Comment by simmssays
2006-07-19 06:08:03

Rylans 2Q profits fall, orders tumble.
It just keeps getting worse and worse.

Simmsssays…7 Inventive Ways to Sleep
http://www.americaninventorspot.com

Comment by DannyHSDad
2006-07-19 06:55:25

Anyone see cancellation rates? I’m curious how bad it really is. Stock is up 5.4%.

Comment by Notorious D.A.P.
2006-07-19 07:02:16

I think the HB stocks are up (like the market) on the Bernanke comments. Plus, they have been getting killed. Could be a bounce due to shorts taking profit. Just a thought.

Comment by Getstucco
2006-07-19 07:16:29

It seems as though the markets are (again) interpreting Gentle Ben’s remarks as a hint that a pause is in the pipeline. Is it time to have lunch again with Maria Bartiromo in order to clarify the situation?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Notorious D.A.P.
2006-07-19 09:34:14

I agree. Wall Street takes everything as a hint at a pause and they have been wrong so far. I feel they will raise them again to 5.5% and then pause. A pause doesn’t = stop or cut. He could very well move it to 6% by early 2007.

I believe it is time for lunch with Maria Bartiromo. I’d love to hear what the CNBC crew is thinking these days. Should be comical to say the least.

 
Comment by Inspired
2006-07-19 19:29:43

Yes the Media is really something.
It has proclaimed the 26th end to the last 18 straight rate rises. I am beside myself, wondering how many times the public (equity buyers) will continue to fall for this “end to the rate rise nonsense?” What ever happened to fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me? For the US equity investor public 26 times……I guese JPMorgan and the boys get to shove this stuff down your throats until it won’t fly…..Meanwhile Nasdaq stocks are trading at 2003 levels.
If its not broke why fix it? I guess.

 
 
Comment by denverKen
2006-07-19 07:17:25

Even in the worst of situations, beaten down stocks can and do have bounces. Short sellers who have big profits decide to close their position and take the profit..this causes buying, and for a little while can drive the price higher.

Nothing has changed, the downtrend will continue in a few days. Same for the entire stock market. We’re entering a recession in my opinion. Much lower stock prices are ahead over the next few months.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by eastcoaster
2006-07-19 06:38:05

“As a reminder, he dug out some regional house-price statistics from that era that most real estate salespeople would prefer to forget: In Boston, average home prices fell 11 percent between 1989 and 1991. Northern New Jersey fell even more, 14 percent, in the same period.”

“The trend took a little longer to reach the West Coast, but it lasted longer when it did. San Francisco home prices dropped 11 percent between 1990 and 1994. Los Angeles’ average house plummeted 21 percent from ‘91 to ‘95.”

11%, 14%, 21% - if things go the way many predict on this blog, these declines will be just the tip of the iceberg this time around.

 
Comment by Larry Littlefield
2006-07-19 06:48:33

(Ummmm… no. NYC is only at its 1950 population while the rest of the nation has grown tremendously.)

More people won’t fit — unless the level of development seen in the housing bubble is sustainable given incomes here. What we are seeing is what we have seen in the past — when too many people try to move here, the prices and rents soar and choke the economy.

Comment by Robert Cote
2006-07-19 07:01:00

No. Prices and rents are high because NYC is a very expensive place to live and do business. The current counter trend blip in demand is just a premium on top of the fundamental price inefficiency.

Comment by garcap
2006-07-19 07:32:58

where’s the price inefficiency?

Comment by txchick57
2006-07-19 07:37:01

Ben sez, “Read My Bips”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by arroyogrande
2006-07-19 07:38:29

“Prices and rents are high because NYC is a very expensive place to live”

Wait, isn’t that a circular argument? “Prices and rents are high because prices and rents are high”? Or are you saying that prices of food, furniture, heating oil, etc. are high in New York, justifying high rents (which doesn’t quite make sense either)?

IMHO, the reason rents and prices are so high in NY is that too many $$$ are chasing the available supply of homes. Doesn’t NY City have a (very) high concentration of (very) high wage/bonus earners? Supply and demand…

Comment by Robert Coté
2006-07-19 08:35:39

Even after demand slacks off the very high costs of intensely urban places remains. Things change. It is no longer necessary to aglomerate huge concentraions of workers in a single physical location to achieve business effeciences. The benefits of NYC cityforms are in the end of life returns on investment. The transit system being a perfect example. As long as the costs of NYC transit are not internalized there are no signals to tell people and businesses to change behavoir.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Michael
2006-07-19 15:33:40

I’m interested in what people are seeing in terms of prices in New York City and Westchester. I see signs of moderating prices in New York, but not the price drops that one person posted here. Nor, frankly, have I seen the build up of inventory, in Brooklyn anyway

Wellllllll, let me amend that. My anecdotal sense is that condos are moving quite a bit more slowly, and that might be seen as a forward indicator, as condos are cheaper to get into than houses.

 
 
 
Comment by flatffplan
2006-07-19 07:06:31

bb barely mentions housing- does he rent ?
it’s all GOOD !!!!!!!! ” BB

Comment by Getstucco
2006-07-19 08:42:02

No reason to unecessarily encourage the “kill the messenger” effect.

 
 
Comment by Judicious1
2006-07-19 07:12:45

For the past few years we’ve heard “greatest housing boom in history” and “an unprecedented increase in the value of real estate”. Now we’re starting down the other side so it should come as no surprise to hear “greatest housing bust in history” and “an unprecedented decrease in the value of real estate”.

What did people think would keep this market at unsustainable levels long-term? I realize it’s a great feeling to own an asset that has dramatically increased in value, but the bigger picture is that people need to be able to actually pay for it.

Comment by arroyogrande
2006-07-19 07:50:56

I’ll tell you exactly what people are/were thinking.

They were thinking that their particular area was so great, and so highly coveted, that the only way new property owners would get into the market was through buying a condo.

They thought that the time had passed for ‘normal’ families to own single-family homes in their area, and that only the moneyed elite (including themselves) would own SFH in their area in the foreseeable future.

It was a way for them to feel 1337 (elite). The unwashed masses (like their neighbors’ newly married kids) would be forced to live in small condos, while they themselves (with their incredible foresight to buy before being priced out forever) lived the life of luxury in one of the few remaining SFHs.

These are the things dreams are made of.

Comment by arroyogrande
2006-07-19 08:03:20

This is similar to the DotCom bust…everyone was buying internet stocks of companies that had no income (other than the VC money that kept flowing into them). Why? Because they were hoping that the companies THEY had picked were going to be “the next Microsoft”.

Some of the companies did (kind of) become the next Microsoft; but not every company could be.

Same with houses. Everyone thinks that their area is The Next Manhattan. Or The Next Santa Barbara. Or The Next San Francisco. Or The Next Malibu. Places that, even during normal times, the unwashed masses are unable to afford SFHs.

“It’s different here. People want to live here because…”

It’s all about being elite (1337).

 
Comment by HHH
2006-07-19 12:34:18

That’s the attitude I got from many friends on the coasts.

Everyone wants to live here, the quality of life is so superior, how could you stand to live in hickville with all of the rednecks? You should be paying $5k a month to live in a crackerbox for the privelege of being surrounded by beautiful coastal geniuses and hanging out on overcrowded beaches, dining in overpriced restaurants, breathing smoggy air, etc.

/coastal elite

 
 
 
Comment by Getstucco
2006-07-19 07:14:49

‘It’s not going to happen again,’ he told me. ‘What was happening in ‘89 and ‘90 was a lot different than what we see today.’

“This time, it’s different” are the four most expensive words in the English language.

-Ludwig von Mises-

Comment by Orion
2006-07-19 10:20:23

I just don’t get this guy. He seems to be right on track, sees all the warning signs, has all the charts and figures from the past, has a lot of experience but then at the end of his analysis he pulls back and basically says “Don’t worry, be happy.” Here’s a bit about Mr. Diffley:

James Diffley is Managing Director of Global Insight’s U.S. Regional Services Group, with overall responsibility for Regional Services, including the Regional Core Macroeconomic Service and the Global Insight Real Estate & Construction Service. Since 1998, he has supervised the quarterly economic forecast of the 50 states and over 300 metropolitan areas of the United States. He regularly makes presentations of these regional economic forecasts and analysis to clients, conferences, governmental bodies, and the press.

Global Insight say about themselves on their website homepage: “Recognized as the most consistently accurate economic forecasting firm in the world.”

I’m not an economist but even I can predict that with the amount of capital at risk in this country the banking and lending industry is in a very precarious state and not only could it be just as bad as ‘89, as many have already stated, it will probably be worse. He must have a motivation to sugar coat things. Is it because he’s got a lot of money on the table himself? Does he see himself in the same light as Greenspan or Bernanke, having to be careful about how bearish he sounds as not to cause a financial panic? This guy’s only job is economic analysis and prediction yet he chokes at the end of his quote. I can’t really say he was quoted out of context, that sentence speaks for itself, all by itself.

Are there any paid economists who are free to speak what they really feel? Or are the all wrapped in a web of conflicting interests and stifled by their corporate overseers?

 
Comment by Inspired
2006-07-19 19:39:44

“it’s different this time!” Duffley (i)
Of course it is, you are at the top of the 2005-6 hill , while you compare your 2006 rotting apples with the bottom of your 1989-90 sour grapes after the foreclosures and bank failures, or
otherwise the end of the trend versu the 2006 beginning!!
Diffley, you Knucklehead.

 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2006-07-19 07:18:13

I don’t see hoborentors comment, so I’ll post it here:

‘try this-go to craigslist nj do a search on RE for sale for motivated-you’ll get tons of hits-Hoboken and JC are coming off hard. I sold a unit in the Upper Grand in hoboken in January for $695k-nothing on craigslist is even asking $629k now.’

 
Comment by dl
2006-07-19 07:57:48

I live in the Downtown JC area and can testify to the growth in the area. I have seen condos that seem to be languishing on the market, atlhough many sellers are holding to their prices, the units are not moving. The amount of supply going online is astounding, the 20,000 units that the article refers to are all in about a 2 sq mile radius. Eventually the laws of supply and demand will kick in, the question is simply when.

 
Comment by phil m
2006-07-19 08:23:26

I lived in Hoboken from “91-’02 ( 9 th and park) in a one bedroom walkup -rent controlled for $712 a month. I’ve since moved to the Albany area and enjoy a 3000 sq foot 1880 Victorian with 3/4’s of an acre that I have less than 11 years left on the mortgage ($990). This info is just background to compare lifestyle change — but I was down in Hoboken last week on biz and stopped byt the old neighborhood. On the corner of 10 th and Bloomfield there was a 1100 sq ft 2 bedroom 1 bath asking $549,000. I guess it’s a better deal than the 2 bdrm 2 bath 1200sq foot unit on Hudson asking $740k (with a $285 monthly fee and 7k in taxes) I don’t know how this is going to work–basically people are selling themselves into economic slavery for the next 20+ years –with no wiggle room for economic slowdown,illness or divorce—all for the privledge of living in a town of 1 square mile and 40,000+ people. Unbelieveable ( and I love hoboken)

 
Comment by Betamax
2006-07-19 08:31:19

This time it’ll be worse; recent study confirms many Americans are over their heads in debt:

http://tinyurl.com/ppdhl

Comment by Getstucco
2006-07-19 08:42:58

Small wonder that Trader Joe’s and Costco always seem so empty when I shop.

Comment by DrChaos
2006-07-19 08:54:15

Here in San Diego, I’m always astounded at the fancy cars of the shoppers at my neighborhood Costco. (Then again, it is the closest one to La Jolla).

I take my wife’s 2001 Focus—and that’s the new car.

Then again, when I fuel up and I see the long lines of gas hogging Ford Mongolians, Suburbani, Lexem et Acurae I smile a bit as I arrive at the pump after them, and leave before.

Comment by txchick57
2006-07-19 09:21:01

Is that the old Price Club? I really liked that store.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by House Inspector Clouseau
2006-07-19 09:17:32

I need to live by you. Our costco is PACKED. I get Wednesday’s off sometimes, and that’s when I go. Wednesday at 3pm. Hardly “peak” time i would think. Yet the lines are 5-10 people deep! there’s about 12 register’s I’d guess…

we have a few Trader Joe’s, I’ve never been to one before.

My expectation is that Costco/Sam’s will do tremendously well in the near future. People will be more interested in buying in Bulk, when they’re 3 months behind on their mortgage.

That said, it’s hard to say. People’s discretionary income will be dropping (and now MEWs to help)… so perhaps they’ll make more trips to Costco, but buy only the cheaper stuff… thus Costco may suffer in the end…

Who knows. They are doing a $2 Billion stock buyback right now. Either they’re confident that their stock is undervalued, and they see good things for themselves, or they’re pulling a TOLL and doing a pump and dump.

Sigh… investing is hard. :)

clouseau

Comment by We Rent!
2006-07-19 19:19:32

Maybe on the Costco shoppers. Or, maybe not on the Costco shoppers. Remember, every year you have to cut a check for fifty bucks to renew membership (just sent mine in). Hard to cut a check for five-zero dollars when you write one for five-zero-ZERO-ZERO every month!

Maybe this is why La Jolla’s Costco is relatively empty? I have a teacher friend (26yrs old) who sold his P.B. house in ‘04 to buy in La Jolla. Yes, you heard right, campers - a 24 year old TEACHER, who’s new wife is still in school, BOUGHT A HOUSE IN LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA!

I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have the cash flow capability to manage membership.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by B. Durbin
2006-07-20 20:03:43

Trader Joe’s was started in the 1960s by a guy whose stated market was “the overeducated and underpaid.” It’s a great little store, but I’m still amused by the description— which is the founder’s words verbatim— of “overeducated.”

Basically it’s nice little add-ons and somewhat exotic foods at low prices. If they sold more than tidbits (and wonderful, wonderful sweet stuff), I’d do all of my shopping there.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by TS
2006-07-19 09:21:16

One in five people have more than US$ 20,000 in (non-mortgage) debt … this is horrible.

Comment by DeepInTheHeartOf
2006-07-19 14:48:23

Interesting Stat. Is that people as in all people, or just adults?

Is there a stat in how many people have $0 in non-mortgage debt?

 
Comment by B. Durbin
2006-07-20 20:05:09

Does that include student loans? Because between the car we had to get when our (paid off, damnit) car was totalled and our student loans, we’re over that threshhold.

But if it doesn’t, we’re under.

 
 
 
Comment by MazNJ
2006-07-19 08:51:44

Seeing as my office is in the Pavonia Newport area of JC, I can attest to being pummelled night and day by the sound of pile drivers trying to get these things up as soon as possible. Simultaneously there are several buildings going up. Why? My apologies to JC residents, but there is NOTHING to do here, incredibly poor restaurants, etc. Its only selling point is really that its a PATH ride away from NYC… which at night can take over half an hour each way. And the prices? I laugh time and again. Sure, some have beautiful views of NYC. The others? Well, if you’re not high up enough, you have a nice view of the hoboken train yard (and I’m sure can hear and smell it too) or maybe some cement yards, abandoned industrial buildings, or maybe if you’re lucky just the Target parking lot. Oh, and don’t get too attached to your car. I’ve had coworkers’ cars get stolen from within the parking garages… how someone pulls that off without getting caught scares me, guess the video cameras don’t work.

Comment by dr digits
2006-07-19 09:25:37

Any territory with the word “JERSEY” in it speaks for itself: Jersey City, New Jersey, South Jersey. There’s no irony in the fact that NJ is located in the armpit position of the continental U.S. Nobody seriously believes that places like JC, Newark, Elizabeth, Camden can be gentrified - it’s just wishful thinking.

 
 
Comment by HARM
2006-07-19 09:57:03

My apologies to JC residents, but there is NOTHING to do here, incredibly poor restaurants, etc. Its only selling point is really that its a PATH ride away from NYC… which at night can take over half an hour

I hear what you’re sayin’, but half an hour commute would be a DREAM to most Southern Californians. Here 1-2 hours each way, so you can buy that “affordable” pergraniteel palace is commonplcae. I’d estimate at least 50% of the people in my building have more than an hour commute. I worked with a guy who commuted from Beaumont to Pasadena every day (75 mile commute). And the traffic congestion here makes NJ look good by comparison.

Not saying JC doesn’t suck, just to count your blessings. ;-)

 
Comment by Michael
2006-07-19 16:33:00

Hey! C’mon heah.

Jersey City is fine. Lived there a few years, beautiful housing, diverse neighborhood, one of those few places near Manhattan that isn’t wall to wall wealthy. But, that said, it’s vastly overpriced, moreso even than NYC. Why moreso? Because the schools are just terrible, still in state receivership. And there is, as everyone has indicated, that hideous tunnel, in which you can spend far too many hours.
This is one of those outlying areas that could just plummet. And the building continues …

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post